Thoughts after Russia's recognition

[Skybird]

The last Ossetia-threads somewhat derailed into emotional venting, and even straight propaganda and nationalism. If you want to continue with that attitude, go back there - but don't start again here. Of yourse you can disagree with my views, but if you make that known, do it in a neutral way, like I post neutrally as well.

The news of the day is clear, Russia has created facts and installed itself as the major guarantor for stability of the status quo in the Caucasean region again. Several questions arise from this which I want to adress point by point. I just had a long talk with an old colleague from my travelling times, who still works in the foreign correspondent business at times. We exchanged plenty of views and philosophies, this is what brought me to writing this. Much of it is more a structuring of what has been on my mind before.

*****************

[Skybird]

1. Is this the beginning of a new cold war?

No.
The ideological mission to spread the Soviet system and global communism is missing on the Russian side. Also, the Russian economy is strong by it's oil exports and gets wealthy by high oil prices, it is not strong by it's exports of goods and items. The Russians can afford to modernize their armed forces, maybe even to slightly increase them, and they can afford to produce more ICBMs than a US missile shield could protect against, and by that "flood" any such defense system. But they cannot afford to enter a new arms race and produce military goods at the frequency and quantitity they did during the USSR era. Thus, there eventually will be a cheap nuclear arms race, but no conventional one - just a constant modenrizing of Russian forces. However, the diplomatic tone and relations between West and East will change drastically, and as a matter of fact already has. but even with the language of the cold war, the military situation will not qualify to allow such a description if it is used to compare to the historical first cold war.


2. Are the Russians acting illegally?

It has been reported very early on that the six-point peace-plan of the EU that Sarkozy was negotiating were not accepted by the russians before some deletions were made and some phrases chnaged or added. These give them the right to station troops in the bufferzone, and to patrol in areas of Georgia, additonally they refer to an old treaty deriving from the earlier conflict in the 90s that so far they had not made use of, but now do, which again gives them the right to set up patrols and checkpoints. It is stunning with what obvious opportunism this is hidden by western leaders now when they made their hot speeches and powerful demands - they refer to a peaceplan, as they call it, that the russians never accepted and actually have alterred - and that is a known fact that no gets ignored for propaganda reasons.
The russians also refer to the example of the Iraq war having been illegal and a violation of international war (a fact on which a vast majority of lawyers for international law agree), not authorized by the UN council, but indirectly excused by the Americans by going back to years-old resolutions that neither included any specifics that could be brought into conformity with the Iraq war, nor were authored with such an explicit intention at the time they were created. Tit-for-tat, think the Russians.


3. Kosovo and Georgia - also a tit-for-tat?

From a Russian perspective, yes, and they mean it serious, not just opportunistcally as an excuse. And I tend to agree with that. The West argues that the West's recognition of Kosovo's independence is legitimitae because they have consulted the Russians via the UN (which nevertheless did not change the fact that the Russians did not agree), and becasue it has been the UN allowing it. But still the principle of the sovereignity of an independent state - Serbia - and the principle of territorial integrity which now is so often used to attack the Russians over Georgia, both got violated in the same way russia ignores them today in Georgia. I would even say in case of Kosovo the case if worse, becasue in the years after the Kosovo war Albanians from Albania moved in huge - in decisive! - numbers into Kosovo and massively shifted the ethnic balance there - and then made a demand to become independent: a manipulation of ethnic realities on the ground which the West nevertheless was not irritated to accept. The ethnic structure in Abkhasia and Southern Ossetia has not been shifted in this way, and both populations have been victims to Georgian repression and brutal Georgian nationalistic violence. Russia therefore rightfully refers to Kosovo having created a precedence setting a standard that now is claimed by the Russians with even more right, it seems, than the West claimed over Kosovo.


4. Baltic states, Poland, Ukraine, and Finland

I see the Baltic states not in danger of being invaded by russian troops with a goal of such an assault of recapturing the Baltic - if NATO doesnot move into the Ukraine.
I see Poland not in that kind of military threat as well.
Is see Finland not in that kind of military threat as well.
I think the Russains have accepted that they have lost these grounds. They have accepted it - but they are detemrined to not lose anymore ground. these nations nevertheless for historical reasons are both a bit paranoid and hate-driven regarding Russia. But much of what has been seen from them during these weeks of crisis bordered sheer irrationality, imo, especially Poland, and i do not mean the Kaczynskis only, whose nationalistic paranoias towards both Russia and Germany is well-documented by now. If Putin will not crush them, then Merkel's army of Lebensborn-offsprings will invade Poland - that is the image they are driven by. Irrational idiots. They have made themselves legitimiate target of mockery and disgust throughout the EU.

This brings us to the Ukraine. I see the conflict about
a.) the Black Sea Fleet and it's bases,
b.) the many Russians living on the Crimean peninsula,
c.) the importance of parts of the Ukraine for energy trafficking, and the fact that
d.) for Russia it is strategically totally unacceptable that NATO gains the ability to field missiles, sensors and striking capacities in the Ukraine, as holding enough conflicting energy that a hot war between Russia and the Ukraine can result from this. It must not be, but it could be. Russia has played the Georgian match straight and undestracted, and this is a sign that they do not accept BS anymore and will not be intimidated by provocations and bluffs. If I were the Ukraine, I would play it more cautiously than this Trottel Saakashvilli did, and would not try any more provocations like demanding the Russian fleet to repoprt to Ukrainean command - not only for Russia but for any Western nation as well this is tiotally unacceptable, even more so if such a decree is signed in times of war. A Ukrainean move towards NATO will not reduce but increase the risk of war. A NATO diplomatic offensive to get the Ukraine involvedd in NATO will not reduce but increase the risk of war. And a too challenging provocation by the Ukraine also will not reduce but increase the risk of war. for the time being, since the ukraine cannot move and relocate like an aircraft carrier, best advise is to let any provocations and any moves to the West rest, and try to consolidate the status quo and preserve it over sufficiently long time that eventually a cautious feeling of stability (avoiding the word "trust" here) on russian side will emerge after longer time. To accept to pay ordinary market prices for gas and oil from Russia, like all nations on the makret must do, also could help. that would be a n expensive move, but it could be wortzh it if it evades war and a lost of the Crimean, as well as as much occupation as is needed to prevent Ukraine moving into NATO. The West must understand that Russia will not accept NATO at the ukrainean-russian border - period. It will bnot happen, no matter the cursing, yelling, gestures, feet-stomping and whatever. Russia cannot afford that. to realise and not challenge vital self-interests of an opponent is part of Realpoltik. Ignroing it did not work in Georgia, and it will not work in the Ukraine as well - you can take that as granted.


5. Would NATO fight over its small allies in the East?

(Ignoring that a war with Russia means war with a nuclear superpower. You better have damn good reasons to start destroying the world.)

Probably not - currently it lacks the capacity. The American military is overstretched on a global scale, the European military is too weak. The US has no interests that are locally limited, and defines the whole globe as the justified sphere of influence for the "American century". this leaves them unable to respond with sufficient force at every place around all the world. A shortening of the front would be much in need, but currently to American thinking that sounds like sheer treachery where in fact wanting it all is sheer megalomania. By wishing to defend all the US has or could have, America will loose more in fact. The consequence must be that the Europeans invest far more money into increasing both quality and quantity of their conventional forces. the EU is overestimating it's diplomatic weight by far, which is especially apparent in case of trying to make the Iranians comply (with zero effect since years), and also in their demands to russia to comply with regard to Western demands for Georgia. Let's face it - currently the Kremlin does not take the Europeans serious anymore. And if we are honest to ourselves, we must agree that they have indeed little reason to worry about the EU. Which brings us to the question of ...

[Skybird]

6. Is Russia or the West more vulnerable?

The West threatens to block Russia's access to the WTO. that is no threat - because as an exporter of energy and basic resources like ore (that the Indians and Chinese would be happy to buy in Europe'S place), not being a great exporter of produced goods and items, WTO membership is, as a Russian paper put it, more "a box to be ticked by routine", but not really important. The West just raised illusions about WTO being important to Russia, by that imagining that they could get more influence over russia once the Russians are in and must stick to the rules. Much the same can be said about membership in the G8 and one or two more organisations and conferences the West has "threatend" to exclude the Russians from. All these are considerations for the Russians, but no real concerns and surely no worries or threats. They calculated them, and judging by the outcome of that calculation and their ultimate action they value them not that high.

Also, Europe is heavily depending on Russian gas and oil. these cannot be replaced all of a sudden, or even in the forseeable future. On the other hand it is not understandable why some Wetserners assuje goods and highteczh the russians do no longer buy in europe can't be bought on the world market by them. again. Here lies no threat for the Russians.

In return, russia is in a strong position, and has nthe potential, as the Prawda put it, to hit the US very strong below the belt. I quote the Prawda here not because I just believe the Prawda (in general it is a very bad and heavily biased, government-friendly piece of journalism), but becasue these points are exactly my own considerations as well.

US experts warn that the list of Moscow’s potential sanctions is a lot longer. Angela Stent, the director of the Center for Eurasian, Russian and East European Studies, Georgetown University, said that Moscow may respond at the UN Security Council, where it can put obstacles on the way of US intentions to punish Iran for its nuclear ambition. All anti-terrorist programs, the struggle against drug mafia, Syria, Venezuela and Hamas can be added on the list too. There are many questions, on which Russians may stop their cooperation with the USA, with the cooperation in the energy industry on top of that list, the expert believes.

The International Herald Tribune wrote with reference to US outstanding analysts that Washington needed a lot more from Moscow than vice versa. The US needs to ensure the security of Soviet nuclear weapons, to obtain Russia’s help in the endeavor to make Iran and North Korea shut down their nuclear programs.

The sale of Russia’s arms is another problem. The governments of Western countries and Israel are concerned about reports saying that Russia started the shipments of first components of its S-300 missile system to Iran. The latter may subsequently use the powerful systems to down US and Israeli aircraft.

Russia may complicate USA’s and NATO’s supply of the coalition in Afghanistan In April, Moscow gave France and Germany a right to transit non-combatant cargoes via Russia. Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, said that the West should not bite the hand that feeds 50,000 servicemen in Afghanistan. Moscow can offer show pressure of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which the USA would like to use for their operations in Afghanistan.

The Prawda used similar words like I did in the past when I said the West needs russia much more than russia needs the West. Narcissistic patriotism and unrealistic self-glorification should better not stop anybody in the West from realisng that this is the simple truth. Well, nobody forced western leaders to make policies over many years that finally lead wetsern nations in such exposed, weak and difficult to defend positions. Looking at it with cool eyes and a calm minds I must conclude that the West now earns the fruits it has sowed itself, unneeded. If some people in past days took that attitude as evidence that I sympathise with the Russians for their own intentions, I cannot help it. If anything I admire the clearness and straightness with which they play there moves currently. Two weeks, and they have achcieved their goals in the Caucasian. the americans wage two wars since many years. On eis lost, the other will end in three years with a totally unsatisfactory excuse of a condition for the sake of getting the troops out. the EU is debating and meeting and tlaking for years and years, and sees itself overtaken by changing reality once and again. Putin and medwedew waited for the right time, and made some few moves in strength and with determination - and everything falls into the right place due to solid preparation, et voila. From a totally neutral point of vision, I cannot escape to be impressed. If being guilty of one thing more than of anything else, than theWets is guilty of having wasted years with raising comfortable illusions, and not preparing at all, instead wasting attention and precious potentials and resources with misleading strategies and surreal projects. Again, if this makes me a target for accusing me to be guilty of being a sympathsier of russian policies, I cannot help it. I am all that not. But I can understand their motivation, and their behavior currently makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than what the angrily lecturing West has to offer.


7. NATO's reputation

As I have argued in my old and long separate essay "Trapped in the Afghan maze", NATO'S reputation already has massively suffered from the Afghanistan war, and I would say that parts of it after this crisis now lies in open shatters. the past twenty years of failing reorientation over the alliance's meaning and focus, and the open rift between the US and it's new Easteuropean allies who wished to raise in America's percpetion by orginally uncritically moving under it's policies and supporting them without questions, and the arrogantly labelled "old Europe", now pay off in a negative way. too many cooks in the kitchen who spoil the brew, too many variating voices, often interacting with nation's positons inside the EU, egoism, and different attotudes towards war and low spendings for prepariong to wage war if needed, have led us to the current mess: an alliance unable to react and unable to offer an ything more than just empty phrases, meaningless threats, and lots of hot air. Like the Moscow Times essay that I linked already asked: one has to wonder if NATO really would be willing to start military action over an attack against the Baltic, and if there really is a cost-effect-calculation possible that even would justifiy that, because wars not only are run by ideals and catchphrases, but need to be payed for in solid money and enormous economic investements that in case of war with Russia could seriously cripple European and American economies and bring global economies down to it's knees. seeing it realistically and without any moral sentiments or national sympathies I answer both questions with "no". and this raises questions about the intelligence of provoking the Russians that seriously by moving NATO eastward in violation of promises made by two american adminstrations to president Yeltsin, and also with regard to the wisdom of bringing the ukraine into NATO. Our good-hearted well-meaningness easily could bring our heads onto the block, for the chances for war on the Crimean peninsula are real, and they are not small. Have we really all reason to assume that all NATO nations would be willing to engage in full war against Russia over something as far away as the Ukraine? Don't let your emotions form your answer, think about it with a calm head. You'll see that at least you come to an answer of "I have my doubts".


8. Conclusions

There is a gap between what the West claims, and what it really is capable in carrying out. the limits of these claims we have learned in recent years, in Iraq, in Afghnaistan, and now in the Caucasean region. The status quo is not acchieved by realpolitik, but the absence of it. realism and unbiased perception of both side's vital interests is needed. And on both the west has proven to be running low since the end of the cold war - we were drunk of ourselves, celebrating our "victory", and thinling we cann afford to ignore the apparent loserin this conflict, and that we now can have our ways, unhindered. the Kremlin now leaves us no other choice than to realise that these times have come to an end. and that may even be a healthy lesson for us, before we entangle outselves in even more potentially self-damaging adventures. I see the Caucasean situation even positive after the russian recognition. the situation now is clened, and clearer than it was in the years before. the lines have been set out in fresh and bright colour. russia has established itself as the one great ordering power in it'S backyard, and after chechnya and Ossetia and Abkhazia this will be remembered in the several other troubled former USSR provinces that are threatened by internal unrest. Medwedew has accepted a risk by accepting the independence of the two provinces - he has created a precedence that could be taken as an excuse by other provinces to fight for their independence (again). However, he seems to think that the display of force by russia reduces this risk so far that the gains of accepting Ossetian independence outshine the risks. since i am not blind enough to assume that democracy "made in the West" necessarily is a model that would or could work in all parts of the present world, I tend to cautiously agree with his calculations when seeing it from the Russian's side. Seeing it from the West's side, all considerations currently are meanignless, since we are not in a position to do anything about the new status quo anyway. the americans would be well-advised to let this Georgian Uber-Trottel Saakashvilli fall, and not to try smuggling weapons via their warships in the Black Sea. If they would get caught in doing that, things could become ashaming at best, and really nasty at worst. The russians will not give up control of the harbour in Potin. They would be stupid if they would.

Without europe investing seriously more into defense, and winning in military capacities again that are solid enough in selection and quality to handle the Russians on a grand scale, the EU can forget to be recognised as a diplomatic negotiation partner that needs to be taken serious. the european self-impression of being accepted for being a word-superpower only, is wrong. Since Europe did not do it's homework and won in milizary strength, and since america left it to word-guarantees for Georgia only without making sure it was always able to back them up by deeds, one would, if this were a sports event, necessarily conclude that the Western team not only lost this match, but also would not have earned the win. Mocking the other team before the match started and bullying it's players on several occasions in advance, therefore proved to be a PR boomerang. In that conditon, and with it's back against the wall in Afghanistan as well, NATO does not impress anybody. It needs to readjust it's focus on more realistic goals of much more limited range and scale. "Frontbegradigung" and "Frontverkürzung" it is called in German. In other words: we are far too scattered, around areas of the globe maybe America thinks for self-related reasons it has an interest in - but NATO has not.

More conflicts inside NATO are preprogrammed - with open end. Game, set and match for Russia - but we must not like it.

[August]

Is there a cliff notes version to this wall of text?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by August

Is there a cliff notes version to this wall of text?

:rotfl:

Really, it's pretty good if you read all the way through it. Having no real knowledge of Georgia's people, and never even having heard of South Ossetia before the war, I don't have anything to say about it, but it's a nice piece.

[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 ).

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Are the Russians acting illegally?

The russians also refer to the example of the Iraq war having been illegal and a violation of international war (a fact on which a vast majority of lawyers for international law agree), not authorized by the UN council, but indirectly excused by the Americans by going back to years-old resolutions that neither included any specifics that could be brought into conformity with the Iraq war, nor were authored with such an explicit intention at the time they were created. Tit-for-tat, think the Russians.

HAHAHA. Skybird...don't be such a blatant idiot. Especially on this point. How many months....actually years did we (the USA) spend at that worthless organization called the UN for both our major actions. And we had UN paper (which I think we can now all agree was worthless at this point) backing our actions in both cases. What did Russia have? When did Russia appeal to the UN at all? If they were truly following our lead or example on this, maybe they would have gone to the UN and spent countless months justifying their imminent actions. They didn't. Nor did they have a "coalition of the willing". The Russians took absolute "Unilateral" military actions, and the typical useless whiners are dead silent. Doesn't surprise me at all. I knew they were worthless people from the start. And it furthers the notion that the UN is worthless. It is a waste of time for us. I hope the US leadership proceeds forward with this in mind.

Seriously, I'm waiting for these whining little tarts to condemn Russia's "Unilateral" actions, condemn Russia outright for not using the UN as the vehicle to solve international crises, and last but not least....I'm looking forward to the comparisons of Putin and Medvedev to Hitler. Oh, I know we won't get it. But I hope it shows the useless idiot UN whining protesting fools of the USA, Canada, and Europe for what they are. It's clear as a bell to me who these losers are.


On your other many points, it's all nonsense. Russia has done everything they can to back themselves into a corner. They have pushed all the states they wanted in their orbit directly into NATO's sphere of influence, have helped the USA ink the missile defense deal they desperately didn't want, and are simply screwing themselves with nominal trade relations with the West. Something they cannot afford to do, despite your contrarian views. This whole thing will be bad for Russia in the coming months ahead. Russia has only one link of leverage with the West (well Europe anyway). And that's their energy trade. The Russians will not screw up this relationship. They simply cannot afford to. You don't truly see the whole picture. What about other things that Russia relies on the West for as well? Do you think China's gonna clean up their nuclear dumps? What about Western medical suppplies and technology that goes into Russia? What about raw material imports? What of food imports? What about Western commercial contracts with them and the money from those? No, Skybird. The West actually has alot of power here to screw over Russia actually. It's actually the opposite of what you think. I know you're a fatalist and believe everything tragic about the West, but in this case, Russia screwed themselves over big time. Wait a few months and see. Right now, the Russians got a little pride. But I think in the end, it won't be worth it to them.

[Sea Demon]

Just to demonstrate the looney leadership both Putin and Medvedev are both capable of, here's a nice link. Apparently Mr. Medvedev "isn't afraid of a new Cold War". Oooohh. He's tough. Not. If he was actually a man with common sense and intelligence, he would be.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26403580/