SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Merkel "Georgia will become a member of Nato"

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Merkel "Georgia will become a member of Nato" (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=140892)

"Declaring independence" and becoming a country are two distinctly different things, otherwise the entire US would become 50 separate countries and we could all quit complaining about the federal government. :rotfl:

Forget the UN recognizing SO as being independent, when did the EU recognize it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

To be honest I don't give a damn about that war, really.
The Russian reaction is "overkill" yeah sure, so was Israel's reaction toward Lebanon in 2006, but I guess that's different. Despite what the US administration tryes to sell, Sakashvili is just a "democratically elected" moron just like the "democratically elected" general-president Musharraf and so on so I really don't care about him getting his ass kicked, especially after gambling his country in that stupid way.
Citing the UN approval or lack of is very convenient since the UN refused to aknowledge South Ossetia's independance, meaning that Sakashvili didn't need to bother about the UN prior to invading SO. We could also talk about people pissing on the UN all year long and suddenly backing it when it suits their agenda.
Comparing Georgia with Irak is a pretty cheap way to clean your conscience, no matter what Russia does today, Irak still gets to be the dumbest waste of the new century and will most likely hold the title for a long time.

Actually Mikhayl, I was just wondering where the UN whiners regarding nations taking "Unilateral" actions went to. Your answer speaks volumes to me about it. This whole thing doesn't matter to me either. Russia has backed themselves into a corner in this situation as has ensured NATO will get more backing from other states in the future. In addition Russia has helped the US get their missile defense on an expedited timetable. Russia's moves have further increased NATO's sphere. I just wanted to show the whiny little tarts for what they really are while the opportunity presented itself.......they are empty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

UN Resolution 1441 http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/G...df?OpenElement

Quote Mikhayl's source :

Quote:

Hans Blix, chief UN weapons inspector, delivered several reports to the UN Security Council on his team's search for chemical and biological weapons inside Iraq. In his first report, Blix said, "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance, not even today, of the disarmament that was demanded of it." In February, he ordered Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles, which he determined had an illegal range limit; Iraq began complying in its typically foot-dragging manner. Once Iraq began to show signs of cooperation, Blix urged the members of the Security Council to give the inspectors more time to complete the task. President Bush was repeatedly angered by Blix's measured, circumspect reports that failed to provide the president with a "smoking gun" that justified an invasion of Iraq. He retired in June 2003.

The only actual fact in that quote is the quote from Blix's report. The rest is interpretation of events that transpired afterwards.

Transcript of Blix's presentation to the UN secutiry council http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/02/14/spr....transcript.1/

Instead of allowing journalists to decide for you what happened, why not read the resolution and blix's report and make your own decision.

Edit : As for what's happening now, I don't recall anything being brought before the UN regarding the attack on Georgia. I also don't recall any warnings being issued to Georgia by Russia to cease and desist or they would attack. If anyone has information on that, please correct me.

Hey DT, whats up?

Quote:

<H2 align=center>Conflict in Georgia Reveals Russia's Strategic Aims, Who's in Charge at the Kremlin

Quote:

WASHINGTON, AUGUST 14, 2008--The Russo-Georgian conflict has shed substantial light on Moscow's military capabilities and future intentions in the Caucasus, military analysts and regional observers said at an AEI event on August 13. AEI scholars Frederick W. Kagan, Leon Aron, and Thomas Donnelly were joined by Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (U.S. Army, retired) and Lt. Col. Bob Hamilton (U.S. Army) to discuss and clarify the strategic, operational, and tactical military aspects of the recent conflict. The panel also provided an initial assessment of the political implications--for the United States and its allies in the region--of Russia's invasion of Georgia.

Having recently conducted significant military exercises in preparation for a potential contingency in Abkhazia, the Russian military was poised to mount a rapid mobilization in response to the hostilities in South Ossetia. Tanks surged south across the border from North Ossetia; a flotilla of the Black Sea fleet blockaded Georgia's coastline; and the Russian Air Force conducted an extensive bombing campaign against Georgian army targets throughout the country--"an operation that the Russians undertook for the strategic purpose of doing as much damage to the Georgian military as a whole as it possibly could," Kagan explained.

Yet, by failing repeatedly to strike strategic targets such as oil pipelines and radio towers, the Russian military also demonstrated that it "is still a blunt instrument," Peters argued. Regardless of these shortfalls, Russia's military success allowed it to engineer a ceasefire agreement in its favor.

"[The] peace agreement which is being offered as a compromise . . . is in no in any way a return to the status quo ante in military terms. The military balance in this area has been decisively shifted . . . and I suspect that probably most of the work that the U.S. has done over the years to increase the capacity of the Georgian forces has been destroyed," Kagan said.

Recently returned from a tour as the chief of the Office of Defense Cooperation in the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi, Hamilton explained that the American capacity-building program in Georgia has been focused on developing the skills necessary for conducting counterinsurgency and counterterrorism missions--not for prosecuting a "full-spectrum, maneuver war." An inexperienced senior leadership corps, limited command and control capabilities, and a severe numerical disadvantage against Russia further hindered the Georgian military. The small republic's armed forces were no match for those of their northern neighbor. "This was not a fair fight, and it was never going to be a fair fight," Hamilton said.

Perhaps more disconcerting than the rapid deployment of Russia's coercive capabilities, however, was its leaders' justification for employing them--and the alarming precedents they have sought to establish. According to Kagan, Russian leaders have implicitly and explicitly suggested that in order to protect the "dignity and lives of Russian citizens," Russia has the right to respond to conflicts in Georgia's separatist territories by attacking Georgia proper; that Russian Federation law protects all Russian citizens, regardless of where they might be located; that Russian Federation law can be used to bring charges against non-Russian citizens who are not residents in Russia for crimes not committed on Russian territory if their actions are "against the interests of the Russian Federation"; and that Russian military forces can take preemptive action, including ground occupation, to protect themselves from the possibility of danger posed by foreign forces on foreign soil.

The crisis in Georgia also confirmed what many suspected about the structure and character of Russia's political leadership: Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, not President Dmitry Medvedev, maintains a tight grip on the reins of power and remains the country's chief strategic architect. As Aron said, Putin's public leadership in the course of the Georgian conflict reveals that "the [2008 Russian presidential] elections were a sham . . . the constitution is a sham," and the "whiff of liberalization" that some perceived in Medvedev's early statements was deceptive. Any hopes of liberal reforms in the Kremlin, he said, are "buried under the rubble of Gori."

Peters said that Putin is "the most effective leader in the world today"--if only for his ruthlessness, decisiveness, and consequent ability to pursue strategic goals with little regard for the resistance he might receive. Indeed, though the conflict in the Caucasus was a long time coming, as Kagan and others have noted, Russia's incursion into Georgia caught the West flat-footed and has left it unprepared and fumbling for a response. Peters put it succinctly: Russia "invades a U.S. ally, and our president goes to a basketball game. This is not an effective diplomatic response."

As the United States and its allies in Western Europe craft their policies in response to Russia's recent aggression, they would be wise to understand the gravity and extent of Russian objectives in Georgia. "I don't think that this is over," concluded Kagan. "The Russians are going to try very hard to engineer [Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's] removal from power, and we need to make it very clear that that is unacceptable."

--TIM SULLIVAN

For video, audio, and more event information, visit www.aei.org/event1769/

</H2>

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1480

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

True. And fortunately for us, it looks like Putin's overreaching stupidity worked in our favor. And the clock is ticking whether or not he can save face or not. I think it's too late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1480

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

True. And fortunately for us, it looks like Putin's overreaching stupidity worked in our favor. And the clock is ticking whether or not he can save face or not. I think it's too late.

Where is Putin? Anyone seen him?
Maybe they are shooting each other over this, that would be fun.:rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1480

I haven't seen anything about Putin or his puppet call for UN intervention, ever.

True. And fortunately for us, it looks like Putin's overreaching stupidity worked in our favor. And the clock is ticking whether or not he can save face or not. I think it's too late.

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomen

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.

Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomen

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.

Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.

Maybe, maybe not. We will see about that sooner or later. I am sure he follows his own agenda, other wise he would not be still in THE position of power.

Atleast one thing is sure, imho.. something really fishy is going on over there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

It's already been said that it will happen. It is to no one's advantage to allow Russia's unwarranted hostile military movements with no consequences. When you put both on the scales, that appears to be the case.

They are threatening it. I don't think anybody would expect the West not to make some noise over such an issue. But let's see what actually comes out of it, and then how fast they quietly take any sanctions out for their own good.

I'll agree it isn't exactly to the West's advantage to allow Russia's movements with no consequences either, but this is what a fait accompli is - it is already done, it is not worth reversing, and a smart government looks for the present and the future.

Quote:

NATO has not seriously responded in a military fashion.

And that itself is bad, though pretty much inevitable.

Quote:

But many negative repercussions have still happened against Russia. What response should NATO provide at this point? Russia's busy screwing themselves over, and giving gifts like more support from former Soviet states, and giving Bush his missile defense deal on a silver platter. Those dynamics are very helpful to the alliance whether you can see that or not.

Read what I wrote previously. Again, even if you are right, it is hard to see them being huge losses, seeing all that sh*t was virtually certain to happen in the original history too, as you apparently agree.

Quote:

Oh please. I know that you truly wish to be the Minister of Propaganda for Russia. The US actually had a UN resolution and ceasefire agreement for Iraq.

They had it the first time, for Desert Storm I. The 2nd time nobody was interested, or demanded for continuance of inspection, and the US pressed on anyway. That's what half the row was about. The other half being that the US didn't find what they wanted. If it had been the Russians, nobody will even seriously consider the possibility the whole WMD thing was not pure disinformation.

Quote:

There was legal framework in place despite the nonsense from the idiots. Russia had no such thing. And the US had their legislative body actually vote for action.

They also had more time. Remember the story is that the Russians did not plan for all this, and only reacted (though they were obviously ready for it). Given this, wouldn't a slow legislative approval be counterproductive?

Quote:

That's OK. Their actions are only defeating their own purposes.

I see you are not even answering my reply to your question. Is it because you acknowledge that such actions can legitimately be seen as hostile, whatever cheap words had been passed around?

Quote:

Nope. Not to such a negatrive extent.

Ahh, I see. So by your acknowledgment, they already had it in for Russia before this.

Quote:

The Russians now have aligned states more watchful against a potentially hostile Russia on their borders now.

They were always watchful, or they won't all be naturally gravitating towards NATO and NMD.

Quote:

It is almost assured they will all be a part of NATO in the near future.

You are actually pretending this will not be part of the original history...

Quote:

Not only that, but now with a negative vibe against Russia.

Their vibes could hardly have been more negative to begin with.

Quote:

None of this has any bearing to the situation at hand. Russia had a chance to ensure peaceful relations with the inevitable and foiled it. Nothing you can do to clean that up.

At worst, Russia slightly worsened what was already an adversarial relationship, as you basically agreed up there.

Quote:

He's not going to get Ukraine. They themselves are making that clear.

Of course Yuschenko says that now. But like Skybird would say, wait till they starve of gas this winter. It is easy to make cheap bluffs you don't have to back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomen

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.

Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.

Please show me how this can bolster Russia's position in any way. Their actions have only served to be a primer of isolation in many sectors. His agenda looks idiotic at this point as everything he wants, the opposite is now coming true. His own actions push NATO further East, only with more suspicion. And his actions have accelerated missile defenses with the big radars that come with it. He has alienated totally states he wanted in his orbit and have directly placed them in the NATO basket. He is only in the position of power because as we all know that to oppose him may be a dangerous venture in Russia. Not for any other reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomen

I would not be surprised if he actually does not care about saving face.

Then he has proven that he is ruinous for the Russian nation. They will pay the price for his foolish pride. You can guarantee it.

I am not saying you are wrong. What I think is, you look at it from the wrong point of view.
Try to look at it from a Russian Government, especially Putin point of view.
Historically speaking, being surrounded by enemies is a great motivator for people to stick to their flags, ea, keep the thumb on the population and in control of the power in your country.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

and driving brand new hummers :)

Maybe only slightly used ones:rotfl:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

and the Russian billionaires will still enjoy watching the premier league... and driving brand new hummers :)

Stinkin Chelsea Football club. :damn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

OK, compare the original history to the new history:

Original: Russia gets surrounded by NATO. The closest NATO nations hate Russians with a vengeance...
New: Russia gets surrounded by NATO. The closest NATO nations hate Russians with a vengeance...

So far, that's the same.

Original: ... and they treat Russia with contempt, thinking that Russia can't and won't take swipes at them, and that NATO will protect them.
New: ... and they treat Russia with fear, knowing now that Russia can and might just take swipes at them, and that NATO might not protect them, or not in time. Sure, they might retaliate, but that's a little too late for you.

Now, neither of the two above are very good, but if you are Russia, what would you pick?

I'll agree with you, Sea Demon, if the Poles and all those others started off at somewhere approaching neutrality. Then Putin's actions are indeed idiotic. But then, if they had started off somewhere approaching neutrality, they might not have been so inclined to join NATO or NMD and the Russians might be less motivated to stop them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I'll agree with you, Sea Demon, if the Poles and all those others started off at somewhere approaching neutrality. Then Putin's actions are indeed idiotic. But then, if they had started off somewhere approaching neutrality, they might not have been so inclined to join NATO or NMD and the Russians might be less motivated to stop them.

But the thing you're missing here is Russia is powerless to stop any of these countries from joining NATO or pursuing their own national interests anyway. Forgive them for being sovereign nations if you will. Russia has...or had two choices. Try and foster relationships that move away from hostile intent, or take the hostile approach and hope they cower. Looks like Putin tried the brute force method and didn't realize he's not so influential after all. He guessed wrong/stupidly. He's lost everything he's tried to guard against. And helped to push NATO further in his direction. And a missile defense system to go with it. I don't doubt he thought it would be in Russia's interests to go about it this way. In that regard, I'm not really disagreeing with you. But it has obviously bit Putin in the rear in regard to the reaction he is getting, and the posture from those he seeks to control. They're pushing back with a vengeance now, whereas before it wasn't so direct or confrontational. NATO as a whole is only happy to comply by bringing in more friendly states to the alliance as well. Putin simply stands as the loser.