Merkel "Georgia will become a member of Nato"

[1480]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080817...9ddw6g.aZg.3QA

Didn't know if it should garner it's own thread or be put into SkyBirds original thread.

"Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she said before talks with President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi.

I'll open it up to the floor.

[Skybird]

And I'll become emperor of the world soon, so behave you all. You've been warned.

[Frame57]

Originally Posted by Skybird

And I'll become emperor of the world soon, so behave you all. You've been warned.

As long as you make Warsteiner available, you have my support!

[AntEater]

That vessel was german once, a Lindau Class wooden minesweeper M 1085 Minden.
Must be the first postwar german vessel to be sunk by enemy action....
Looks salvageable though

[Bruno Lotse]

Let me guess.
Russians?
Again.

[AntEater]

Well, I suppose the russian scuttled pretty much every boat owned by the georgian government, but except for the missile boat Tbilisi (that burned) all I've seen look salvagable.
Actually that move was not as senseless as it seems.
I remember a documentary about Abkhazia from before the war, where Abkhaz fishermen complained they were not able to fish for years because the georgians block the coast.
In a conflict where one side has no navy and the other has (had) a small navy, this side is the dominant sea power...
But actually I suppose georgian coast guardsmen will be glad to get a modern replacement for ex-Minden.
Crews in the wooden minesweepers lived like rats, especially the enlisted in the forecastle.
I suppose the crew of a WW2 flower class Corvette had better acomodation!

The georgians must've felt a bit cheated when they turned to western navies to replace their soviet era junk and got western discards of similar age!
I mean german vessels are always well build and well maintaned, but a 40 year old wooden boat is not a good naval unit to give away if you want to impress, even if it is build by Abeking & Rasmussen or Lürssen...
I remember in 1999 we had the Latvians (or Estonians? or both) in Kiel to take over some of these boats. The guys looked like pirates, all bearded, most likely all ex soviet navy.
Men of steel for wooden ships, I suppose....

Originally Posted by Skybird

And I'll become emperor of the world soon, so behave you all. You've been warned.

Hey, that's MY job.

Oh, wait, that's President of the Galaxy, Inc.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by 1480

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080817...9ddw6g.aZg.3QA

Didn't know if it should garner it's own thread or be put into SkyBirds original thread.

I'll open it up to the floor.

Don't worry about it this floor has saw dust mixed with beer and urine in it, but the passion for the Georgia/Russian conflict is the reason why.

Has Nato ever been tested is my question :hmm:

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Has Nato ever been tested is my question :hmm:

In Afghanistan.

Ignoring the questionable way in which NATO allowed to get drawn into it, just answer yourself one question: is NATO answering to the mission with one voice, and is every member pulling at the same end of the rope, and are all nations sharing comparable risks and investements?

Afghanistan is a textbook illustration of the state of things onside NATO. Want to take that condition as a basis for a war with Russia?

Ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder called Saakashvilli a "hasardeur". It is a total exception from the rule that I agree with that man on something and I would love to see him being shot to the dark side of the moon, but in his assessement of Saakashvilli I agree.

If anything, Merkel'S statement shows just one thing: that although some assessements get changed under the influence of the russian demonstration, nevertheless the West seems determined to continue with a policy of self-deception, having fantasies about the russians, and over-estimating the importance the EU plays in Russian considerations.

But if anybody believes they will just sit by and only watch while Georgia - or the Ukraine - will enter NATO and the alliance moves directly to the borders of Russia, then he must be insane.

BTW, they have just declared their inention to rearm their fleet in Kaliningrad with nuclear weapons again, in response to US radar stations being build in Poland, they also told both Poland and Chech republic that the US program will make these installation a priority target for russian nulcear strikes in case of conflict with NATO. Irnoically both states get exactly that kind of nuclear attention against which the Us program was claiming to protect them.

For 20 years the West live din total ignorrance of understandable Russian interests. And now they have had enough, and start sending bills. continue with the old ways, and the bills will become higher and higher. after the ignorrant Western reactions of the past days I do not rule out the possibility of a new full aale cold war II. Juzst days agai I still thought different, but I cannot see the West learning anything from its past mistakes. Also, Russia knows very strongly what it wants, while the West is left bare of any realistic orientation. nobody should complain that we just suffered a serious strategic defeat, well-deserved.

A german commentator just compoared Russia with Iran, poiinting out that Iran pushes the West into the defensive in the very same way like Putin did: by knowing very strongly what it wants. Ahmadinejkadh is currently about payoing an official state visit to turkey, something that almost got lost here in the West. That visit was prepared for over 5 years, to bring him out of the isolation and to try move Turkey out of the already weak consensus of NATO regarding Iran. this visit is a great strategic victory for Iran - and does anybody here in the West even take note of this diplomatic desaster? No - we are busy bringing NATO into Russia's backyard.

Say, who is the one having hallucinations here - Putin, or Ahmadinejadh - or us: the West? In chess there is something that in german is called "Aufbaukunst" (= the art of [strategic] developement /the art of basic [strategic] construction). NATO not only has serious deficits regarding this skill, but replaces them with dangerous illusions. Nothing good can come from that, just defeat, loss and self-destruction.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

In Afghanistan.

Ignoring the questionable way in which NATO allowed to get drawn into it, just answer yourself one question: is NATO answering to the mission with one voice, and is every member pulling at the same end of the rope, and are all nations sharing comparable risks and investements?

Afghanistan is a textbook illustration of the state of things onside NATO. Want to take that condition as a basis for a war with Russia?

Ex-chancellor Gerhard Schröder called Saakashvilli a "hasardeur". It is a total exception from the rule that I agree with that man on something and I would love to see him being shot to the dark side of the moon, but in his assessement of Saakashvilli I agree.

If anything, Merkel'S statement shows just one thing: that although some assessements get changed under the influence of the russian demonstration, nevertheless the West seems determined to continue with a policy of self-deception, having fantasies about the russians, and over-estimating the importance the EU plays in Russian considerations.

But if anybody believes they will just sit by and only watch while Georgia - or the Ukraine - will enter NATO and the alliance moves directly to the borders of Russia, then he must be insane.

BTW, they have just declared their inention to rearm their fleet in Kaliningrad with nuclear weapons again, in response to US radar stations being build in Poland, they also told both Poland and Chech republic that the US program will make these installation a priority target for russian nulcear strikes in case of conflict with NATO. Irnoically both states get exactly that kind of nuclear attention against which the Us program was claiming to protect them.

For 20 years the West live din total ignorrance of understandable Russian interests. And now they have had enough, and start sending bills. continue with the old ways, and the bills will become higher and higher. after the ignorrant Western reactions of the past days I do not rule out the possibility of a new full aale cold war II. Juzst days agai I still thought different, but I cannot see the West learning anything from its past mistakes. Also, Russia knows very strongly what it wants, while the West is left bare of any realistic orientation. nobody should complain that we just suffered a serious strategic defeat, well-deserved.

A german commentator just compoared Russia with Iran, poiinting out that Iran pushes the West into the defensive in the very same way like Putin did: by knowing very strongly what it wants. Ahmadinejkadh is currently about payoing an official state visit to turkey, something that almost got lost here in the West. That visit was prepared for over 5 years, to bring him out of the isolation and to try move Turkey out of the already weak consensus of NATO regarding Iran. this visit is a great strategic victory for Iran - and does anybody here in the West even take note of this diplomatic desaster? No - we are busy bringing NATO into Russia's backyard.

Say, who is the one having hallucinations here - Putin, or Ahmadinejadh - or us: the West? In chess there is something that in german is called "Aufbaukunst" (= the art of [strategic] developement /the art of basic [strategic] construction). NATO not only has serious deficits regarding this skill, but replaces them with dangerous illusions. Nothing good can come from that, just defeat, loss and self-destruction.

NATO is allready in Russian border in Baltics, Finland and Sweden are likely to also join and there are calls for more money to be put in defence, Russia is hurting itself. NATO enlargement has revealed Russias intentions to get back the areas it once held, hence if a new Cold war would emerge, it would be of Russias own doing. Their imperialistic interests they can shove where the sun dont shine, we have to worry about OUR interests. Its them that have fantasies of their own importance, nobody has corrected them because we know how fragile their self-esteem is, like an infant on tantrums. Russia cannot win this, they will loose like they did the last time. Europe doesnt need Russia as a "strategic partner", they are a supplier of energy. And its not like they are giving it for free, they get payed the market price. They need atleast one revolution more, hope thats finally enough and they can grow up.

[Skybird]

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Dream on, HT. Words is all that you - and Western leaders - have. So if you take comfort from speaking tough, feel free. But I - and for different reasons: the Russians - will not carry on to care for that. Sooner or later you learn for the better, or you don't - it does not really matter.

Can you explain what the Russians have but words?

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Finland and Sweden are likely to also join

You sure about that sheet? You see I don't think there will be any joining without a referendum and the last time I checked Nato isn't that popular among Finns or Swedes for that matter. So...joining without a referendum? I don't think that's possible either, although I would like to see the right-wingers try it just to see how the **** would hit the fan.

[Skybird]

I am realist, 1480. I take the situation for what it is.

A longer but quite insightful essay. I agree with most of it.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572811,00.html

(...)
So how to handle this arrogant Russia, and what tone to adopt in dealing with Vladimir Putin, the director of Moscow's Kremlin policy? Last week, this was a question with which superpower America was becoming more and more concerned by the day.
There are two ways, the official and the informal, of looking at Putin in Washington. To determine which one prevails one needs to look at where one is speaking rather than with whom. In the public spotlight, Putin is seen as an aggressor after Russia's completely excessive incursion into Georgia. But in confidential conversations in the private sphere, he is a Russian hero fully in command of the language of power politics.
President Bush calls the Russian invasion "inappropriate and unacceptable." Ralph Peters, a former lieutenant colonel in the US Army, who was invited to speak before the conservative American Enterprise Institute, calls the same action "brilliant." The headline in the Wall Street Journal read "Vladimir Bonaparte."
"Whether we like it or not, Putin will undoubtedly go down in history as one of his country's great leaders," says Clifford Gaddy, the leading Russia expert in Washington, who works for the liberal Brookings Institution and occasionally advises President Bush.
Bush and Putin came into power at almost the same time, Putin in late 1999 and Bush just over a year later. "I looked into Putin’s eyes and I saw his soul," the American president raved after their first meeting. He saw the man he wanted to see in Putin: the reformed communist who was forced to choose a path leading to a market economy and democracy.
Conservative triumphalism was in fashion at the time, and in this spirit Bush had the National Security Strategy of the United States, an official document outlining the nation's position on foreign policy, revised in 2002. To this day, the document contains the following sentence: "The great struggles of the 20th century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom -- and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterpris

Putin is living proof of the fallacy of this statement, and Bush, in the wake of Russia's invasion of Georgia, has been exposed, once again, as a loudmouth. The new Russia is in fact absolutely opposed to looking anything like the old West, says Strobe Talbott, who served as deputy to former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. According to Talbott, the message Putin sent to the West via Georgia consists of three partial messages. First, Russia is back on the world stage. Second, Russia wants new power, but not a return to the days of political ideology and economic autarchy. Third, Russia wants to set the terms of its integration into the new world order itself.
But this means nothing less than that the premises of American foreign policy, from former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton to the current President Bush, were wrong, says Talbott. This policy was always based on the assumption, according to Talbott, that Russia wanted to allow itself to be integrated into the existing Western architecture, including NATO, the Group of Eight (G-8) Industrialized Nations, the World Trade Organization and, in the end, perhaps even the European Union. "Now we know that this premise is wrong."
(...)
Perhaps the rest of the world will now look more closely at the hidden spots between Europe and Asia, into provinces and ethnic groups whose names they can hardly pronounce. The West's outrage over Moscow's military escapade will likely subside in a few weeks, and even America will return to politics as usual. Washington urgently needs Russia, both to keep Iran in check and as a counterbalance to China, a rising major power. America's new president, whether it will be Democratic candidate Barack Obama or Republican John McCain, will have to seek allies again to grapple with the world's conflicts.

But Russian Prime Minister Putin is clearly the victor here, after having taken control of the Caucasus crisis decisively and efficiently, by Russian standards. The world now knows that Russia is asserting stronger claims to be a major power alongside the United States.
The war is as good as over, and Putin the military commander is withdrawing. It was Medvedev who was forced to meet with foreign dignitaries who had come to complain about the Georgian conflict. Russian state television also returned to coverage of the nominal head of state.
After completing his work, Putin returned to a more behind-the-scenes role. He was seen conferring with financial experts in the drab Moscow conference room at his headquarters. They were discussing the planning for the Russian national budget -- until 2023.

It looks like he will be around for some time to come

And this (German) essay compares Putin's importance to Russia with that of Kennedy to the US - just that Kennedy, when being challenged in the American's backyard (like Russia being challenged in it's own) showed far less scruples and self-restraint than Putin and even considered not only military but even ultimate military retaliation. We in the West must learn to accept that Putin is extremely popular in russia, and that many Russians attribute future hopes and perspectives to him, like Kennedy did in his time. He is popular especially with the young, and is seen by many as the one who brought russia after the years of decline under Yeltsin a new beginning. Or to use a currently popular american phrase: he brought a change. we need to accept that the Western social, political and economical model is not quite as popular with the rest of mankind, as the Eu and even more as Washington have ever imagined in past years, just like the essay above just said. Some weeks ago I linked a text with a study showing that democracies internationally are in retreat, and authoritarian regimes win in popularity. Georgia itself also is anything but a textbook example of a democracy and has more in common with the tyrant in Uzbekistan, than with Brussel or Washington.

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...572691,00.html

If they translate it into English for their international edition, I'll post it.