Skybird will happly write bald faced lies and pure propaganda if it supports his normal anti American argument. Take this business about a GoP deal with Iran in 1979 for instance. Nothing but unproven allegations yet he acts as though it were somehow an established fact. :roll:

Yup. Same thing with Chinese support of Russia. Just say it, and supposedly that makes it true. :roll:

I'll agree he can be wrong, and he does sometimes seem to over-reach himself - China in the SOC and this one about the Iranians are fine examples.

However, I'll still grade him one up over the chest-beaters led by SD. If instead of "we have superior economic power", he says "we have superior military power" (which is true, especialy if you count the US), the sheer primitiveness of his basic thrust will be apparent to all. But really it is fundamentally the same thing.

They call that V-whatever guy who's now President of Russia warmongering, but how can he beat some of the members of our wonder group!

SD and Skybird can fight all day about whether Russia (the holder of the primary industry) or Europe (who holds the secondary and tertiary) can hurt each other more if it came down to it. Both sides might be able to partially reroute if it came down to a fight. But that isn't the point. The point is, both can put a good deal of hurt into the other side, as SD acknowledges in another thread. Again, if SD and Skybird were discussing who can hurt the other more if a nuclear war or conventional military conflict occurred, we'll see the primitiveness of going down that road.

Further, Skybird actually at least tries to understand the relative willpower (of acceptable "hurt") the two sides are willing to put in over this issue. And I think it is beyond argument that Georgia is a h*ll of a lot more important to Russia than NATO. If there is one side that might be willing to throw all to the winds, it'll likely be Russia (we are talking their national security vs "just another country for the bag"), so why does SD think it'll be Russia that backs off first?

Given that Georgia or even the Ukraine, ultimately, is not too important to NATO, realpolitik, which is what Skybird advocates (rather than "pro-Russian" propaganda), virtually mandates that West's response be very limited. Roaring and condemnation, of course, they'll do and they are executing. But real action? Military's out, that seems set. Sanctions? For all the roaring, the closest thing that came out of the smoke seems to be the Visa thing, which frankly, as far as sanctions go, sounds like a wrist slap, and even that's only being considered.

When Iraq hit Kuwait in 1990, UN Resolution 660 was passed w/i hours of the invasion, and within days they passed 661, and almost as fast Desert Shield began.

Now, it is something like three weeks since the fighting started, and we are still in the Noise phase. Looks like SB is going to get more of his prediction through after all. The West does not, in a realpolitik sense, want to find out who gets hurt worse in a economic fight. Thus, we see lots of noise and condemnations, and the slowest of actual motions.

If threats were reality, we'll probably be dead from all the nuclear threats made by now...

Finally, it is people like SB, who tries out other ways of tallying up the score, to place themselves in other people's shoes, that will understand other nations like Russia, be it to befriend her or to stop her more effectively, to pinch her where her leaders would agree it hurts.

As for the whole "push the other nations into NATO's bag" thing? Those nations were gone to begin with. Putin's only choices are a) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while smiling at Russia, b) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while frowning at Russia, and c) have them scared stiff of Russia enough they cease. (D: They stop being anti-Russia because they like Russia, had already been tried from 1990 onwards and proved to only turn into A). SD's perception is typical Westerner - even a small improvement in relationships is worth it even if decisions don't change much. Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

Spare me Kazuaki. This has nothing to do with somebody putting themselves in anybody's shoes here. The individual in question doesn't do that at all. It has been merely attempting to underscore true events here from a single point of view that doesn't exactly add up correctly to events that have occured. As a matter of fact, the individual you speak of is merely providing false propaganda and energetically promoting Russia's point of view...and it's a typical pattern with this person. The West, in particular the USA can never do anything right. And are dependant fully on Russia for everything. Meanwhile Russia doesn't care about the things we offer as it's all worthless and meaningless. :D What a total joke, and completely lopsided horse pucky. Not that I mind this individual's point of view, but spare me the window dressing here. This individual is not an unbiased person who sees things fairly and from an open mind at all. It always goes in one single direction everytime. Thusly, I can't take your post above seriously regarding this matter.

On the other matter, Russia understands the inevitability of the situation anyway. You're saying making enemies out of NATO, and in particular the USA is beneficial to Russia? You're supporting the point of view that NATO is hostile to Russia by treating former Soviet client nations as sovereign nations. Does making friends with former enemies truly threaten Russia? Or is it just deep seeded paranoia? Are these nations actually sovereign nations to you Kazuaki, or are they merely slave states to Russia who should only serve Russia's interests even at the expense of their own? Are you serious? The thing is Kazuaki, Russia is like that abusive and jealous ex-husband who used to beat his wife...and now tries to prevent her from seeking other relationships, and indeed turns to stalking her. Then wonders why nobody likes him or thinks he's creepy. We're talking about sovereign nations Kazuaki. I don't give a rat's rear end who's point of view you're looking at it from. Either you respect the right of nations to make decisions for themselves and their own interests.....or you can be like Russia who does not respect the rights of sovereign nations and attempts forced coercion through military threats. Russia is stupidly choosing to make enemies out of those who were not enemies at all. And that includes NATO and the USA. NATO even offered them a seat at the table as an observer with the US blessing. And of course Russia screwed that up. If Russia was smart, and NATO membership in these former states was inevitable, wouldn't it be alot smarter to actually use that seat as a way towards nominal relations? I think that actually sounds quite reasonable really.

You simply cannot quibble any of this away. Nor can you make yourself look like an unbiased source looking at it "from all perspectives" yourself. If you believe that Russia is proceeding smartly by breaking their cease fire agreements brokered by the French, is proceeding smartly by increasing their likelihood of economic isolation (perhaps you believe like Skybird that Russia is greater economically than most of the developed nations and needs no trade, no technology sharing or transfers, no food imports, or no lucrative commercial contracts etc. etc. etc. ),or if you believe they have proceeded smartly by turning themselves into a hostile player against those they wished to revolve around it's orbit...and now have helped bring NATO right next door (and have ticked them off to boot), then I guess I'll just have to disagree with you. I can see how Russia has made all the things they didn't want actually come to fruition. What a mess Russia has made for itself. If you can't see it, that's fine with me.

One more thing. This kind of perception is actually a dangerous one for Russia. If this is how Russia truly perceives things, and I'm not convinced it is, then their leadership is truly out to lunch. You could never truly build a lasting friendship with a nation who thinks like this.

Frankly, you are taking too idealistic a view of politics. A is certainly useful, but only if there is at least some chance of turning it into the ideal state of D. Otherwise, in terms of consequences, it is not very different from B.
B, in turn is only very bad if it causes additional unfavorable actions that would otherwise not have been taken. For example, say America asks next to put an "anti-Iran" bomber wing in Poland...

If you believe that Poland would have refused if not for Georgia, then that's Russia's loss. If you believe it'll have happened either way, it's a draw. But if Poland decides to be wary of Russia and refuses, then to Russia, that's a much better result than if Poland smiles at Russia and agrees to the bomber wing, no?

But don't be too grim about this. For one thing, the West had a part to play in telling Russia that A doesn't get them very far. Skybird might start from Kosovo and 1999, but I think the lesson the West has been teaching Russia in that regard actually started in the Gorbachev era, with CFE and Intermediate-Forces Treaty.
For another thing, B leading to C does not mean the close-off of D. D is the ideal result to both realists and idealists. If anything, if Russia actually gets to C, then D will become their natural goal as per realpolitik, and that might well bring a happier ending to all.

B->C->D is a perfectly plausible policy. It takes skill to play well, but Germany and Japan are actually examples of BCD, and if Iraq works out, it'll be BCD as well. Admittedly Russkies are not historically great at BCD, but if they are shooting for D, well, that attempt is already good, no?

Strategic bombers are offensive strategic weapons, right? We're putting defensive systems on an independant nation's soil, that has agreed to host it. It truly is nothing Russia has any say in at all. Other than of course their empty threats. In terms of the consquences you speak of, it did cause negative consequences to occur that otherwise would not have occured for Russia. So yes. Indeed Russia screwed the pooch by thinking this way.

OK. I see what you mean here. And I agree to an extent. It simply will not be to the same extent that has played out in those situations IMO. The way it's being applied here, with the circumstances that have occured, It's not exaclty the same scenarios being played out. But I will admit, your argument is very compelling. I will need to think about that further.

And in the interests of fairness, I do wish we would ask Russia for direct talks to address some of their concerns. Or Russia would calm the hell down, and request the same of us instead of their stupid rhetoric. In other words go back to where we were before. We were addressing their concerns, but they didn't respect our answers, nor have they shown respect for their neighbor's sovereignty and national interests. If Russia got their troops out of Georgia, and the USA agreed to state to state talks to seriously address Russia's concerns, this whole thing could be rectified. In the same vein, Russia needs to understand as well, that they cannot dictate to the USA, and other sovereign Eastern European nations whom they can form friendships or alliances with. Or what security agreements we come to mutually. If they come to work from that view...and accept that they do not rule the countries they border anymore, they might actually get somewhere. Otherwise they'll continue down this path and stand to lose more.

I dont see how this would help McCain, and this crisis isnt strengthening US position in the world but the opposite. These would have to be some rogue elements working on their own. Im aware "black ops" can happen in this world but i think you are really reaching here. This goes in the same X-file as 9/11 was a inside job and the rest.
Tough im sure many here believe in that also, mostly the same people that accuse me of fasicm.

Think I've gotten enough of your personal insults, hurting lies about me and slanderings regarding my person, SD, because that's what your attacks and claims about me are. Off to my ignore-list you go. It's not about differing opinion. It is about bad behavior, and about you trying to promote your views by setting up lies and slanderings about people opposing your opinion. Maybe tricks like that are acceptable in your world. But not in mine.



And now again, given for the third time, for the rest of the crowd:
Since I initiated this thread, I somewhat share responsibility for it, so when you have 1.) a personal anger for with me and 2.) are not one of the three persons who made it to my ignore list so far, then vent in PMs and send them to me, and stop posting lies and slanderings about me in public. If this personal targetting of slanderings continue, against me or against anybody else, I'll ask the mod hereby to lock it immediately and without further warning.

It is sad that often a few bullies only are enough to ruin a thread for al others.

McCain propagates tough US stands in a word full of rogues and evils, also american dominance and leadership, also McCain is a cold warrior and KGB-hater. Ossetia'S war shows two things in his support: if Russia takes and keeps it, it shows that McCain is right in his assessement on that russia still is the big enemy and the cold war in pricniple never ended amnd that it needs a man like McCain to protect innocent american citizens from the evils of the world. And in the unlikely case that Ossetia repels the attack, it shows that america'S alliance (with a thug not any more democratic than Putin himself) has helped to see thrpough american ideals and shining world order in an act of friendshipo that demanded a tough stand like McCain is claiming it for himself and denies that Osama'S foreign policy would be able to acchieve - because isn'T Obama just a soft bla-bla-talker who is willing to even negotiate with Iran on same eye level...? Hu - danger there, beware the black man :lol: ! And who do you think the industrial-military complex prefers to have in office Obama, pr Mccain? and they have gotten dirty hands in politics before.

Im sure some industry would like McCain and some Obama, theres some money to be made with Obamas policies. And many in the military support Obamas and Bidens wiews in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia.
Both candidates have also taken a tough line against Georgia invasion.
Im sure there are powerfull lobbies in US but the things they are blamed for go from killing JFK to 9/11. I just think these kind of accusations should come with even a shread of proof.

Considering that the only thought that seemed to came to Skybird's head when asked why the Russians are not re-arming as fast as one may expect from defense expenditures is "Corruption" (not denying its existence; never mind that it isn't such a big budget, and never mind such obvious concerns as the Russians being so below-standard from years of deprivation in basics like training and housing (even by Russian/Soviet standards) that a lot of money would have to be spent on those before equipment, I won't call him pro-Russian, much less blindly in that direction.)

But then, Russophobia often seems so prevalent in the West that any argument that does not paint the Russians as completely black and doomed often looks like propaganda...

They do? You see, here's one of the reasons why I'm favoring SB. At least if the Russians use his thoughts, they might indeed logically proceed with their current COAs, so theory satisfies observation. You basically have to write off all their actions as "wrong", "stupid", or "miscalculated" when they don't fit your ideas of logic, which is actually an acknowledgment of theory failure and abandonment of further thought, and an invitation for an enemy to just maneuver around your brain blocks and get to what he wants.

Imagine that in front of a Russian Army are two paths to a goal. One looks muddy and the other looks clear. The Russians start advancing through the muddy path. You will assume they will have to reverse at some point and prepare your defenses along the clear path. Skybird will work out why they might choose the muddy path and redeploy accordingly (most importantly, he accepts they might actually be serious about choosing the mud path). Who's more likely to stop the enemy is obvious...

Wait. You are getting ahead of yourself here.

I mean, a Westerner no doubt feels that NATO was a friend to Russia. From Russia's POV, the only way their actions could have been more hostile is if they started launching cruise missiles (given the West's reluctance to engage with ground troops without a uber-thorough air offensive...)

Wait, are you saying if NATO refuses their requests to join, NATO does not treat them like sovereign nations?

1) From a Correlation of Forces point of view, addition of additional countries to NATO, which can hardly be called a "pro-Russian" alliance on its most friendly day, worsens the Correlation of Forces, and thus is a threat.
2) It is no secret that many of the nations joining bear little love for Russia.

So, it is a worsening of the strategic situation and an increase of the threat, in at least two axes. Let's at least acknowledge this.

Aah, false dilemma. So, if they don't join NATO, they automatically become "slave states to Russia?"

Now here's another piece of food for thought. From an independence point of view, alliances are good for a few nations of relatively equal strength, standing in front of a large neighbor or another alliance.

Theoretically speaking, a small state placed between two larger powers (read: Poland, Balts ...) tends to retain its freedom of movement (I define this here by the ability to take at least some actions that displease either / both powers) best by staying relatively neutral and playing the two sides off each other. Or by allying with other small states along the same border to become a third bloc.

A small power that allies with one of the large sides becomes in effect a protectorate of the large nations in said alliance. As they are convinced to take actions supporting their new alliance (read: NMD), they inevitably piss off the other side. Eventually, they may piss off the other side so much they have no choice but to be a protectorate. It doesn't show up much as long as small power is lined up with big power. But what sovereignty it is if you can only take actions approved by big nation - I'm sure you agree with this sentiment.

Just try a small disagreement, one that does extremely little, if anything, to the interests of big nation... Take poor New Zealand, 1980s. They decided democratically that they would no longer allow ships which are not declared nuke-free (something America consistently refuses to do for nebulous reasons - surely, declaring one vessel out of about 600 to not have nuclear weapons is not going to significantly improve the Soviet chances of concentrating on the nuke-equipped vessels...). One might say that it is not too rational, but it is nevertheless the will of the people. Democracies are supposed to follow that, no?

How does the US react? By respecting the right of the sovereign people of New Zealand to decide such things? Well, they did - they didn't quite try "Canberra Spring". But they just expressed their displeasure, and basically kicked NZ out of the alliance system. NZ, of course, was far away from the Soviet Union (and the Soviet threat was beginning to fade by then) and thus could survive this. Poland won't, especially after they pissed Russia off.

Or how about the "Coalition of the Willing". It is well known that many of the "willing" in fact had populations that weren't so "willing". Democratically speaking, those countries shouldn't have sent troops. But you know, they have alliances with the US ... so... We used to call this action of Big State gathering up troops from Little States a name - Feudalism.

Whatever the other pros and cons, how this whole process makes them more sovereign is difficult to note.

Let's try and add a few elements to it. Many of the wives in this relationship nevertheless lived better than the "ex-husband" (it is no secret that Czechslovakia and East Germany at least had superior living standards to the Soviet Union). And unlike the stereotype of such ex-husbands, Russia let them go. They were richly rewarded as the "wives" not only sought new relationships, but relationships with those who just seem to have it in for Russia (and remember that guy promised he won't try and wed those newly freed wives).

Husband grumbles his displeasure. The wives claim they don't understand why, as does the new husband.

Further, I again repeat, As a state, Russia cannot allow things detrimental to its interests just because of past wrongs. No State can.

ROFTLMAO! This from a man who lives in the country with the Greatest "Power Projection" capability on the planet (read: the greatest capability, built at enormous expense, to threaten or even actively punish other nations with military force).

If you respect the right of states to make decisions for themselves, then you must respect the right of Russia to express its displeasure and lay out consequences for actions disadvantageous to it. The fact that Decisions don't come with only Plusses is something that all sovereign nations must realize.

Or how about the historical case of the Cubans. When you get down to it, it is their "sovereign" decision to ally with the Soviet Union and even to accept SS-4 and SS-5 missiles on their sovereign soil. However, apparently, this pissed off the Americans with their "Monroe Doctrine"... and we know what happened - Bay of Pigs, followed by CMC. After CMC, America continued to make it as difficult as possible for Cuba to live on. This continues even after the Soviet Union died off...

Tell me, is it so hard to understand that Russia may have similar thoughts to Monroe, or that they have legitimate national security concerns that are being threatened by NATO's latest stunts, or that they have the right to make things as hard on Poland and the rest as possible in return for actions they are taking, while not actually threatening the sovereignty? That's what it means to be a sovereign nation. Your actions have consequences, and when you piss off people, they will punish you (all tempered by realpolitik, of course, which is why I think Russia will get off light for Georgia).

Again I refer you to the top. That you guys are not enemies is a Western perception based on a blind belief that smiles and symbolic gestures like an occasional invitation of one ship to BALTOPs and "observer" status on NATO meetings is worth more than NATO continuously expanding and threatening to directly front your border or refusing to relax CFE limitations on Russian military movements within its own territory even though the cause of all those "flank limits" and even CFE itself in the first place are just about gone...

"Nominal relations". Oh, you mean relations where Russia gets symbols and the West gets meat? Aah...

Also, again, if any small, fractional chance of getting them out of NATO membership is with getting tough, how would that affect your calculations?

Well, it seems the Russians have cleverly arranged the agreement to ensure they'll be able to do so.

Rather than arguing whether that is the case or not, I'll just note that as you apparently agree, both sides can do real damage to each other. Thus, while the likelihood is no doubt increased, the most likely result, according to [i]realpolitik/i], is next to nothing, at least on this score. No doubt Russia has already factored this in.

As for the food thing, oh good, you can make the West look crueler than Russia in a jiffy! That's where all the humanitarians in the West will stop you.

At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

Also consider the lesson of 1999. For months the Russians railed about Kosovo, to little effect. Then, at the last moment, they moved some troops in. Of course the West screamed and roared. But all of a sudden, they got something. They didn't get the command (they probably don't even dream of this) or even a sector (like they hoped but didn't), but at least they got participation and a say (much better than "Observer status"). It is realpolitik, but the lesson is nevertheless obvious.

Nice reasoning, Kazuaki, a shame that you do not often become so detailed in describing your thinking! Becasue of that I may have underestimated you a bit, and even felt provoked by some brief questions you asked without further comment. I offer my apology to you, therefore. I sorted you wrong.

And since we are at it, yes, all in all you described it correctly how my mind is ticking. The trap in that is that sometimes I use more ratio in my reasoning than reality is complying with - and then I am getting screwed by a more irrational reality, sometimes... :-?

Georgia War Shows 'Weak' Russia, U.S. Official Says

Russia's conflict with Georgia is the sign of a "weak" Russian nation, not a newly assertive one, and Moscow now has put its place in the world order at risk, the top U.S. diplomat for relations with the country said in an interview yesterday.

"There is a Russia narrative that 'we were weak in the '90s, but now we are back and we are not going to take it anymore.' But being angry and seeking revanchist victory is not the sign of a strong nation. It is the sign of a weak one," said Daniel Fried, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

"Russia is going to have to come to terms with the reality it can either integrate with the world or it can be a self-isolated bully. But it can't be both. And that's a choice Russia has to have," Fried said.

After Georgian forces moved into the separatist enclave of South Ossetia early this month, Russian troops attacked Georgian military installations and moved close to Georgia's capital before partially pulling back. This week, Moscow recognized the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, a move the United States and European nations condemned as undermining Georgian sovereignty.

U.S. policymakers have debated whether and how Russia should be punished for its incursion into Georgia. Already, a civil nuclear deal between Russia and the United States appears dead in Congress, and Russia's 13-year effort to join the World Trade Organization is in trouble. Russian officials in recent weeks have disparaged such concerns -- Prime Minister Vladimir Putin this week said he sees "no advantages" to joining the WTO -- but U.S. officials predict Russia will suffer if it becomes isolated.

U.S. officials and their allies have begun to suggest that Russia cannot blame any fallout from the Georgia attack on U.S. actions.

"They are kind of giddy. They will need to sober up," said a senior U.S. official, insisting on anonymity because his remarks were diplomatically impolite. "When they sober up, they will see that it is not the U.S. that has done things to them; it's that they have done things to themselves."

Similarly, in a speech yesterday in Kiev, Ukraine, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said: "Today Russia is more isolated, less trusted and less respected than two weeks ago. It has made military gains in the short term. But over time, it will feel economic and political losses."

Miliband noted that Russia's foreign exchange reserves have fallen by $16 billion and risk premiums for investing in Russia have soared since the crisis began. By contrast, when the Soviet Union attacked Czechoslovakia in 1968, "no one asked what impact its actions had on the Russian stock market. There was no Russian stock market."

Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has advocated removing Russia from the Group of Eight industrialized democracies. Miliband dismissed that yesterday as a "knee-jerk" call for action, though some Russian political figures have also begun to question whether Russia needs to stay in the G-8.

Yesterday, in a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the other seven members -- the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Japan and Italy -- said they "condemn the action of our fellow G8 member" to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, adding that "Russia's decision has called into question its commitment to peace and security in the Caucasus."

Vice President Cheney, speaking to an American Legion convention in Phoenix yesterday, condemned Russia's "unjustifiable assault" on Georgia. "The Georgian people won their freedom after years of tyranny, and they can count on the friendship of the United States," he said.

"Three American presidents -- Bush, Clinton and Bush -- have all in their own way sought to encourage Russia's integration with the wider world. This is a good thing. It was the right set of policies," Fried said. "Russia has now put all of that at risk, because Russian cannot simultaneously behave like the Soviet Union toward its neighbors like this is 1968 and act as if it is 2008 when it comes to the WTO."

Fried said the administration is determined to prevent Russia from claiming a new sphere of influence in the Caucasus. He added: "There are areas where we have common interest with Russia and we want to work with them. The question is whether Russia has an ability to work with us."

In the interview, Fried did not excuse Georgia's initial actions, saying U.S. officials told Georgian officials they could not win a war with Russia. "Georgia is a flawed democracy, a democracy in construction. You don't help them by whitewashing their problems or defending a bad decision. But you don't want it crushed," he said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...082703192.html

No. But if Russia is trying to coerce them from joining NATO by use of force, then yes, Russia is trying to posture itself as slave master. That's simply not going to work anymore.


I'm not going to readdress everyother comment, as I think I already sufficiently did above. So I'll only address these few comments we haven't covered and then just agree to disagree with you on most major points. Kazuaki, I wholeheartedly disagree with you on almost everything you have presented. On this example, you share Russia's almost perverse, and deeply ingrained paranoia. Do you have any proof that NATO intends to strike Russia? Where do you get that the USA and NATO has it in for Russia. That is paranoia, and paranoia only. Russia needs to get over it. Like it or not, these soveraign nations have the right to seek out new relations with whomever they want. Russia and their self glorification be damned. They owe Russia nothing my friend. Nor can Russia dictate whom other sovereign nations have relations with. This is almost perverse how you think about this. Sorry but we'll just have to disagree.


OK. They can make whatever choices and voice whatever displeasure they wish. But they will pay a price. It's a guarantee.

Because those were offensive thermonuclear missile systems? Right? The Russians did base radar and SAM sites on Cuba throughout the Cold War, and we didn't seem to have a problem with that.

Perhaps Russia is only afraid that they won't be able to bully these people anymore. Have you ever thought of that. It's clear that they think these "lesser" states should serve Moscow. And they don't wish to.

More paranoia and blank accusations. Actually it's simply security agreements between sovereign nations who have the right to make such agreements. And Russia's current posturing makes these nations feel it is now more important than ever. See how that works? This is why I say Russia is stupid here. NATO observer is actually something substantive that Russia will no longer get due to their own paranoia. I know that you think it's meaningless, and a worthless gesture, but we will have to disagree on this point.



Nope there was plenty of meat coming Russia's way. Especially in the top economic groups through nominal trade agreements. Of course I'm sure to you it's all meaningless and worthless gestures. So basically I can't help you see just how much Russia has lost and is losing by proceeding forward like a paranoid crazy man who can't accept his divorce and now stalks his ex like a looney.

I don't think it's worth making an enemy out of NATO, and the world's major economic blocs. That fractional chance will cost them more than they gain long term. Not only that, but with this fractional chance will make them enemies in the eyes of these former client states. These nations want to be part of the West anyway. Russia cannot change that attitude. But Russia's stupidity has slammed the door on their own faces.

Not cleverly. Stubbornly. They will stay in Georgia for as long as they wish. But every day will cost them and will only further anger others. They will not get anything significnant for their troubles either.

Yes. Which is why I hope it ends. Russia will come out to lose much more. We simply see it as unnecessary as it will lead to further hostilities between both sides. Not something beneficial to us either.



If they're going to get in the mud...they risk getting dirty. I'm not saying we will stop food shipments like grain, poultry, beef, and many more items. But we could. The "humanitarians" you speak of wouldn't be able to stop anything. But I just wanted to bring up that they do indeed rely on us for something of great value to them. I know one other person here can't bring his little soul to accept that. But I digress here.

Quote:

At worst, they made it happen a tiny bit faster. And I bet considering how NATO grabs and grabs in peace, I think the Russians must be finding it a bit difficult to tell when NATO is "friendly" or "enemy", or which is better. I mean, at least when they were "enemy" (Cold War), NATO didn't seem quite so inclined to keep grabbing!

This is where you keep coming up short and confused. NATO didn't grab anything back then because there was nothing to grab. But these nations are now sovereign nations. NATO is grabbing nothing still. NATO membership is up to the candidate nation. NATO is not forcing anybody join it. And these nations have a right to join it if they choose and feel it is in their own national interests. Russia cannot dictate this. Yes, Russia has pushed these nations away from it and has made it a whole lot worse for themselves now. They'll never get the love of these nations, and at this point I fail to see how they can get any respect at all from them. It's been all due to obsolete paranoia of days past. They truly need to get over it Kazuaki.

I remember that. And they got nothing for that as well. Their "say" didn't have any impact. I will give Russia one thing..they truly know how to waste their time and make enemies in the process. Their version of realpolitik is ineffective.

And I'm with Sea Demon, you arrogant individual.

You think that with your pseudo-intellectual babble, and your pretentiously "neutral" approaches, you can fool the people here. Well, actually, for the most part you indeed can. For the most part, the people fall for it. Because you are good at it. You are good in fooling people to listen to your bull****, while you pretend some kind of neutrality. You abuse the willingness of the people - better men than you are - to grant others and you the benefit of the doubt, in order to abuse this admirable virtue of them to promote your propaganda BS.
You are a despicable individual.

And if there is one thing I truly hate about America, it's that you guys are too naive, too often, and for too long. You assume others would act like you do. Wrong.
Most of you don't like pretentious thugs. But you always give them the benefit of the doubt. Because you are a free people. This is admirable, but sometimes, with your good willingness, you buy into too much bull**** of others. Some people are very good in hiding their despicable agendas by putting them into pseudo intellectual and pseudo superior / neutral ways of expression. And you fall for it because you think they are honest brokers.

Well, consider the option that they aren't.

-->That they aren't.<--

Uh, Sky is German, as far as I know. Assuming you are ranting against him since you quoted him.

I even never had spoken a single word with heartc. In fact I even did not ever really noticed he is around.

Great appearance, heartc. You really set new standards, I'm impressed. You certainly showed what you are made off.

I know he is.

That's why I made second a section. The second part was directed towards those who waste their time in ultimately pointless hopes of coming to some kind of mutual understanding with him - well, at least those he did not yet put on his "ignore list" because they meant too much trouble by presenting a different and steadfast opinion to this self-proclaimed philosopher.

You must've sofar ignored Heartc, but he's been around for a while, also in threads on this topic.
He's german allright, but he's got a bit of a "colonial" attitude, to put it mildly.
Plainly, he's so pro american that I were ashamed of such ass lickers if I were an american.

Nothing against american or pro american standpoints, but he's constantly lecturing his countrymen on not being pro american enough.