Nowhere in the article you posted does it talk of any support for Russia's stance. It was just a state visit with all the usual pleasantries. Nothing major. With China you need to read between the lines. I think that Chinese government official pretty much summed up the apprehension China feels about this situation. Mr. Hu will not give Medvedev any false pretenses either.

Ask Skybird, he believes Russians and Arabs will own us and we will do everything they demand.

Too little, too late. And in this case absolutely not good enough. You will only further the inevitable demise of the UN with these false equivications. How did Russia follow our lead in any way? If they did, they would have wasted their time like we did for months, and eventually get a worthless UN agreement in hand. Nope. They went "Unilateral". And your words here ring hollow.

This is only the beginning. Russian stocks are falling as well due to uncertainties in a Russian jittery/nervous market. If push comes to shove, we can maneuver to make Russia a real bad investment choice in terms of increased instability. I wouldn't be surprised if we disallow the Russians to invest in Western firms in the near future as well.

You know, I used the "should" word :lol:
Now that I think about it, I can't really remember any historical incident, when a region or territory became independant without any sort of violence included.

Try and compare independance conflicts with divorces between married couples. The problem is quite simple human differences not comprehending the opponent.

I think it is quite clear China is not going to support Russia's stance. As Sea Demon states, the fragmentation of Georgia is contrary to its view of its own region.


"But if Putin hoped Beijing would support Russia's actions in Georgia with the same enthusiasm that Moscow endorsed China's putting down of restive minorities in Tibet and Xinjiang in recent months, he was disappointed.
Beijing's official mouthpieces began by attempting to be scrupulously even-handed in their reaction to Russia's Georgian escapade and the resulting sharp chill in relations with Washington and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
This rapidly changed into evident disapproval of the Russian action, as voiced by an editorial in the Communist party-controlled People's Daily newspaper on Aug. 12. This started with the view "War is not the way to settle conflicts" and went on from there.
Beyond the platitudes, however, China approaches all international situations involving minority rights and claims to sovereignty or self-determination with the utmost care."
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...1-1aa7f773cdb2

Right. Take on a consortium of 26 or more fully developed economies single handedly. It's amazing what some people on this forum are trying to convince themselves of. In the short term, I believe Russia is going to be real lonely..real soon. Their not the only country with oil and timber. If they continue down this road, they can take thir resources and stuff it. In addition, the Chinese nor the Indians are as stupid as some in this forum make them out to be.

EU 27 plus US, Japan, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, thats my count on who will stick together if things get hard.

Well, we gave Walvis Bay back to the newly independant state of Namibia. Ok, it was only a town but it was ours.:D However, Namibia's independance resulted in a hard fought bush war.

"In 1990, South-West Africa gained independence as Namibia, but Walvis Bay remained under South African sovereignty. It was not until midnight on 28 February 1994 that sovereignty over Walvis Bay was formally transferred to Namibia.
"

You really kicked some Russian and Cuban ass.:up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEoJNNuwTvs

That we sure did.:yep:

That's exactly right. If China recognizes the break-away states in Georgia, it will ruin it's own situation regarding Taiwan and Tibet. If China backs the fracturing of Georgia then they will have shot themselves in the foot over their own credibility regarding their views over independence movements in their own backyard. I think Mr. Medvedev is gonna go home empty handed.

Gas prices are still up, and even if they fall a bit, like currently, the longterm trend is upward. Russian strategy is a longterm strategy, and ignores immediate shortterm effects. Their internal focus is not on creating a producing economy like in the West, or going into a conventional arms race. that may irritate some of you, but that's it. You are not talking about a western appendix running by western rules. This is a foreign place. It is named Russia, in good and bad. And it sells us what we need desperately: gas and oil. europe is unable to compensate the loss of these sources of energy without many years of preparation.

The West suffers from inflation, the financial crises in the US, the American GNP is falling, and even in once booming germany there is new talk of a recession. at the same time the russians have learned from the chinese how to exploitm american vulneability, and have bought an already tremendous ammount of - in itself: worthless - treasury bonds, like the chinese. It does not need the chinese alone anymore to deeply shake the Us economy by flooding international markets with these bonds all of a sudden: the Russian stocks of them are sufficient to do extreme damage as well - and they still keep buying them with petrodollars: america'S vulnerability is growing. This kind of warfare doe snot need tanks. It is acalled "soft power", and the chinese have shown in the recent 30 years that it is probably the most effective strategy of our time (military hardware fanatics may not understand this, but they are excused :D ). Oil and gas all in all is short on world markets, and even with China's growth rate slighty decreasing (a qustion of time anyway, the more you have gained the smaller room there is for additonal gains), energy demands will grow massively over the next years and decades - as long as the system does not break down completely. and while this will crush russia in its current form, it will damage the West as well to a degree that it will be too busy to care for Russia anymore at all.

And who is currently buying oil from whom: Russia from the West? Or the West from Russia? You guys all are aiming far too short. Even if Russia suffers immediate economic setbacks from sanctions or loosing investements, in the long range it is in the stronger psoition. We need it's oil more than it needs our economic investement. We even cannot afford to keep up economic penalties for too long. That hurts some people'S nationalistic egos here, but that is how it is. If they do not sell their oil to us: China and India stand ready to buy the European share.

China has been quoted in several articles I had over the past days to have indicated not to oppose Russia (already the minimum goal for Russia acchieved) at the coming summit, this has been indicated by diplomats who are engaged in the preparartion talks for that summita, and there is I would say a 50:50 chnace that they will even go so far to actvely accept the Russian position in public (they always play very careful and often avoid too exposed positioning). As I said in my starting essay, "Medwedutin" had to calculate the gains from using force in Georgia against the risks regarding the other ex-soviet provinces taking Ossetia as a precedence to refer to when wanting indepedence (this time fro Russia) for themselves. He has weigted the display of force as more convincing for interested observers, than the risk they could use force to claim independence for themselves - and if they do, they would have to deal witzh the russian army again. That his calculation works is not as unreasonable as some of you think. In the region, Russia is a military giant, it did not even flex all it'S muscles and still outnumbered Georgian army by a relation of 48:1, it claims, and eorgia will need years to recover from the 6-day war we just saw. There were two Chechnyan wars, and while the first was unsatisfactory due to Russia using a queer kind of - still bloody - self-restraint and incompetenmce in army-leading, in the second they waged war with full effect and bombed parts of the country and several cities back into the stoneage - without any self-restraint this time. This taught a lesson in the region. Nobody speaks of chechnya anymore, but all people in the region still have it on their mind as a warning example.

Now, China. Why has China an interst in legitimizing the Ossetian strategy of Russia, at least not condemning it? Very simple: it is a precedent it could refer to when wishing to use force (against separatists) in it's own country. China has currently five dozen (!) separatist conflicts inside it's borders, that is why the Tibetan conflict (you remember? they used military force there just short time ago) for them is nothing special like in the West, but just one runner amongst 60 others. china has an interest in keeping these conflicts in check, and eventually using the military for that as well, like they did on the square in Bejing. they too calculate (as shown in Tibet) that the gains from using military force weigh heavier than the risk from accepting the independence of one province setting a precedence for tohers. even more so, such a motivation could lead to welcomed outbrakes of violence that srve as an excuse to "pacify" the issue once and for all by militarily crushing it (like the russian trap in Georgia created a bait that after the Trottel Saakashvilli swallowed it became a trigger that allowed the military humiliation of Georgia).

that currently investors pull back from Russia, for the moment does not mean much, and was expected by me, and by the Russians too, no doubt. It was one of the most obvious and to be expected steps, wasn't it. However, this does not mean that Russian investors pull out of their investements in western companies and corporations. they do not, and carry on buying themselves in. If the western investor's retreat will remain, or is just temporary, remains to be seen, I think in some month things already will look different again - money does not stink.

I repeatedly said that the West overestimates the attractiveness of it'S values and offered deals and instituion memberships for the russians. But again some of you already have referred to arguments again basing on that the Russians hurt themselves if they do not play ball and do not fall into the ruleset outlined by the West - as you have learned to expect them to always do over the past 20 years. Well, I cannot help it then. None of the threats you outlined have been ignored by russian strategy calculation, I promise you, and still they have choosen it. This should tell you something about wether they agree with you or not. their priorities and their focus of attention simply is not set where you demand it to be. don't take it personally. they simply have no obligation to see it like you tell them they should see it. You simply are too short-sighted.

the problem I see with some of you is that you are not only unable to see things from sombody else's position - you even actively reject to try to think yourself into him to understand what drives him - although this would help you to form reactions and strategies that would leave you with more than just empty threats and hot words. Instead, you simply use your own fantasy as a surrogate for his motives you do not understand. Always insisting on your own views exclusively and your assumptions aboiut the other'S motives without caring for the other'S standpoint at all pleases your ego - but it will get you nowhere, only multiplies your conflicts with him. and when he does different than you demand, you yell and stomp your feet and don't know why and how.

US is in the middle of the election show. The EU is paralysed over the constitution, divided on consequences regarding russia, and speaks with several voices. There is a deep rift in NATO, widening since many, mayn years. the afghan war goes lost and detoriates from year to year. the result from Iraq is anything but what has been desired for by Neocons and US corporations, and is a strategic loss and absolutely counterproductive, having acchieved the opposite of what was intended, again heaving created a failed state. We depend on Russia more than they do depend on us, economically, and diplomatically. Russia has undisputed military superiority in the Caucasean region, and the better longterm perspectives in this standoff. the moral authority of the Us has been corrupted massively by Iraq, Guantanamo, torture, patriot act, Abu Ghraib, and bombing the chinese embassy, and in no way it is in the position to morally lecture others about territorial integrity, international law, UN demands and attacking others. the West's moral authority has been corrupted by betraying promises to Russia made by two US administrations, and violating the territorial integrity of Serbia. - And some of you guys really live by the illusion that the West could adress the Russians over Georgia from a position of strength, and demand them to comply with western interests? That is not only absurd - that is hilarious.

Finnish news reported that Medvedev said China backs them up, i guess the Chinese arent cabable of giving that statement themselfs.:roll:
Medevedevs call for support fom the Chinese must be wiewed by them as a clear sign of weakness.

Well according to that great news service the BBC, they have quoted Medvedev as saying he has the support of China...

And that is their biggest failing. Because in the longterm, they're setting themselves up for more failure. With everything else, you're just blindly repeating yourself and have failed to address any of the realities Russia has seen in it's own geostrategic misfortunes. I know you're desperate to show a weak and feeble West, even if you have to resort to false claims of Chinese support and such. But in the real world, Russia has no real leverage at all, has backed itself into a winless corner, and has put into motion everything they have been desperate to avoid.

Now all they have, and all you have is propaganda like "Russia isn't afraid of a new Cold War" and your infamous Russia doesn't need mutual Western trade or investment. Both of which are totally laughable. Or your thinking that Russia will refuse sales of natural gas to Europe. Not likely, as they lose their only link of leverage. Keep dreaming Skybird, but I think Medvedev is headed for a heartbreak with his little summit with Chairman Hu. And I think more will go bad for Russia in the future if they keep at it. They simply cannot compete with the forces they've stupidly aligned themselves against. And for reasons explained above, China will not help Russia despite your views that China "supports the Russian position".

EU has stated it has the support of Magic Kingdom.

Yeah, I'll wait for China to make this statement themselves. At this point, I can't trust anything the Russians say. It's back to back propaganda from them as of late. And yes, Russia is positioning itself very weakly and feebly to China.

And it's not back to back propoganda with the BBC or other western press organisations.

I can't trust the BBC when their journalists are making basic errors in the history of the region.

One of them said that Stalin gave the Crimea away in 1954....quite a neat trick.

saying that I am avoiding the BBC but the Financial Times is good for decent articles and balanced analysis and comment. Also mainland publications I'm finding are better for news from all sides.

The BBC article.

EU considers sanctions on Russia

EU leaders are considering sanctions "and many other means" against Russia over the crisis in Georgia, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said

He gave no further details but added "this will be solved by negotiation".

Moscow's military offensive in Georgia and its recognition of independence for Georgia's breakaway enclaves has been condemned by the West.

But Russia's president says he has the support of China and four central Asian states for its actions in Georgia.

Speaking at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Russian President Dmitri Medvedev said the grouping's united position would have "international resonance".

"I hope it will serve as a serious signal to those who try to turn black into white and justify this aggression," he said in the Tajik capital, Dushanbe.

He was referring to Georgia's attempt earlier this month to retake the Russian-backed separatist region of South Ossetia by force after a series of clashes.

Russian forces subsequently launched a counter-attack and the conflict ended with the ejection of Georgian troops from both South Ossetia and Abkhazia and an EU-brokered ceasefire.

France has called an emergency EU summit on Monday to reassess relations with Russia after its refusal to pull back all its troops from Georgia in line with the truce agreement.

The BBC's Oana Lungescu in Brussels says Mr Kouchner's mention of sanctions is a complete U-turn from his position earlier this week, when he insisted they were not on the agenda.

Russia's foreign minister described talk of sanctions as an emotional response that demonstrated Western confusion over the situation.


Call for dialogue

In a joint statement, the SCO gave their support for Russia's "active role" in resolving the conflict in Georgia by "assisting in peace and cooperation in the region".

"The SCO member states express their deep concern over the recent tensions surrounding the South Ossetia question and call for the sides to peacefully resolve existing problems through dialogue," the statement said.

The SCO - which includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - was established in 2001 as a counterweight to Nato influence in the region.

The BBC's diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus, says it is tempting to see Russia turning eastwards as its relations with the West sour.

But, he says, it would be wrong to see this as the emergence of a coherent anti-Western bloc, as its most powerful member - China - could hardly be more integrated into the international economy.

China also sees territorial integrity and the defence of national sovereignty as almost sacrosanct values in its diplomacy abroad, our correspondent says.

Earlier, seven of the world's leading industrialised nations - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the US and UK - said Moscow's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia violated Georgia's integrity and sovereignty.


The group also said it deplored Russia's "excessive use of military force in Georgia and its continued occupation of parts of Georgia".

The UK's Foreign Secretary David Miliband said Western countries should re-examine their relations with Russia and warned Russia not to start a new Cold War.

Speaking during a visit to Ukraine, Mr Miliband said Moscow had not reconciled itself with the new map of the region and that the West should look at ways to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas.

Russia said it was the last country that wanted a new Cold War.

President Medvedev has said he was obliged to recognise the independence of the two regions after the "genocide" started by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in South Ossetia in August.

He also blamed Georgia for failing to negotiate a peaceful settlement




http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7585580.stm



Russia is in a world of hurt.:D