Russia, NATO in battle of wills over Georgia

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Russia needs to back down here. Big time. It acts like a morally superiour superpower while in reality it is a backwater country, spread with corruption and criminal energy within an economy not larger then that of Portugal. With an authocratic regime stepping down on human rights on a constant basis, constantly threatenning it's neighbours who are forced to play similiar games to survive. Wether NATO should get involved in Georgia and with it's government is a legit question, but basing this descision on the big mouths in Russia and putting tails between legs just because this country does a lot of sabre rattingling to please it's nationalistic population is not ann option. This hypocrisis of showing force to Iran, North Korea, whatever country, but brownnosing to Russia will always remain a mystery to me. But the political left in Germany always had a tendency to ignore eastern european defecits. Must be a fashion, comparable to wearing Che Gueverra Shirts.

Thats the NATO arrogance I mean. Russia must back down. Russia must agree to this. Russia must do that. Russia should shut up if NATO does what it wants. Russia should not complain if NATO does not stand by it'S promises, and have betrayed the Russians big time several times since 1989. Russia should believe all the lies it has been told in the past 20 years, and should act to it's own disadvantage.

No wonder that they are so very much pissed. I wonder that they kept their patience for so long.

NATO has to back down in the Caucasean region, and regarding Ukraine as well. Both are not it's damn business. And to demand the russians to damage themselves and act against their vital interests, is utmost hypocritical.

What country is next after Georgia to enter NATO? Looking on the map, Iran, maybe? Hell, that brings up the thought if maybe Natonising Georgia is not about Georgia at all, but containing Iran...? Anyhow, with Georgia you already have entered the orient, and left Europe behind. Quite some distance ot the north Atlantic. Afghanistan next? We could try to establish a cordon of NATO countries around China as well, while we are at it. Tiflis is closer to the Chinese region of Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu than it is to NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Some things any nation could not accept if being serious about strategical key interests. It is so very much silly to provoke Russia over the Caucasean region, and risking conflicts when there is nothing to gain that is worth the risk. You could as well imagine Mexico to become a strong associate of the Russians and being turned into a military base to dam the US's influence to the south. It would be nuts, irresponsible, arrogant and ignorant of reality. The diplomatic price that is to be payed for this constant attempt to become dominant in the Caucasean region is much, much too high for NATO, and especially the US, they need Russia'S good will on a whole list of much more important issues. The conflict in the Caucasean has consequences for all the southern-south-western ex-provinces of the former USSR, and Russia cannot afford to show weakness in these if it does not want to get pushed back by revolts and demographic processes there. The Islamic question also plays a role.

Leave it to the Russians and wish them good luck and be thankful if they can manage to maintain stability there. Help them by isoltating Shaakashvili, and forcing him to give up power and politics. Hell, I even accept to assassinate him, for their are more important things at stake than just this gangaster's personal life. having stable conditions in the Caucasean region and the spouthern ex-provinces is so very much more important than repeating social-political experiment that already have failed in the Balkanese pressure cooker, namely Bosnia and in Kosovo, and are now just breeding the next outburst of hostilities there, due to having artifical constructions that simply do not match with ethnic, historic and cultural realities on the ground. That's what forms failed states, and in this case they are hanging on the drip of EU-organised European tax-payers. Thank you very much for headlessly wasting even just the small tax-share that also me is forced to contribute to it, Brussel.

[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!"

[XabbaRus]

Really ST I don't have time to go in for a long response now but I suggest you read your history on the region and in particular Georgia and how she has behaved towards Abkhazia and Ossetia in the past. History in this region cannot be ignored.

[HunterICX]

Simple:

NATO needs to piss off, it has nothing to look for in Georgia its none of their business.
and making them a part of the NATO is just so they can wave their angry fist at Russia.

HunterICX

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by HunterICX

and making them a part of the NATO is just so they can wave their angry fist at Russia.

Yes. I just remind of how Poland has abused the umbrella of the EU to ***** Russia with long needles and provokes them at every possible, minor opportunity. And when the bear grumbled, they yelled for help against the bad big monster biting westward again.

the thing I do not understand with Georgia is that Russia since centuries (and therefore since long before the USSR) has been the most important interational market place and trade partner for them. By making russia their enemy, they have very much crushed a major part of their own economy, and have abandoned the primary foreign market especially for their agriculture. Clever.

[Steel_Tomb]

I can't be bothered to even read the whole post.... my arguments probably not very clearly constructed as it resembles more of a rant than anything else. And a lot of that is just my personal opinion, so do with it what you like.

However, I'd like to voice my opinion on a couple of things. This is my personal opinion, it may, or may not be correct... but its my view nonetheless.
Skybird, lets take everything aside for one moment historically...

Russia to "legitimize" their "peace-keeping" *cough?* operations handed out Russian Passports to South Ossetians to make them Russia, and give them an excuse to send in the troops. Now to me, regardless of that very small minorities opinions against Georgia as a whole... its a damned cheap and ****ty tactic to use.

Its like the French handing out French Passports to the Scots... I know they don't exactly like the English much, but it doens't give them the right to start going around saying "oh oh they're XXXX citizens, lets go and get them" and medeling with internal affairs. Personally, when they started to do the same in Ukraine alarms bells started ringing for me, especially since the whole row over renewing the lease for the Sevastapol base to the Russians.

If those people DON'T like being Ukrainean/Georgian, then bugger off to RUSSIA... the fact that Russia used this fact that they were "rescueing Russian Citizens" was just, in my opinion and complete load of utter cobblers. Russia expects to be taken seriously in the international domain, when the only way they can be successful is to employ cheap, dirty tricks with their neighbours whilst undermining their independence through economic blackmail, hmm yeah... very responsible nation.

Just for the record, my comments towards Putin and his ongoing Regime were mainly for public freedoms, mainly the press. Since the Kursk Disaster (no I'm not opening that can of worms, you may breath easily) Putin, after the failures of Government and inept leaders in the military lead to them not being able to organise a piss up in a Vodka distilery lead to HUGE public outcry... In Britain, the Govenment would have its ass hung out to dry by the media and their polls would take a hammering for a few months until people forgot.

In Russia, the answer to that problem according to the oh-so democratic Putin is to crush the free press, along with freedom of speech in general and to centralise everything into state run television. Now I'm no expert on all things politics, so I won't pretend to... but that really doesn't seem wholey democratic and free for some peculiar reason.

I'm sorry, but the ongoing international attitudes of the big wigs in the Kremlin, and their internal policies mean that I have absolutely NO respect for them. They're their own worst enemy, instead of taking the fall for their mistakes; they cover up and easily remove the evidence through state run TV... its a complete farse.

/Rant

[Max2147]

This isn't about Russia, it's about GEORGIA and that little whiny punk Saakhashvili.

Georgia only wants to be in NATO so they can keep the South Ossetians and Abkhazians under their thumb. Georgia would never fight for us, they just want us to fight for them.

Remember, Georgia started the war last summer. Those who carefully analyzed Russia's troop movements said it was very clear that Russia was not planning to attack Georgia before the war broke out. Saakashvili told the United States he wanted to attack South Ossetia. The United States told him not to do it. We told him that he couldn't expect any military help from us, for obvious reasons. It would be insane for us to get into a shooting war with the Russians over Georgia.

So what happens? Saakashvili ignores our advice and attacks South Ossetia anyways. When the Russians come in and start giving him his well-deserved spanking, he whines to anybody and everybody at how horrible the US is for not coming in and fighting against the Russians, even though we'd told him before the war that we didn't want him messing with the Russians!

I don't want a country like that in NATO. If Saakashvili had been in NATO last summer he would have invoked Article 5 and could have started World War III, all because his Napoleonic ego can't tolerate the South Ossetians being free. Do you want American soldiers fighting and dying for somebody like that?

[Skybird]

ST,

There were at least two long threads about Georgia back in last august and september, and I said everything I have to say on it back then, and then several times. The way you paint the story is very one-sided, and it was painted like that in August as well before the whole isue back then became very personal, too. We meanwhile learned that the story has quite some more faces and complexity than you maybe are aware of. Georgia in no way is the poor innocent victim here. And regarding the outbreak of the war, it clearly is the agressor. but the history of provoking the Russians leads even long before that - as does the history of Georgias brutal and often lethal supression of the ethnic majorities in Ossetia and Abhazia.

However, I refer to those pages-long threads and what I said back then, and I refer to that link to a very long essay with a very interesting political and military analysis that I posted back then. It all can be find via the search-button, I assume.

If it is of any satisfaction for you, both provinces are pains in the Russian's lower bottom, they have been anything but stable administrative constructions before, and since last summer have turned into extreme corrupt parasites with organised criminal clans in command and a lot of corruption sucking Russian blood (=money). The Russians, though sticking with the policy of accepting their independance and accepting protective guarantees for them, will not have much joy with them - not now and not in the future.

[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.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thats the NATO arrogance I mean. Russia must back down. Russia must agree to this. Russia must do that. Russia should shut up if NATO does what it wants. Russia should not complain if NATO does not stand by it'S promises, and have betrayed the Russians big time several times since 1989. Russia should believe all the lies it has been told in the past 20 years, and should act to it's own disadvantage.

No wonder that they are so very much pissed. I wonder that they kept their patience for so long.

NATO has to back down in the Caucasean region, and regarding Ukraine as well. Both are not it's damn business. And to demand the russians to damage themselves and act against their vital interests, is utmost hypocritical.

What country is next after Georgia to enter NATO? Looking on the map, Iran, maybe? Hell, that brings up the thought if maybe Natonising Georgia is not about Georgia at all, but containing Iran...? Anyhow, with Georgia you already have entered the orient, and left Europe behind. Quite some distance ot the north Atlantic. Afghanistan next? We could try to establish a cordon of NATO countries around China as well, while we are at it. Tiflis is closer to the Chinese region of Xinjiang Uygur Zizhiqu than it is to NATO headquarters in Brussels.

Some things any nation could not accept if being serious about strategical key interests. It is so very much silly to provoke Russia over the Caucasean region, and risking conflicts when there is nothing to gain that is worth the risk. You could as well imagine Mexico to become a strong associate of the Russians and being turned into a military base to dam the US's influence to the south. It would be nuts, irresponsible, arrogant and ignorant of reality. The diplomatic price that is to be payed for this constant attempt to become dominant in the Caucasean region is much, much too high for NATO, and especially the US, they need Russia'S good will on a whole list of much more important issues. The conflict in the Caucasean has consequences for all the southern-south-western ex-provinces of the former USSR, and Russia cannot afford to show weakness in these if it does not want to get pushed back by revolts and demographic processes there. The Islamic question also plays a role.

Leave it to the Russians and wish them good luck and be thankful if they can manage to maintain stability there. Help them by isoltating Shaakashvili, and forcing him to give up power and politics. Hell, I even accept to assassinate him, for their are more important things at stake than just this gangaster's personal life. having stable conditions in the Caucasean region and the spouthern ex-provinces is so very much more important than repeating social-political experiment that already have failed in the Balkanese pressure cooker, namely Bosnia and in Kosovo, and are now just breeding the next outburst of hostilities there, due to having artifical constructions that simply do not match with ethnic, historic and cultural realities on the ground. That's what forms failed states, and in this case they are hanging on the drip of EU-organised European tax-payers. Thank you very much for headlessly wasting even just the small tax-share that also me is forced to contribute to it, Brussel.

Help Russia? what? maybe we should start helping Iran terrorizing their surrounding areas as well, yes?

Reality check, big time. Russia != western style democracy based on human rights. Don't pull a Schröder here. These guys play their own power gambles on the backs of both NATO and their surrounding Nations. And now you come catering them on the basis of chauvisnism and nationalism? You clearly don't understand the concepts of human rights, Skybird. If you want and support nationalistic "realpolitik" based on a very shady concept of a "sphere of influence", you automaticly give those up.

Also, you should be very, very careful with your appliance of the word arrogance. NATO is not moving towards these countries, telling them "hey, you wanne join us?". These countries make that move first, and no country has the right to interfere with this descision. What is Arrogance? Is Nato arrogant by answering a call, or Is Russia arrogant by denying souvereign nations what they consider beeing in their national insterest, especially considering Russias past and how this country treated it's neighbours and vasalle states? Do I have to remind you of the millions of dead cuased by Russia? Is Russia excused and it's neighbours at fault for their suspiciouns here? Russia could very well join NATO itself if it feels threatend. It does not do so because Russia has superpower ambitions of itself and has no interest in joining the principles upon which NATO was founded. That is no excuse to bully other nations, neither by the Russians themselves nor naybody juping to their defense.

I have no idea what gives you the idea Russia deserves any respectful treatment unless they actually prove their worth in resolving international issues and their fair treatment of it's neighbours. If that is arrogant, then it's also arrogant to expect criminals to change their ways and stop beating up people just because they have a big stick. Just because its a big country with nukes I see "zero" reason to leave their surrounding countries to their fate for Russia to do whatever they want with them. And with your stances, it's no wonder much more important countries like Poland grow ever more weary of Germany and it's hypocritic stances.

But the argument that NATO broke promises is reason enough for you to give Russia a free hand to do and demand whatever it wants in eastern Europe and Asia, do I understand you right, yes?

Give me one, only one logical reason without compromising our principles that speaks for supporting Russia "against" other countires, some of them way more respectable then Russia will ever be. We are not here to play soft on bullies just because it's more convinient or because Russia could feel oh so "offended".

[Skybird]

Fact is that since cheney at the latest the US has openly followed a policy of aggressively encircling and "containing" Russia, for various reasons that have more to do with american geostrategical interests than Russian threats towards Poland, the Baltic, or anything.

Fact is that Saakashvili started the war against Russia, wanting to make hay at the end of manouver days of his army. He also was the first ordering the intentional bombardement of civilian quarters during the first night, both actions caught the Russians by surprise, although they just had held manouvers on their side of the border as well.

Fact is that Georgia is not any more democratic than russia is, and that Medwedew over the past months shows small signs of emancipating himself from Putin. that does not make russia a western style demcoarcy, and I do not even care much for that. A controllable, governable, stable russia with the military in a stably condition and not in danger of revolting is far more important for me. As I said two days ago: stability, predictabliy, reliability - that must be the West's priorities regarding both russia, and the Caucasus.

That you mentioned yourself that Russia could join NATO if it wants, just shows me how very much off-realitiy in the general assessement of these issues you are. you lack the ability to put yourself in the other side'S seat and see it from their perspective, and that for whatever a reason you are detemrined to see NATO in a very onse-sided, glorifying light. But in lack of a realistic vision and self-definition replacing the selfunderstandinf during the cold war, NATO just has turned into a megalomianic, thinking of itself as a deputy policeman to the american global sheriff. The result is the aggressive encircling of russia as well as China with dozens of new military bases, spyposts and tripwires, and trying to make countries bordering these two nations NATO and EU- members in case of Russia, and at least pro Wetsenr military platforms for future operations in case of China. The Iraq war also must be seen in this light - and Georgia, too. It was an american-launched project trying to push it into NATO, not a european one, and the same with the Ukraine. and thankfully Germany was the most prominent nation blocking them to be put onto the MAP-list. If Georgia would not have been given so promising signlas from Washington, maybe this criminal Georgian tyrant would not have dared to commit the folly of last summer.

Right now while we speak he lets his police once again beating up the democratic opposition in his country, and Tiblis.

That country is nothing but trouble, and holds the potential to eventually put the whole region into flames, and allowed to castrate itself of the better part of it'S economy and markets aborad - which lied in Russia. Stupid it is, and dangerous. Only a fool would wish to have them inside NATO, especially if the price is further detoriation of relations with Russia although their good will is so massively needed in various global issues that are so much more important than Georgia will ever be. You might find it cold-minded by me, but Iran and North Korea, future wars - or avpoding these - for energy and ressources I rate as multiple times more important than Georgia, and wanting to bring the benfit of superior Western culture to the rest of the world and making a prifit of that for ourselves, we should leave to where it belings: the era of colonialism. It produced plenty of failed states who now, in our present time, boomerang on us.

And btw, nowhere I ever said we should be intimidated and play soft on russia because it bullies us or others. I just said that the things you propose are not the strategic top priorities for us and are not our top interests, and that other interests, those that I listed, should be given much higher priority. If they would threaten the Baltic or Poland, I would be all for confronting them head on and draw a line in the sand. It's just that - despite hysteric claims from these countries that are motivated by desires for historic revanchism, they did not do that since 1989, and said loud and clear they accept the borders set by these countries. It has been NATO who repeatedly ignored it's former promises that it would not move more and more towards Russian borders, and did not stand by it's words. That the Russians do not believe NATO promises anymore, is fully understandable, I would not do either - only a fool would do, after having been burned several times.

For Georgia, my recommendation would be: give the Russian's Saakashvili's head, it is no loss at all for you, and they will not negotiate over anything as long as he is there. Find a state of block-free neutrality, with trade relations once again opened to Russia, since oyu depend on that short range to it''s market, and europe as well. Stay away from joining NATO or the EU, play the game like the Fins or Swedes did. that way you can get the best of both worlds: peace with Russia, access to it'S agricultural market, and making profit from trade with the EU. You have blood on your hands with the supression of the ethnic majorities in Ossetia and Abhkazia, so forget them, let the issue rest and feel lucky that you are allowed to get away with your murderous record for free. You have no moral argument to make that would allow you to claim these provinces for yourself again. And to your joy, the Russians financially take more misery than pleasure from both places.

Fact foremost is, that Geogie for you is a means of justification for Russias actions as a whole. You are completly focussed on the political gambles of a man with nothing to lose, neglecting the history of Georgia and Russia in the years before.

Fact also is, that the wrongdoings of this person for you automaticly means an absolution of Russia in all it's facettes. Nobody denies Georgias problematic stances and actions. But this this discussion was not about Geogia, but NATO's involvement in the regions around Russia in general.

The Fact remains, that no country in this region was "asked" to join NATO, not even by Cheney.

That you mentioned yourself that Russia could join NATO if it wants, just shows me how very much off-realitiy in the general assessement of these issues you are. you lack the ability to put yourself in the other side'S seat and see it from their perspective, and that for whatever a reason you are detemrined to see NATO in a very onse-sided, glorifying light. But in lack of a realistic vision and self-definition replacing the selfunderstandinf during the cold war, NATO just has turned into a megalomianic, thinking of itself as a deputy policeman to the american global sheriff. The result is the aggressive encircling of russia as well as China with dozens of new military bases, spyposts and tripwires, and trying to make countries bordering these two nations NATO and EU- members in case of Russia, and at least pro Wetsenr military platforms for future operations in case of China. The Iraq war also must be seen in this light - and Georgia, too. It was an american-launched project trying to push it into NATO, not a european one, and the same with the Ukraine. and thankfully Germany was the most prominent nation blocking them to be put onto the MAP-list. If Georgia would not have been given so promising signlas from Washington, maybe this criminal Georgian tyrant would not have dared to commit the folly of last summer.

Wrong. I do see the other side. I also understand Russias actions. Most of it stems from hurt pride from the Jelzin years and the feeling of entitelment to be a World Power.

With, and I can only repeat that, the economy the size of any average european country.

What I do not do is making the crucial mistake of equalizing "understanding" with "exculpating". I am not a relativist. I actually believe in the values and principles the western world have developed since the ages of enlightment. And there simply are no substitutes. Tolerance goes as far as it starts to hurt others, and Russia has gone far beyond that, including the years since Jelzin died. There is a reason these countries around Russia, even the more questionable ones, are trying to get into NATO. Ever thought about why that may be, Skybird? Why these countries have no interest of sticking to Russia? That this geogian president even riks a war with Russia to get into NATO? That Ossetia and Abhazia will be granted freedom and independence from the georgians AND the russians? Because Russia was interested in stable democracies in it's "sphere of influence" and activly helped building these up? Because NATO is known for the ruthless subjugating of it's members like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact? Or maybe because every country down there knows that Russia has morphed into a shining beacon of freedom and civilisation? Or maybe you believe all the countries around Russia are led by egomaniacs having fun in pissing of Russia just for funs sake?

I do not think so.

And about NATO, it all boils down to this, NATO is not threatening Russia, it just ignores it. And Russia is pissed at that because it wants to be treated as more then it is. Big mouth, no substance.

And btw, nowhere I ever said we should be intimidated and play soft on russia because it bullies us or others. I just said that the things you propose are not the strategic top priorities for us and are not our top interests, and that other interests, those that I listed, should be given much higher priority. If they would threaten the Baltic or Poland, I would be all for confronting them head on and draw a line in the sand. It's just that - despite hysteric claims from these countries that are motivated by desires for historic revanchism, they did not do that since 1989, and said loud and clear they accept the borders set by these countries. It has been NATO who repeatedly ignored it's former promises that it would not move more and more towards Russian borders, and did not stand by it's words. That the Russians do not believe NATO promises anymore, is fully understandable, I would not do either - only a fool would do, after having been burned several times.

For the last 50 years, from Vietnam onwards, the US has not been any better then Russia. Same bullying, same subjugating, same toppling of democratic governments for dictators when these were in favor of the US economy. The US has fallen from beeing a role model a long time ago. But NATO is not just the US. As you already said, the Euroepans are part of this too, with a certain say in things. Which makes NATO more then just a strategic tool for US foreign politics.

And going back to Saakashvili, what do you think may have triggered his actions and the radicalisation of this country? Sometimes it pays off taking a look under the sheets and look at Georgias history since it's independance from the USSR.
Letting Russia do with Georgia whatever it wants may please those that can't stand Saakashvili, but it certainly does no justice whatsoever to the georgian people. This man has to be punished, I am with you right there, but not over the course of russian power politics and certainly not on the back of the georgian people. At the moment the West is pissed at Saakashvili because it feels tricked. But beeing pissed means lacking objective judgement.

IF Geogia wants to join NATO or not is up to this country to decide. I agree it may not be the smartest move, but if it wants to, it is not up to Russia to have a say in the descision making of another country.

And just for the record, the same applies to the US and NATO in general.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

Fact foremost is, that Geogie for you is a means of justification for Russias actions as a whole. You are completly focussed on the political gambles of a man with nothing to lose, neglecting the history of Georgia and Russia in the years before.

Fact also is, that the wrongdoings of this person for you automaticly means an absolution of Russia in all it's facettes. Nobody denies Georgias problematic stances and actions. But this this discussion was not about Geogia, but NATO's involvement in the regions around Russia in general.

That is wrong, and I think you know it. You want to prevent any complexity and differentiated view of these matters. But neither is this world perfect, nor are we in a position to adress all and everytjhing to our liking. Our options are limited, so is our power. We have to set priorities, basing on the importance of issues, and we have to balance the question of what should be done, ideally, against what actually could be done. And we must be aware of the old saying that he wants to defend everywhewre, eaisly in the end looses everything. Some centres of gravity are more important to us than others, some affect us more, some less. We cannot handle them all simultaneously. We need to focus on what we realistically can do on issues that are of importance to us. And Georgia is not important for us.

At all. It only means trouble for us, without any compensation. It will not become all a better place just becasue saakashvili leaves or eventuzally gets shot. And the Russians still will consider the place as far more important ot their interests, than we by any means can call it important to our security interests. A wise man picks his fights carefully, and this is no fight worth to be picked. This is juszt Western haughtiness and another attempt to bully the Russians into the corner, like it was done repeatedly since the end of the USSR, namnely in case of NATO'S eastern expansion that was undertaken in parts against guarantees given to the Russians that one would not do so if the Russians leave those places into neutrality, and regarding various issues on the Balkans, and again Kosovo. Add to it the one-sided cancelling of various military treaties by Bush, and the establishing of a far-reaching radar installation relatively close to the russian western border. Try to imagien what Washington would thinik if Russia tries to build a LR radar station 100 km away of the Canadian or Mexican border, with electronics so complex that a lot os spy stuff leading far beyond radar also can be hidden in that site.

That I am against Georgia just coincides with my remarks regarding Russia. I would say the same about Russia with Georgia listed on the map. To say that the first is my excuse to argue in favour of the latter in general, is wrong. I just reserve the right to see it from their side, too, and I say there anger can be explained and fully understood, for it is to prominent parts (though not completely) caused by Western and very dishonest actions.

And one thing: most nations on this planet are run by criminal gangs and brutal tyrants. And Russia is in no way the worst tyranny there is. compared to most other places, it ranks amongst quite some stable pßlace of civilisation. It does not reflect Wetsern understanding of justice and demcoarcy. But I seriously doubt that it could be run and held together by copying wetsern models that emerged in the envrionemtn of not russian conditions, but Western conditions. Russia is not the West, nor is it a Western democracy. Russia is Russia, a category of its own.

And a lesson from chess: you cannot beat your opponent, if you reject to think yourself into his seat. Because then you cannot judge when the right time to go onto the offensive has come. You go too early, and face a mess you are not prepared to handle. you go too late, and go second and lose. and like it or not, but global poltiics is like chess, and some squares are more important than others, nevertheless the whole board needs to be constantly monitored.

The Fact remains, that no country in this region was "asked" to join NATO, not even by Cheney.

Put that way, that is almost wrong. Washington has sent very offensive and encouraging signals to several countries of strategic interest for it to orient their expectations towards becoming members of NATO and/or EU in the near future, and best as soon as possible. If Washington would have had it'S way, Georgia already would be set on the MAP list, or may even be member, like they also openly propagate Turkey'S membership in the EU. Washington never was shy (like London), to sow split and unrest into european unity and deciison making, becoming stronger in relation by weakkjening europe, and by pushing NATO towards the East aggressively.

Wrong. I do see the other side. I also understand Russias actions. Most of it stems from hurt pride from the Jelzin years and the feeling of entitelment to be a World Power.

Yes, it is also about damaged pride. but that pride only in parts is damaged due to the loss of status after the USSR broke down. Being played against the wall and betrayed several times by the West because NATO felt itself like a winner of a cold war with a right to show off and not needing to care for other factions sentiments anymore, also has something to do with it. - My God, some theatreplay and stage acting, that is what diplomacy is about, if they want their golden shoulder pads during a diplomatic meeting, and feel better than, hell, then give them to them, it is a cheap deal for us, that gives us much more in return. Some Chinese skill for soft power and silent victory would serve us very well. we must not brag and show off at every opportunity, consntly claiming how great and wonderful we are. That'S just sh!t from our egos. But it makes us new enemies in the real world. Nobody wants to have a guy in his neighbourhood who constantly lectures his neighbours that he is better than anyone else. Even more so when that claim is not justified. And the state our "democracies" are in, where no longer elected politicans but lobbies have the real power, does not justify our haughty attitude, too.

What I do not do is making the crucial mistake of equalizing "understanding" with "exculpating". I am not a relativist. I actually believe in the values and principles the western world have developed since the ages of enlightment. And there simply are no substitutes. Tolerance goes as far as it starts to hurt others, and Russia has gone far beyond that, including the years since Jelzin died. There is a reason these countries around Russia, even the more questionable ones, are trying to get into NATO. Ever thought about why that may be, Skybird? Why these countries have no interest of sticking to Russia? That this geogian president even riks a war with Russia to get into NATO? That Ossetia and Abhazia will be granted freedom and independence from the georgians AND the russians? Because Russia was interested in stable democracies in it's "sphere of influence" and activly helped building these up? Because NATO is known for the ruthless subjugating of it's members like the USSR did with the Warsaw Pact? Or maybe because every country down there knows that Russia has morphed into a shining beacon of freedom and civilisation? Or maybe you believe all the countries around Russia are led by egomaniacs having fun in pissing of Russia just for funs sake?

You can claim superior values and morals like you want, and maybe I would even agree on that (just switch over to a debate on Islam, and I would). But different to you I see the difference between the ideal world of an utopia, how it should be, and the imperfect reality: like it really is. I said it above: the world is not perfect, our options and ressources are limited, we cannot hope to fight everyhwere where our values make us think we should, we need to set priorities therefore. and these must be based on the priorities of vital interests to us, and then balancing this against bad things happening and prioritizing these as well: where can we do something indeed and make a difefrence, and what evil taking place is worse than others. We have failed to create lasting solutions on the Balkan, although having had the best of intentions. We have created many failed states during colonialism when we also thought we are superior in civilisation and must bring our culture to other places. We now are under attack by many of our Frankenstein-creations. Our democracies have been eroded by lobbyism and materialism, and as a matter of fact have been turned into oligarcjies and plutcarcies not that much different to some of those regimes we critice abroad. We have engaged in relativising our own values by acts of undiscriminatory "tolerance" - by that appeasing cultures that do not tolerate us in return. I often said I see a huge gap between how america was meant to be by the explanations of the founding fathers, and the reality today. But I see a comparable gap between what idealsitically, in your claims, europe should be, and what it really is.

And all this adds to the didfficulty that our powers are limited, our options are few, and that we need to set pragmatic priorities.


I do not think so.

And about NATO, it all boils down to this, NATO is not threatening Russia, it just ignores it.

That ignorration is offending indeed, but different to your claim it also results in a threat to vital russian interests that no nation in their place could afford to just ignore.

And Russia is pissed at that because it wants to be treated as more then it is. Big mouth, no substance.

That also in parts is true, but it is not the full truth, but just stereotyoing that comes in form of a handy slogan. Again, you are right in parts, but you do not cover the full spectrum of realities here.

For the last 50 years, from Vietnam onwards, the US has not been any better then Russia. Same bullying, same subjugating, same toppling of democratic governments for dictators when these were in favor of the US economy. The US has fallen from beeing a role model a long time ago. But NATO is not just the US. As you already said, the Euroepans are part of this too, with a certain say in things. Which makes NATO more then just a strategic tool for US foreign politics.

there can be no doubt that NATO is under very strong american dominance, and always has been. In parts that is due to american desire, in parts that is due to european inability to chnage that. And during the cold war, it even hzas been a comfortable arrangement.but after the cold war Washington wanted to turn NATO into a global actor to support american (military) interest enforcing. Nowhere that is as clear as with regard to Afghnaistan and how Washington slwoly lruked NATO into a war that originally was an american war, with NATO help explicitly rejected by Washington. NATOP nopw should become a tool to help Washington containing and encircling Russia, and also China. That is part of what the internal row over Georgia (Berlin versus Washington) is also about.

And going back to Saakashvili, what do you think may have triggered his actions and the radicalisation of this country? Sometimes it pays off taking a look under the sheets and look at Georgias history since it's independance from the USSR.
Letting Russia do with Georgia whatever it wants may please those that can't stand Saakashvili, but it certainly does no justice whatsoever to the georgian people. This man has to be punished, I am with you right there, but not over the course of russian power politics and certainly not on the back of the georgian people. At the moment the West is pissed at Saakashvili because it feels tricked. But beeing pissed means lacking objective judgement.

See comments above, and also my reference to comments on Georgian history in the USSR from last summer. i would be agauinst Georgia even with no Saakashvili ever been born. Since it 'S declaration of independance it was just another autoritarian, oppressive regime (even before Saakashvili, brutally supressing the ethnic majorities min those two provinces that now do not wish to have anything to do with the Georgians anymore. you are right, there is a longer history behind the conflict. I am just wondering if you are aware of it's full scale. We talk of centuries here.

IF Geogia wants to join NATO or not is up to this country to decide.

And it is up to us if we accept that question, or not. Geogia has no right whatever to demand that we must meet their request. Nobody has. We have a right to say No. we also have a right to say no to Turkey, for the same reason. and if membership of an interested party is not in the aloliancess interest, we should say No. even more we have a right to do so when the candidate culturally does not belong to Europe (turkey-EU), or lies not in europe (Marocco, Lybia), or is (as I would define it in lack of any reform of NATO selfunderstanding since the cold war) located "out of area" regarding NATO'S core theatre of interest, and is of no real interest to NATO's concerns at all. Candidates should not just be burdens. They also should add and contribute something, and they should have made their homeworks before membership, not vaguely promising to change themseves after having become members.

That Georgia wants something, in no way is any form of obligation for us.

I agree it may not be the smartest move, but if it wants to, it is not up to Russia to have a say in the descision making of another country.

Absolutely true. But is it wise to start rumbling with them over something that is of so little interest for us like Georgia? I don't think so. I think it is simply silly. Let's save our energy for the fights that are worth to be fought. This one is none of them - but for Russia it is too important as if they could afford to just pull back. that may not meet your call for absolute ideals, but it is Realpolitik on the basis of our limited options. You do not spit into the hand you need for help on different occasions, and letting the Russians feel like Operettengeneräle if it pleases them, costs us nothing. So - we really can afford to stand above that.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by Bewolf

IF Geogia wants to join NATO or not is up to this country to decide. I agree it may not be the smartest move, but if it wants to, it is not up to Russia to have a say in the descision making of another country.

And just for the record, the same applies to the US and NATO in general.

You're right, it's not up to Russia whether Georgia should be in NATO. There are plenty of other reasons for NATO to reject Georgia.

NATO requires that every country in the alliance have internationally recognized stable borders. Georgia doesn't have that.

Remember, there's no legitimate reason for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be in Georgia. They were only put there because Stalin added them to Georgia in the early days of the Soviet Union. It's worth noting that Stalin, like several of his top henchmen including Beria, was Georgian. Such wonderful people come out of that country....

I'm not pretending that Russia is some angelic good guy here. They're not. But Russia being a bad guy doesn't make Georgia a good guy. When it comes to things like democracy and human rights, Georgia is worse than Russia. Putin, for all his faults, is legitimately popular in Russia. They don't rig the votes because they don't have to.

I'm no fan of political harassment and intimidation, but at least Putin's people have a sense of humor about it:

Originally Posted by Max2147

You're right, it's not up to Russia whether Georgia should be in NATO. There are plenty of other reasons for NATO to reject Georgia.

NATO requires that every country in the alliance have internationally recognized stable borders. Georgia doesn't have that.

Remember, there's no legitimate reason for South Ossetia and Abkhazia to be in Georgia. They were only put there because Stalin added them to Georgia in the early days of the Soviet Union. It's worth noting that Stalin, like several of his top henchmen including Beria, was Georgian. Such wonderful people come out of that country....

I'm not pretending that Russia is some angelic good guy here. They're not. But Russia being a bad guy doesn't make Georgia a good guy. When it comes to things like democracy and human rights, Georgia is worse than Russia. Putin, for all his faults, is legitimately popular in Russia. They don't rig the votes because they don't have to.

I'm no fan of political harassment and intimidation, but at least Putin's people have a sense of humor about it:

Wrong topic. I am attacking Russia, not defending Georgia. In that way I agree with your stance.

More on that and a response to Skybird later.