Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LtCmdrRat
Real good job, Skybird. Kosovo made this situation to be happened. Also ambitions of Putin, Saakashvili and Abkhazia and South Ossetia Leaders.
********Some facts*************
-Georgian majority(~52% different numbers) was pushed out from Abkhazia by Abkhazian separatists in 90th; -Georgian minority (~20 % different numbers ) were pushed out from South Ossetia by S.-ossetian separatists in the same 90th.
-Allmost all of s.-ossetians and Abkhazians were issued russian passports during last 10 years.
-Technically they are russian citizens.
-Tskhinvali (South Ossetia 's capital) was attacked by Georgian forces using multiple-launch rocket systems GRAD (!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K51_Grad ). Can you imaging using rocket against city; GRAD works by squires.
-Saakashvili can be a good prime minister( he is a good manager but not a president,and look at this ).
|
Everybody in the region did what he can to win the jackpot. and all of them played foul on many occasions. there are no innocent victims in this conflict. Even the West participated, and cheated, like all others. For the future I hope we stay out of there and focus on becoming independent from oil. The West is in two serious, unacceptable dependencies regarding oil: the Muslim states and OPEC, and Russia. correcting these dangerous conditions must be our priority. Without this happening, our hands will remain to be tied behind our backs. consider it to be the homework we need to do. the other homework is to strengthen our regional (=in Europe) military position by increasing our forces in number and quality. Shipping our troops around the globe and let them fight in highly questionable regional wars outside of NATO's keyarea of interest cannot be such a priority, and is wasting resources, and chances for public support for the military (in Germany for example). The German budget for example is a scandal, considering the claims for global importance by Berlin.
Regarding Georgia and even more: the Ukraine, there possibly will be strong promises and invitations and a roadmap for NATO membership indeed - but without a definite timetable. Germans who listened may have noted that not only did Merkel avoid to talk about timetables during her press conferences and meetings in the Baltic, but in her appearance on German TV on Sunday evening evaded repeatedly the interviewers direct questions for binding timetables. Seen that way, the German position has not changed much, and tries to square the circle by what this coalition government in so very good at: doing nothing and labelling that as decisive action. and like germany, also France and even the US have indicated that the communication with Russia should not be interrupted. I think many western leaders know damn well the difference between the talking they give to the mikes and cameras, and the real substantial interests of their nations. Just some, like the Kaczynskis, may do not - and may find themselves ignored sooner or later.
Also, technically the famous NATO paragraph 5 for mutual assistance in case of one member being attacked does not explicitly oblige all members to go to war in support of the attacked member (it allows military action, but does not automatically declare it mandatory for all) - it speaks of assistance only on whose quality every member individually decides, and says that all other members must offer assistance to "restore" the attacked member's former security status. In diplomacy and amongst lawyers, that leaves a wide open prairie of free space for interpretations. There is much freedom to eventually leave such assistance to moral support, wellmeant condolence, tough rethorics, aid deliveries or diplomatic "pressure" on the aggressor. The inclusion of military force is left to the individual assessement of nations - something that is somewhat hidden in the text and not obvious to most people.
Quote:
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area. (...)
Die Parteien vereinbaren, daß ein bewaffneter Angriff gegen eine oder mehrere von ihnen in Europa oder Nordamerika als ein Angriff gegen sie alle angesehen werden wird; sie vereinbaren daher, daß im Falle eines solchen bewaffneten Angriffs jede von ihnen in Ausübung des in Artikel 51 der Satzung der Vereinten Nationen anerkannten Rechts der individuellen oder kollektiven Selbstverteidigung der Partei oder den Parteien, die angegriffen werden, Beistand leistet, indem jede von ihnen unverzüglich für sich und im Zusammenwirken mit den anderen Parteien die Maßnahmen, einschließlich der Anwendung von Waffengewalt, trifft, die sie für erforderlich erachtet, um die Sicherheit des nordatlantischen Gebiets wiederherzustellen und zu erhalten. (...)
|
The question what worth NATO guarantees do have is already being asked in both Georgia and the Ukraine anyway, and I tend to give a careful answer at best. And Poland took the consequence and in latest diplomacy bypassed NATO completely and directly approached America. If that is promising, after the American "reaction" shown to Georgia, is something different.