Merkel "Georgia will become a member of Nato"

[sergbuto]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Like if it werent the case before. All I see is wishful thinking from old farts who never woke up from the cold war era and who are having a hard one when thinking about nukes.
I bet in 2 months most normal people will have forgotten Georgia's position on the worldmap, Russia will still sell gas and oil to Europe as before and the Russian billionaires will still enjoy watching the premier league... and driving brand new hummers

It is so true both about old farts and Russian billionaries.

[1480]

Originally Posted by Mikhayl

Like if it werent the case before. All I see is wishful thinking from old farts who never woke up from the cold war era and who are having a hard one when thinking about nukes.
I bet in 2 months most normal people will have forgotten Georgia's position on the worldmap, Russia will still sell gas and oil to Europe as before and the Russian billionaires will still enjoy watching the premier league... and driving brand new hummers

I like interlocution ("wishful thinking") and don't consider myself old (since 37 is the new 27) and am still grateful every morning when I wake up with a stiffy that was not aided by Pfizer nor dreams of tactical nukes dancing in my head.

In two months time, college football will actually keep Georgia, (Bulldogs that is) fresh in everyones mind as they are likely to contend for the national championship. As for the one with the funny alphabet, we may forget that it ever existed, since it won't be there.

And finally, those sturgeon egg eating, birchwood self-flagellating, spinner wheels on the hummers having, capitalistic pigs will be watching the Chicago Cubs win the world series, since it only happens once a century! :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

But the thing you're missing here is Russia is powerless to stop any of these countries from joining NATO or pursuing their own national interests anyway.

Short of invasion, no nation has the "power" to stop other countries from exercising their sovereignty.
What any nation can do, however, is to make disliked decisions from other nations as painful for them as possible.

Forgive them for being sovereign nations if you will.

I forgive them. I bet even Putin and V whatever does (it really says a lot about who's really in power when we all remember Putin but not that V-guy ).
But that means they have to understand that they are b/w two power hubs (albeit one stronger than the other, but the weak one holds a great key).

Russia has...or had two choices. Try and foster relationships that move away from hostile intent, or take the hostile approach and hope they cower. Looks like Putin tried the brute force method and didn't realize he's not so influential after all.

I won't repeat the "early in the game stuff".

He's lost everything he's tried to guard against. And helped to push NATO further in his direction. And a missile defense system to go with it.

For these, at the very worst, he failed to stop what we both agree was coming anyway. Not exactly a huge failure.

They're pushing back with a vengeance now, whereas before it wasn't so direct or confrontational. NATO as a whole is only happy to comply by bringing in more friendly states to the alliance as well. Putin simply stands as the loser.

You've been running on this theme for a bit now.

He guessed wrong/stupidly.

Moved for appropriateness as a conclusion.
Umm, you'll have to decide here about your thesis, because these two are separate concepts. It is even possible to be right but still stupid.
We both agree that given that the countries are joining NATO, their attitude is worth fighting for. But what kind of attitude?
You suggest that Russia continue its appeasement policy. But that doesn't gain Russia anything, based on historical evidence. They just suck cheap gas (and call you mean when you dare to charge them regular price...), join NATO, build a TMD that is very obviously anti-Russia (they are installing Patriots in Poland to defend against missiles coming from Iran... how obvious can you get). They might do it with a smile, but that's cold comfort.
Now, they ended their appeasement policy. You claim that it is a loss because they are joining NATO faster. But since they were doing it anyway, it's not much of a loss.
What had changed, as you've pointed out, is mindset. You are saying they do this because they are wary of Russia. But put another way, the place of Russia in their hearts had just increased. Every decision will have to be made taking the Russians more into account, and it'll manifest in different ways.
What the Russians will do is continue to slowly, staying under the thereshold of NATO retaliation, continue to rock the boat, degrading NATO's credibility and working the fear in the minds of those former WP nations.
If in the end, everyone joins NATO, but at every decision, Poland and Co have to worry seriously about Russia, then Russia arguably has more influence than if they join NATO, emptily claim Russia as a friend, and then vote with no further regard to Russia. Much better than a non-voting, listen-only seat! And if even one of them gets pried loose, all the better.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...572973,00.html

Learning from Kennedy

By Gabor Steingart

These days Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is often compared -- unfairly -- with Stalin and Hitler. In truth, Putin is a Russian Kennedy. And Putin's Cuba is called Georgia.
Russia's invasion of Georgia has brought lovers of historical comparisons out of the woodwork. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, for one, compared Vladimir Putin with Hitler. And former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt reminded of Stalin's treatment of Finland.

But these analogies have more to say about the West's mood than about Putin. Although it may sound bold at first, and although the Americans won't like hearing it, the Vladimir Putin the world has experienced in recent days bears the strongest resemblance to former US President John F. Kennedy in the years 1961 and 1962.

First, the youthful Kennedy was seen as the embodiment of a new America, just as the wiry Putin represents Russia's revival. Kennedy was and Putin is deeply popular among his own citizens.

Second, even Kennedy drew a distinction between first-class and second-class sovereign states. He assumed that residents of the main house ought to have something to say in the backyard, as in Cuba, for example. Putin shares the same view, in the case of Georgia, for example. In America's case we call such behavior dominant, and in Russia's case aggressive. But we mean the same thing.

Third, thinking in terms of spheres of influence had military consequences for Kennedy, as it does for Putin. In Cuba, Kennedy even took things a step further than the Russian prime minister has done in Georgia. In April 1961, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supported the landing of Cuban exiles in Playa Girón on Cuba's Bay of Pigs. Kennedy wanted to bring about regime change in Havana by force, a step Putin stopped short of in Georgia. Nevertheless, his desire to evict the Georgian president from the seat of government was undoubtedly as great as Kennedy's interest in overthrowing Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

The effort to bring about regime change in Havana failed, but Kennedy refused to recognized Cuba's sovereignty. When the Soviet Union began stationing nuclear warheads in Cuba, the US president threatened war. In October 1962, the world held its breath until Russia recognized America's claim to its own backyard and then Premier Nikita Khrushchev, on Sunday, Oct. 28, ordered the withdrawal of the missiles.

Now US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her president, George W. Bush, say that other laws apply today than in the 20th century. It sounds plausible, but it isn't true, as is clearly evident in the case of Cuba.

America still treats the Caribbean island, with its Stone Age communism, as a public enemy. American citizens can neither visit Cuba, a country with a gross domestic product a fraction the size of the US's, nor can they trade with it. Cuban cigars are considered contraband, and any American who smokes them is regarded as an enemy of state.

But the comforting message for Russians and Americans alike is this: The two nations are not as different as they would like to think. They think similarly, they act similarly and they even speak the same language -- namely that of power politics.
Europe's task is to prevent the current situation from escalating. At the present time, NATO expansion into Russia's front yard does not increase security -- it merely serves to heighten tensions in Europe. The Cuba crisis was followed by another 10 years of Cold War before a policy of détente came to prevail. Perhaps that road can be shortened this time around.

And what happens to Georgia? Respecting Russia's interests doesn't mean betraying democracy. Georgia's national integrity is not up for debate, but it would do the country good to tone down its pro-American rhetoric a bit.

A look to the Caribbean can also be comforting for the Georgian president. Kennedy is dead, but communism lives on.

The author compares, for the sake of talking about Kennedy, to cuba only, but one also has to refer to the US's willingness to totally ignore the sovereignity and territorial integrity of serbia during the Kosovo issue, as well as the violation of international law when the Us launched a war of attack against Iraq, and the total ignorration of even most basic legal standards and even minimal basic rights in guantanamo. In a deal with the devil, the US has sold away it'S moral authority, and thus is not in any position to lecture others about these - when they in fact follow the precedent set by the US. The US is guilty of the charges it accuses Russia of - this is a blowback of the failed neocon's policies one thought one could evade in the future with nationalistic rethoric. As one BBC reader put it at their comments page today: As an American I feel embarrassed to hear my government talking about territorial integrity.

The ironic thing is, that exactly htis setting of bad precedents that would be followed by others, has been predicted by many people in 2003, and after that. They were laughed at, and were waved off. and today? Putin and Medwedew are forming a formidable couple to govern in perfect division of labour, and what is interpreted as Medwedew being a puppet, to me appears as the youngster participating from the superior experience of his older mentor. NATO yesterday was able only to show up with the absolut and total minimum of what was to be expected in reaction, and proves that it is a papertiger only, divided and weakened as it already presents itself in Afghanistan. the effect yesterday's meeting caused, runs out with getsures meaning not much to russia, and angry appeals the Kremlin will only listen to if by chance they match with their own intentions. I got the impression that the desperate attempts of some forum members yesterday and before, to reverse the facts and try to display russia as hurting itself, and being the loser in this, only is an irrational last stand to defend an off-reality-state of mind that allows to carry on to laugh about others, and feel oneself like the glorious knight of shining justice, no need to think about and question oneself a bit. Denial of reality, it is called.

What is to be expected? russia cannot afford to return to the cold war in military terms, it'S economy, basing on exporting energy, cannot support such a huge arms program as america is running it. but we will eventually see a return to the cold war's language and diplomatic rituals for some time to come. The US needs russia for several international crisis, namely Iran, and europe needs Russia as distributor of energy. Also, I personally doubt that russia ever had any inention to return to the old status of the Warsaw Pact time and plans to invade one country at a time. That is paranoic and pro-Western nationalistic nonsens to demonise an opponent who proved to have outthought the west over Georgia.

What'S more, Russia has a huge potential to destabilize the Crimean, and the Ukraine cannot risk that to happen, it could lead to major war, and that is not just a small chance. Although the Ukraine shows admirable stubborness to give in to russia'S claim for influence and wants to slip under the NATO umbrella better yesterday than today, many NATO countries will not feel enthusiastic abiut that perspective. It is a risk to get drawn into a conflict one doies not want, and the example of the Baltic countires and Poland shows that these new members almost irrationally abuse the protection of NATO to straight out old bills with russia and provoke them at every opportunity, needlessly, for no other reason than to please their historically injured egos. the same did Saakashvilli, an authoritarian autocrat whose understanding of democracy includes to supress the democratic opposition, beat up deonstrators against his political course by sending in riot police, and suporessing free radio broadcasting by abusing states of emergency for that. What fine democratic Frankenstein has the US build up again here? - we will probably see NATO ofering both countries a vague, distant perspective of NATO membership in the future, but I am sure they will not be given a timetable, moving membership into the realm of non-existence for the firseeable future that way and hoping (in vain) to evade criticism for not giving them a NATO perspective that way. the past days have not increased but drastically lowered the NATO chances of both countries. That their drive to get into NATO may increase, does not change this opposing trend in chances.

Several people in the Caucasian region probably already have understood the example lectured by russia therse days. The leczture is: "mind your own business if you want, but don't serve as a platform for western influence threatening Russia's southern flank." russia also demonstrated, that it can threaten the oiepline existing and the pipeline in planning at will. Like the US pulled out some old resultions of the UN to construct a smelling excuse why to attack Iraq withoiut UN authorization, the Russians are presenting an old treaty from the nineties that they never enforced before, but now use to legalize their right to move in regions of Georgie close to the two provinces at will. Like the US over kosovo, they claim that the wish of the people ranks higher than the right of territorial integrity of Georgia. Like the Us they demonstrated their willingness and capability to strike into a foreing country without UN authorization. Like the US broke the rules, russia does as well - and still acts with more self-restraint than the US did. Same standards for both perpetrators please - I hate double-standards and nationalistic bias. So far there has not been an Abu ghraib scandals, and no guantanamo with the Russians in Georgia. Eyewitnesses of HRW yesterday said in German Die Welt that they saw evidence that the Georgians started first with firing cluster bombs into civilian areas of Tchinvali and populated rural places, and that the Russians did not react to that until one day later. they also said that by their counts in Ossetian hospitals, not so much two thousand, but more realistically some dozen civilians were killed, and not by russians, but marauding rebels - against whom the Russians formed guarding cordons to protect villagers from them. House-seraching for the most were descriobed to have been conducted correctly, all in all. Every war has it's stories of the hellish enemy eating babies - some demonization of the Russians were spread happily by some people at this board.

What is happening now is a diplomatical aftermatch. One side yells, and the other side makes an angry face and yells back. In the end, in some month, the West will have relaised that he needs the Russian cooperation on a multitude of issues much more than the Russians need talks with NATO or mkembership in the WTO. So best advise it: let it rest so that the troubled water cna clear, any effort to enforce that just stirrs up things again - and stay the hellmout of the russians backyard, like america repeatedly have shown that it even uses military force and terror in middle America because the Us in return does not accept foreign interference in their own backyard as well. the Russians, and Putin, are not the great saints of mankind, but in no way they are the diabolic hellhounds and warmongerers as which some people try to depict them. Putin demonstrated superior strategic skills and a good sense of timing, with both he outmanouvered the West and sort of payed back a bill that the west opened with it's breaking of promises when moving towards russia's borders, the Iraq war, the balkan war, the missile shield, the Kosovo independence, and then - one step over the line too much - trying to push into russia's backyard.

[1480]

and stay the hellmout of the russians backyard, like america repeatedly have shown that it even uses military force and terror in middle America because the Us in return does not accept foreign interference in their own backyard as well.

SB, care to expound on this......

[Skybird]

Supporting and assisting and keeping in power a not short list of brutal dictators in Middle (and South) America (as well as in Africa and the Far East) for whom death squadrons, torture, massmurder were a question of good manners, in my book qualifies for a description of actively supporting terror.

Most countries of Middle America have seen direct and indirect (proxy wars) military intervention by the US. During the cold war era, and especially the 70s and 80s, it was in "defense" against the rivalling global system that confronted the american system, and for its own part it was supported and propagated by the Soviet Union. Also, these operations, sometimes leading to years of bloody civil wars, sometimes carryied the consequences of the war onto american streets (contras, drug smuggling and the help of the CIA to sell the drugs on American streets so that the Contras could pay for the weapons they got from America). And it was about backing up economical interests of US companies in the countries at questions.

A massive attempt to project influence even as far as South America, can still be seen today, though with varying success.

[Bruno Lotse]

Grenada, Panama, Costa-Rica, Kolumbia and what's that country next to Guantanamo Bay detention camp:hmm:

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.