[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

Skybird, let me ask you something. Why should Russia be allowed to get away with everything? Does a nations right to self determination not apply in the regions surrounding Russia's boarder? This whole thing kicked off because Russia said to Georgia "You do what we tell you" and Georgia promptly told mr Russia to f**k off! Just because Georgia used to be part of the Soviet Union which is long gone (aparantly anyway....) it doesn't mean that it has to tow the party line for forever and a day. They are an independent nation, and thus have the right to their own political ambitions and opinions... if they want to lean towards a more pro-west position then who's to stop them? Russia hardly does itself any favours by being so aggressive towards its neighbours constantly...

Yes, Sakashvilli (sp?) is a bit bonkers now, and he probably does need replacing... but I DO NOT condone the interference in a foreign countries internal and international political affairs, otherwise it falls under the old term... BULLYING.

Putin/puppet-medvedev - "I don't like what Georgia is doing, they're not listening to us and want to their own thing... oh lets start suppling militia groups and criminals so they can attack Georgia and then we invade! Problem solved!"

Steel Tomb, let me ask YOU one thing. Why should NATO always be allowed to get away with everything? Are you even aware of the long history of broken agreements and promises NATO made to the Russians since the wall came down, that they would not do this and would not do that and would stay away from the Russian border and would not push to the east? Bush's one-sided cancellation of some military key trieaties? The ignorration of Russian objections to the Kosovo war, to the Balkan war, to he recognition of Kosovo, to the Iraq war? NATO ran a party and did what it want and said something different, and has formed the habit to expect that the Russians always always always would just swallow everything, would shy back, would give up, would fall back.

Add to this the massive damage the Russian economy and society took in the Yeltzin years when westwern-style business took the opportunity to try to almost take over - in parts - russian economies and helped to rise an internal elite of ultra-rich oligarchs that became a parasite living at the cost of the rest of the society and that threatened the order and the law of the state, and the authority of the government. And when Putin took massive action against these, we again criticised him forfollowi8ng principles we wopuld agree on, as if it would be our business, and if we woulds have done nothign to create the situation Putin had to deal with. Many Russian oligarchs made their fortune by help and assistance of Wetsern enterprises and services, but it was not to the wellbeing of the many, but at their cost. The system "Putin", the autoritarian style as well as the interpretation of law in one-sided favour of the givernment, are the natural counterreactions to these develoepments that did very serious damage to Russia under Yeltsin.

The question by far is not why to let the Russians always away, for since 20 years their relative weakness of the past was abused for kicking them and trampling on them and exploiting their vulnerabilities as best as possible. Now they are not as weak anymore, they see the threats of social and cultural nature they are cofnronted with, and they have seen an overall small decrease in overaLL wealth - not just of some elitists favoured by the Werst, but the middle class in the cities in general. Trusting the West in the past 20 years has not served them well, and gave them betrayals time and again.

So who is expecting to get away with it time and nagain - the Russians, or a NATO that has no realistic self-definition anymore and just sees it'S purpose in trying to grow and take and become bigger and act globally and wants to limit Russia as much as possible and threatens even it's most vital geostrategical and geographcial basic interests where the Russians MUST react when being challenged? The US is an extremely proud country. but one of it'S basic flaws is that it cannot imagine why others should have a right to be proud on themselves as long as they do not copy american models. The US seems to be on a mission to americanise the whole world. That many of these blessings it wants to bring upon others,. no matter their will, have been revealed as highly questionable and basic elements of the american economy model just have terribly failed and speel global economical disatser - this is usually being ignored.

So as I see it, you are in no position to ask why the Russians should always be allowed to get away with everything. Their growing aggressiveness is the direct result of the juvenile, faulty arrogant powerpolitcs of the West over the past 20 years. It does not matter whether I like the Russians or not, as a matter of fact I would not want to live there, and despite some music, the impressive empty landscapes and some places in Petersburg I have no further interest in russian things. But that does not change the fact that the Russians' changing policies can be explained - and understood to be reactions that could have been forseen.

and last but not least: a stabile though Russian controlled Caucasus is much more in the best security interests of NATO than having to deal with Georgia itself and needing to maintain a pacifying prsence in a region european politicians have not understood a hundred years ago and still do not understand today. The EU is to coinfused and too weak to share borders with such a critical region on the globe, for the same reason it shgould not accept turkey and then share borders with the seething Middle East region and Syria. We cannot even take convincing care of the Balkans without self-strangling us in selfmade selfcontradictions. The last thing we need is needing to deal with the Caucasus. and regarding the Russians: they have learned over the past 20 years that NATO gave them no reason to trust us, and that words are cheap for us.

I want to remind you that Putin was carefully pro-europe a now longer past ago. He wanted to bring Russia closer to the euzropean nations, on an equal basis, not as a dominant power threatening the europeans. He saw himself a little bit in the ftradiiton of Alexander the Great, who wanted the same. but the bad experiences Putin made gave hgim al, reason to refer back to his professional past as an intel officer, mistrust the lying wetserners, and learn the lesson that the West can onoly be dealt with if meeting it from a position of strength - else the West would drive Russia against the wall. That is tragic, for I see it as a great chance being sacrificed for short termed irrational greed and hunger for power by us. for the way russia behaves today, we and our policies must accept not all, but a very prominent share of responsibility for. And as long as we prevent action over Dharfur by endless negotiations wether or not it can be called genocide when a million people of foreogn faith get slaughtered by islamic militias - we have no moral authority to lecture others about how deficitary their understanding of humanitarianism and egal justic is in our opinion. the Georgia case has nothing to do with freedom fights and bringing democracy to a foreign people, but it is a pure Western powerplay to see if and how we can bully the Russians once again.