This isn't about Russia, it's about GEORGIA and that little whiny punk Saakhashvili.

Georgia only wants to be in NATO so they can keep the South Ossetians and Abkhazians under their thumb. Georgia would never fight for us, they just want us to fight for them.

Remember, Georgia started the war last summer. Those who carefully analyzed Russia's troop movements said it was very clear that Russia was not planning to attack Georgia before the war broke out. Saakashvili told the United States he wanted to attack South Ossetia. The United States told him not to do it. We told him that he couldn't expect any military help from us, for obvious reasons. It would be insane for us to get into a shooting war with the Russians over Georgia.

So what happens? Saakashvili ignores our advice and attacks South Ossetia anyways. When the Russians come in and start giving him his well-deserved spanking, he whines to anybody and everybody at how horrible the US is for not coming in and fighting against the Russians, even though we'd told him before the war that we didn't want him messing with the Russians!

I don't want a country like that in NATO. If Saakashvili had been in NATO last summer he would have invoked Article 5 and could have started World War III, all because his Napoleonic ego can't tolerate the South Ossetians being free. Do you want American soldiers fighting and dying for somebody like that?

ST,

There were at least two long threads about Georgia back in last august and september, and I said everything I have to say on it back then, and then several times. The way you paint the story is very one-sided, and it was painted like that in August as well before the whole isue back then became very personal, too. We meanwhile learned that the story has quite some more faces and complexity than you maybe are aware of. Georgia in no way is the poor innocent victim here. And regarding the outbreak of the war, it clearly is the agressor. but the history of provoking the Russians leads even long before that - as does the history of Georgias brutal and often lethal supression of the ethnic majorities in Ossetia and Abhazia.

However, I refer to those pages-long threads and what I said back then, and I refer to that link to a very long essay with a very interesting political and military analysis that I posted back then. It all can be find via the search-button, I assume.

If it is of any satisfaction for you, both provinces are pains in the Russian's lower bottom, they have been anything but stable administrative constructions before, and since last summer have turned into extreme corrupt parasites with organised criminal clans in command and a lot of corruption sucking Russian blood (=money). The Russians, though sticking with the policy of accepting their independance and accepting protective guarantees for them, will not have much joy with them - not now and not in the future.

New clashes in Tiblisi, government cracks down on democratic opposition:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036942.stm

Growing rage and poverty:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...623245,00.html

And a wonderfully precise comment by the German paper Die Zeit that the manouvers now and the claim one wants to improve relations with russia are total contradictions and are a sequel to Cheneys fanatical policy of confrontation with Russia. First the German original, then a bot-translation:

http://images.zeit.de/text/online/20...r-usa-russland

http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

Help Russia? what? maybe we should start helping Iran terrorizing their surrounding areas as well, yes?

Reality check, big time. Russia != western style democracy based on human rights. Don't pull a Schröder here. These guys play their own power gambles on the backs of both NATO and their surrounding Nations. And now you come catering them on the basis of chauvisnism and nationalism? You clearly don't understand the concepts of human rights, Skybird. If you want and support nationalistic "realpolitik" based on a very shady concept of a "sphere of influence", you automaticly give those up.

Also, you should be very, very careful with your appliance of the word arrogance. NATO is not moving towards these countries, telling them "hey, you wanne join us?". These countries make that move first, and no country has the right to interfere with this descision. What is Arrogance? Is Nato arrogant by answering a call, or Is Russia arrogant by denying souvereign nations what they consider beeing in their national insterest, especially considering Russias past and how this country treated it's neighbours and vasalle states? Do I have to remind you of the millions of dead cuased by Russia? Is Russia excused and it's neighbours at fault for their suspiciouns here? Russia could very well join NATO itself if it feels threatend. It does not do so because Russia has superpower ambitions of itself and has no interest in joining the principles upon which NATO was founded. That is no excuse to bully other nations, neither by the Russians themselves nor naybody juping to their defense.

I have no idea what gives you the idea Russia deserves any respectful treatment unless they actually prove their worth in resolving international issues and their fair treatment of it's neighbours. If that is arrogant, then it's also arrogant to expect criminals to change their ways and stop beating up people just because they have a big stick. Just because its a big country with nukes I see "zero" reason to leave their surrounding countries to their fate for Russia to do whatever they want with them. And with your stances, it's no wonder much more important countries like Poland grow ever more weary of Germany and it's hypocritic stances.

But the argument that NATO broke promises is reason enough for you to give Russia a free hand to do and demand whatever it wants in eastern Europe and Asia, do I understand you right, yes?

Give me one, only one logical reason without compromising our principles that speaks for supporting Russia "against" other countires, some of them way more respectable then Russia will ever be. We are not here to play soft on bullies just because it's more convinient or because Russia could feel oh so "offended".

Fact is that since cheney at the latest the US has openly followed a policy of aggressively encircling and "containing" Russia, for various reasons that have more to do with american geostrategical interests than Russian threats towards Poland, the Baltic, or anything.

Fact is that Saakashvili started the war against Russia, wanting to make hay at the end of manouver days of his army. He also was the first ordering the intentional bombardement of civilian quarters during the first night, both actions caught the Russians by surprise, although they just had held manouvers on their side of the border as well.

Fact is that Georgia is not any more democratic than russia is, and that Medwedew over the past months shows small signs of emancipating himself from Putin. that does not make russia a western style demcoarcy, and I do not even care much for that. A controllable, governable, stable russia with the military in a stably condition and not in danger of revolting is far more important for me. As I said two days ago: stability, predictabliy, reliability - that must be the West's priorities regarding both russia, and the Caucasus.

That you mentioned yourself that Russia could join NATO if it wants, just shows me how very much off-realitiy in the general assessement of these issues you are. you lack the ability to put yourself in the other side'S seat and see it from their perspective, and that for whatever a reason you are detemrined to see NATO in a very onse-sided, glorifying light. But in lack of a realistic vision and self-definition replacing the selfunderstandinf during the cold war, NATO just has turned into a megalomianic, thinking of itself as a deputy policeman to the american global sheriff. The result is the aggressive encircling of russia as well as China with dozens of new military bases, spyposts and tripwires, and trying to make countries bordering these two nations NATO and EU- members in case of Russia, and at least pro Wetsenr military platforms for future operations in case of China. The Iraq war also must be seen in this light - and Georgia, too. It was an american-launched project trying to push it into NATO, not a european one, and the same with the Ukraine. and thankfully Germany was the most prominent nation blocking them to be put onto the MAP-list. If Georgia would not have been given so promising signlas from Washington, maybe this criminal Georgian tyrant would not have dared to commit the folly of last summer.

Right now while we speak he lets his police once again beating up the democratic opposition in his country, and Tiblis.

That country is nothing but trouble, and holds the potential to eventually put the whole region into flames, and allowed to castrate itself of the better part of it'S economy and markets aborad - which lied in Russia. Stupid it is, and dangerous. Only a fool would wish to have them inside NATO, especially if the price is further detoriation of relations with Russia although their good will is so massively needed in various global issues that are so much more important than Georgia will ever be. You might find it cold-minded by me, but Iran and North Korea, future wars - or avpoding these - for energy and ressources I rate as multiple times more important than Georgia, and wanting to bring the benfit of superior Western culture to the rest of the world and making a prifit of that for ourselves, we should leave to where it belings: the era of colonialism. It produced plenty of failed states who now, in our present time, boomerang on us.

And btw, nowhere I ever said we should be intimidated and play soft on russia because it bullies us or others. I just said that the things you propose are not the strategic top priorities for us and are not our top interests, and that other interests, those that I listed, should be given much higher priority. If they would threaten the Baltic or Poland, I would be all for confronting them head on and draw a line in the sand. It's just that - despite hysteric claims from these countries that are motivated by desires for historic revanchism, they did not do that since 1989, and said loud and clear they accept the borders set by these countries. It has been NATO who repeatedly ignored it's former promises that it would not move more and more towards Russian borders, and did not stand by it's words. That the Russians do not believe NATO promises anymore, is fully understandable, I would not do either - only a fool would do, after having been burned several times.

For Georgia, my recommendation would be: give the Russian's Saakashvili's head, it is no loss at all for you, and they will not negotiate over anything as long as he is there. Find a state of block-free neutrality, with trade relations once again opened to Russia, since oyu depend on that short range to it''s market, and europe as well. Stay away from joining NATO or the EU, play the game like the Fins or Swedes did. that way you can get the best of both worlds: peace with Russia, access to it'S agricultural market, and making profit from trade with the EU. You have blood on your hands with the supression of the ethnic majorities in Ossetia and Abhkazia, so forget them, let the issue rest and feel lucky that you are allowed to get away with your murderous record for free. You have no moral argument to make that would allow you to claim these provinces for yourself again. And to your joy, the Russians financially take more misery than pleasure from both places.

Fact foremost is, that Geogie for you is a means of justification for Russias actions as a whole. You are completly focussed on the political gambles of a man with nothing to lose, neglecting the history of Georgia and Russia in the years before.

Fact also is, that the wrongdoings of this person for you automaticly means an absolution of Russia in all it's facettes. Nobody denies Georgias problematic stances and actions. But this this discussion was not about Geogia, but NATO's involvement in the regions around Russia in general.

The Fact remains, that no country in this region was "asked" to join NATO, not even by Cheney.

Wrong. I do see the other side. I also understand Russias actions. Most of it stems from hurt pride from the Jelzin years and the feeling of entitelment to be a World Power.

With, and I can only repeat that, the economy the size of any average european country.

What I do not do is making the crucial mistake of equalizing "understanding" with "exculpating". I am not a relativist. I actually believe in the values and principles the western world have developed since the ages of enlightment. And there simply are no substitutes. Tolerance goes as far as it starts to hurt others, and Russia has gone far beyond that, including the years since Jelzin died. There is a reason these countries around Russia, even the more questionable ones, are trying to get into NATO. Ever thought about why that may be, Skybird? Why these countries have no interest of sticking to Russia? That this geogian president even riks a war with Russia to get into NATO? That Ossetia and Abhazia will be granted freedom and independence from the georgians AND the russians? Because Russia was interested in stable democracies in it's "sphere of influence" and activly helped building these up? Because NATO is known for the ruthless subjugating of it's members like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact? Or maybe because every country down there knows that Russia has morphed into a shining beacon of freedom and civilisation? Or maybe you believe all the countries around Russia are led by egomaniacs having fun in pissing of Russia just for funs sake?

I do not think so.

And about NATO, it all boils down to this, NATO is not threatening Russia, it just ignores it. And Russia is pissed at that because it wants to be treated as more then it is. Big mouth, no substance.


For the last 50 years, from Vietnam onwards, the US has not been any better then Russia. Same bullying, same subjugating, same toppling of democratic governments for dictators when these were in favor of the US economy. The US has fallen from beeing a role model a long time ago. But NATO is not just the US. As you already said, the Euroepans are part of this too, with a certain say in things. Which makes NATO more then just a strategic tool for US foreign politics.

And going back to Saakashvili, what do you think may have triggered his actions and the radicalisation of this country? Sometimes it pays off taking a look under the sheets and look at Georgias history since it's independance from the USSR.
Letting Russia do with Georgia whatever it wants may please those that can't stand Saakashvili, but it certainly does no justice whatsoever to the georgian people. This man has to be punished, I am with you right there, but not over the course of russian power politics and certainly not on the back of the georgian people. At the moment the West is pissed at Saakashvili because it feels tricked. But beeing pissed means lacking objective judgement.

IF Geogia wants to join NATO or not is up to this country to decide. I agree it may not be the smartest move, but if it wants to, it is not up to Russia to have a say in the descision making of another country.

And just for the record, the same applies to the US and NATO in general.

Does obama even know which Georgia it is? He is geographically challenged.:doh:

On a side note, this is the one thing that drives me crazy about our FP. We'll meddel in other people's sphere's of influence, then scream when other's meddel in ours. I really don't want to re-live the Cuban missle crisis again.:-? Especially with BO at the helm.

That is wrong, and I think you know it. You want to prevent any complexity and differentiated view of these matters. But neither is this world perfect, nor are we in a position to adress all and everytjhing to our liking. Our options are limited, so is our power. We have to set priorities, basing on the importance of issues, and we have to balance the question of what should be done, ideally, against what actually could be done. And we must be aware of the old saying that he wants to defend everywhewre, eaisly in the end looses everything. Some centres of gravity are more important to us than others, some affect us more, some less. We cannot handle them all simultaneously. We need to focus on what we realistically can do on issues that are of importance to us. And Georgia is not important for us.

At all. It only means trouble for us, without any compensation. It will not become all a better place just becasue saakashvili leaves or eventuzally gets shot. And the Russians still will consider the place as far more important ot their interests, than we by any means can call it important to our security interests. A wise man picks his fights carefully, and this is no fight worth to be picked. This is juszt Western haughtiness and another attempt to bully the Russians into the corner, like it was done repeatedly since the end of the USSR, namnely in case of NATO'S eastern expansion that was undertaken in parts against guarantees given to the Russians that one would not do so if the Russians leave those places into neutrality, and regarding various issues on the Balkans, and again Kosovo. Add to it the one-sided cancelling of various military treaties by Bush, and the establishing of a far-reaching radar installation relatively close to the russian western border. Try to imagien what Washington would thinik if Russia tries to build a LR radar station 100 km away of the Canadian or Mexican border, with electronics so complex that a lot os spy stuff leading far beyond radar also can be hidden in that site.

That I am against Georgia just coincides with my remarks regarding Russia. I would say the same about Russia with Georgia listed on the map. To say that the first is my excuse to argue in favour of the latter in general, is wrong. I just reserve the right to see it from their side, too, and I say there anger can be explained and fully understood, for it is to prominent parts (though not completely) caused by Western and very dishonest actions.

And one thing: most nations on this planet are run by criminal gangs and brutal tyrants. And Russia is in no way the worst tyranny there is. compared to most other places, it ranks amongst quite some stable pßlace of civilisation. It does not reflect Wetsern understanding of justice and demcoarcy. But I seriously doubt that it could be run and held together by copying wetsern models that emerged in the envrionemtn of not russian conditions, but Western conditions. Russia is not the West, nor is it a Western democracy. Russia is Russia, a category of its own.

And a lesson from chess: you cannot beat your opponent, if you reject to think yourself into his seat. Because then you cannot judge when the right time to go onto the offensive has come. You go too early, and face a mess you are not prepared to handle. you go too late, and go second and lose. and like it or not, but global poltiics is like chess, and some squares are more important than others, nevertheless the whole board needs to be constantly monitored.

Put that way, that is almost wrong. Washington has sent very offensive and encouraging signals to several countries of strategic interest for it to orient their expectations towards becoming members of NATO and/or EU in the near future, and best as soon as possible. If Washington would have had it'S way, Georgia already would be set on the MAP list, or may even be member, like they also openly propagate Turkey'S membership in the EU. Washington never was shy (like London), to sow split and unrest into european unity and deciison making, becoming stronger in relation by weakkjening europe, and by pushing NATO towards the East aggressively.

Yes, it is also about damaged pride. but that pride only in parts is damaged due to the loss of status after the USSR broke down. Being played against the wall and betrayed several times by the West because NATO felt itself like a winner of a cold war with a right to show off and not needing to care for other factions sentiments anymore, also has something to do with it. - My God, some theatreplay and stage acting, that is what diplomacy is about, if they want their golden shoulder pads during a diplomatic meeting, and feel better than, hell, then give them to them, it is a cheap deal for us, that gives us much more in return. Some Chinese skill for soft power and silent victory would serve us very well. we must not brag and show off at every opportunity, consntly claiming how great and wonderful we are. That'S just sh!t from our egos. But it makes us new enemies in the real world. Nobody wants to have a guy in his neighbourhood who constantly lectures his neighbours that he is better than anyone else. Even more so when that claim is not justified. And the state our "democracies" are in, where no longer elected politicans but lobbies have the real power, does not justify our haughty attitude, too.

You can claim superior values and morals like you want, and maybe I would even agree on that (just switch over to a debate on Islam, and I would). But different to you I see the difference between the ideal world of an utopia, how it should be, and the imperfect reality: like it really is. I said it above: the world is not perfect, our options and ressources are limited, we cannot hope to fight everyhwere where our values make us think we should, we need to set priorities therefore. and these must be based on the priorities of vital interests to us, and then balancing this against bad things happening and prioritizing these as well: where can we do something indeed and make a difefrence, and what evil taking place is worse than others. We have failed to create lasting solutions on the Balkan, although having had the best of intentions. We have created many failed states during colonialism when we also thought we are superior in civilisation and must bring our culture to other places. We now are under attack by many of our Frankenstein-creations. Our democracies have been eroded by lobbyism and materialism, and as a matter of fact have been turned into oligarcjies and plutcarcies not that much different to some of those regimes we critice abroad. We have engaged in relativising our own values by acts of undiscriminatory "tolerance" - by that appeasing cultures that do not tolerate us in return. I often said I see a huge gap between how america was meant to be by the explanations of the founding fathers, and the reality today. But I see a comparable gap between what idealsitically, in your claims, europe should be, and what it really is.

And all this adds to the didfficulty that our powers are limited, our options are few, and that we need to set pragmatic priorities.


I do not think so.

That ignorration is offending indeed, but different to your claim it also results in a threat to vital russian interests that no nation in their place could afford to just ignore.

That also in parts is true, but it is not the full truth, but just stereotyoing that comes in form of a handy slogan. Again, you are right in parts, but you do not cover the full spectrum of realities here.

there can be no doubt that NATO is under very strong american dominance, and always has been. In parts that is due to american desire, in parts that is due to european inability to chnage that. And during the cold war, it even hzas been a comfortable arrangement.but after the cold war Washington wanted to turn NATO into a global actor to support american (military) interest enforcing. Nowhere that is as clear as with regard to Afghnaistan and how Washington slwoly lruked NATO into a war that originally was an american war, with NATO help explicitly rejected by Washington. NATOP nopw should become a tool to help Washington containing and encircling Russia, and also China. That is part of what the internal row over Georgia (Berlin versus Washington) is also about.

See comments above, and also my reference to comments on Georgian history in the USSR from last summer. i would be agauinst Georgia even with no Saakashvili ever been born. Since it 'S declaration of independance it was just another autoritarian, oppressive regime (even before Saakashvili, brutally supressing the ethnic majorities min those two provinces that now do not wish to have anything to do with the Georgians anymore. you are right, there is a longer history behind the conflict. I am just wondering if you are aware of it's full scale. We talk of centuries here.

And it is up to us if we accept that question, or not. Geogia has no right whatever to demand that we must meet their request. Nobody has. We have a right to say No. we also have a right to say no to Turkey, for the same reason. and if membership of an interested party is not in the aloliancess interest, we should say No. even more we have a right to do so when the candidate culturally does not belong to Europe (turkey-EU), or lies not in europe (Marocco, Lybia), or is (as I would define it in lack of any reform of NATO selfunderstanding since the cold war) located "out of area" regarding NATO'S core theatre of interest, and is of no real interest to NATO's concerns at all. Candidates should not just be burdens. They also should add and contribute something, and they should have made their homeworks before membership, not vaguely promising to change themseves after having become members.

That Georgia wants something, in no way is any form of obligation for us.

Absolutely true. But is it wise to start rumbling with them over something that is of so little interest for us like Georgia? I don't think so. I think it is simply silly. Let's save our energy for the fights that are worth to be fought. This one is none of them - but for Russia it is too important as if they could afford to just pull back. that may not meet your call for absolute ideals, but it is Realpolitik on the basis of our limited options. You do not spit into the hand you need for help on different occasions, and letting the Russians feel like Operettengeneräle if it pleases them, costs us nothing. So - we really can afford to stand above that.

You're right, it's not up to Russia whether Georgia should be in NATO. There are plenty of other reasons for NATO to reject Georgia.

NATO requires that every country in the alliance have internationally recognized stable borders. Georgia doesn't have that.

Remember, there's no legitimate reason for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be in Georgia. They were only put there because Stalin added them to Georgia in the early days of the Soviet Union. It's worth noting that Stalin, like several of his top henchmen including Beria, was Georgian. Such wonderful people come out of that country....

I'm not pretending that Russia is some angelic good guy here. They're not. But Russia being a bad guy doesn't make Georgia a good guy. When it comes to things like democracy and human rights, Georgia is worse than Russia. Putin, for all his faults, is legitimately popular in Russia. They don't rig the votes because they don't have to.

I'm no fan of political harassment and intimidation, but at least Putin's people have a sense of humor about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRslKeT0EmQ

Wrong topic. I am attacking Russia, not defending Georgia. In that way I agree with your stance.

More on that and a response to Skybird later.

They don't need to rig the votes because the media propaganda for Putin is that good, and opposing parties are shot down (not literally).

Putin has been very popular in Russia, especially with the young, but meanwhile also with the old, sinc elong before they started to crack down on too critical media. The media crackdown in the main is not to make Putin popular (which is not needed at all), but to cover distortions in the Putinian system that help to centralise governmental powers, and to keep the political powers of Kreml-"independant" oligarchs at a low level, and to cover not all too legal economical involvements of his family clan that should remain hidden.

all in all this constellation has created a government structure that was able to increase the loyalty of the military to the government and almost deleting the danger of possible military revolts that some analysts have seen during the Yeltzin years, and to form a national political acting that indeed is strong enough to see it's orders through inside Russian regions, and to confront nations abroad where desired - which was impossible to imagine under Yeltzin, during whose reign Russia simply was too weak to do so.

So, from a Russian standpoint, things are better than before. They even had pop-songs about Putin - and these have not been ordered by the state. How far critical newspapers and the opposition is representative for a major part of the population, I always have found to be exaggerated. They certainly are not the majority. My impression is that Putin-Medwedew have around two in three Russians behind them, with the balance slowly shifting in favour of Medwedew, what also is confirmed by reports that behind the stage, both men more and more often go seperate ways, and Medwedew is on his way to accept Putin's directing from the background less and lesser.

Main longterm problem of Russia will likely be the still not adressed but needed technological modernization of the private industry. They rely too much on their natural ressources, and spend the profits from that too much in other things than industrial modernization programs. This could revenge itself in 20-30 years - when they have run out of ressources that they could sell.

No, not wrong topic. This is about NATO exercises in Georgia, not about Russia's political system.

My entire point here is that the US shouldn't antagonize Russia over Georgia because Georgia isn't worth it. If this were some other country that had a squabble with Russia, I might have a different stance. For example, if Russia started messing with Finland, I would strongly support any US measures to defend Finland, regardless of how it might upset Russia.

So from my point of view, this is all about Georgia, not Russia.

Well, Neal - satisfied!? :DL You certainly just wanted to blow some action into the forum when starting this thread - I hope our lengthy discussion has lived up to your expectations! :woot: