Russia invades Georgia

[gumboot]

Do you refer to the predilection of big countries invading small countries, or the reticence of big countries to come to the aid of small countries when their rights are violated?

If it's the former, you may have a point.

If it's the latter, please feel free to band together with some other small countries and send troops in to support the Georgian people. Or are only big country's treasury and soldiers expendable?

It's both, frankly.

It's the way that no one here are talking about this as an issue about Georgia and South Ossetia. It's about Russia, the EU, and the USA. And it's the same crap you get here and around the world every time small nations gets caught between big nations, or every time big nations stick their noses into the business of small nations.

As for our support, I can't speak for other small nations but our troops are already busy helping out small nations closer to home that the big boys don't give a fig about, and trying to help fix up the mess in Afghanistan that was created (unsurprisingly) by meddling big boys.

I doubt we'd send anyone to Georgia anyway, because unlike countries like the USA and Russia we know not to stick our noses into matters that are none of our business.

I feel nothing but pity for the people of the Balkans and the Caucasus. They've been play things of the world's bullies for centuries.

 

[geni]

How much Realpolitik was the Russian idiocy in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, all the other now-independent states? Or for that matter Vietnam? Or Chechnya, which makes Vietnam look like a friendly picnic?

Eastern Europe was classic buffer state (if europe keeps invadeing you keeping some territory between you and it might seem sensible) and staying out of Chechnya caused problems with terroism.

Realpolitik is supposed to be intelligent and pragmatic, and above all successful, and trying by force to suppress national independence usually ends up in failure.

Which is why they don't really appear to be trying this time.

Honking big "raiding party", see previous point regarding preliminary raids and so on. Martel did the right thing, as far as dissuasion of Arab possible ambitions there went.

He did both in winning the battle then following it up by removing the various moorish holdings the french side of the pyrenees. Nearly managed to complete that.

 

[Texas]

Do you refer to the predilection of big countries invading small countries, or the reticence of big countries to come to the aid of small countries when their rights are violated?

If it's the former, you may have a point.

If it's the latter, please feel free to band together with some other small countries and send troops in to support the Georgian people. Or are only big country's treasury and soldiers expendable?

How about the EU? This is their part of the world. We all know the answer to that one don't we? If the US does nothing then Georgia is lost.

 

[Gurdur]

Alright we give a damn.

Who is "we" here? Just interested. I kinda am boggled by the mindless support of Russian chauvanism / expansionism by some here, but hey, I am willing to believe you give a damn. But who is the group "we" here?

Belive me we do both because war is bad for the civilians there

You a pacifist normally, or just this once?

and geopoliticaly this is not an ideal outcome (for the US and europe anyway Russia is haveing a great time and china probably not to bothered).

Actually, China is bothered by this; that was made clear earlier in this thread or another related one.

Now what do you suggest we actualy do?

Who is "we" here again? Posters on JREF? My only recommendation to posters on JREF would be not to spout Russian agitprop, or indeed agitprop from any source, or schoolboy poseur cynicism.

Or did you mean another "we"? What the hell do you mean?

And no all out nuclear war is not an option.

Certainly not! I don't believe any JREF posters have access to nuclear weapons, at least not without full Presidential authorization and double-check!

Who said nuclear war was an option? Who do you think you're talking to?

 

[gumboot]

Alright we give a damn. Belive me we do both because war is bad for the civilians there and geopoliticaly this is not an ideal outcome (for the US and europe anyway Russia is haveing a great time and china probably not to bothered). Now what do you suggest we actualy do? And no all out nuclear war is not an option.

It's too late.

The UN was the world's shining hope for an international community in which the big boys used their muscle to look after the little people instead of using their countries to fight their wars.

Within a decade the permanent members of the Security Council were fighting a war against each other over the territory of two little nations that the big boys appear to have created specifically for that purpose. When they were done destroying that spot they went and fought each other over another pair of small countries that they created. One might almost be led to believe they were using the UN for the express purpose of generating battlefields to fight each other on. Everything since has been post script.

 

[Gurdur]

Eastern Europe was classic buffer state (if europe keeps invadeing you keeping some territory between you and it might seem sensible) and staying out of Chechnya caused problems with terroism.

The Eastern Europe "buffer state" lasted only 40 years, which is bugger all, historically speaking. Utterly unsuccessful, and it caused massive resentment against the Russians, which is why all those newly independent or at least now free countries are in a rush to join NATO. A clasic example of shooting oneself in the foot.

The Russian invasion of Chechnya was what caused terrorism, not the other way round.

That "buffer state" occupation of Eastern Europe was not Realpolitik, it was instead Russian incompetent arrogance and stupidity.

 

[Gurdur]

How about the EU? This is their part of the world. We all know the answer to that one don't we? If the US does nothing then Georgia is lost.

Neither the EU nor the USA can save Georgia through military means (please put away that anti-EU prejudice for the moment, and no, I am not anti-USA, OK?).

Georgia is simply too far away from necessary supply routes; Turkey won't support any such anti-Russian military moves for fear of the consequences, and Turkey would be right. Iran we already know about. Military options are simply out.

The only way to help Georgia would be by the application of real, concrete and nasty economic sanctions immediately by both the EU and the USA; either acting unilaterally would not have very much success, both acting together would.

 

[geni]

The Eastern Europe "buffer state" lasted only 40 years, which is bugger all, historically speaking. Utterly unsuccessful, and it caused massive resentment against the Russians, which is why all those newly independent or at least now free countries are in a rush to join NATO. A clasic example of shooting oneself in the foot.

It's true that Stalin underestimated the importance of nuclear weapons (which made them unessacery in that role) but well if you are a meglomanic who has had a european army at the gates of your capital a certian amount of irrationalism (and mass killing) is to be expected.

The Russian invasion of Chechnya was what caused terrorism, not the other way round.[/quote


Doubtful. When russian forces were out of Chechnya the attacks continued. Of course this was Yeltsin's russia so not much was done about it.

That "buffer state" occupation of Eastern Europe was not Realpolitik, it was instead Russian incompetent arrogance and stupidity.

Probably stalin being extreamly nervous followed by momentum.

 

[Gurdur]

It's true that Stalin underestimated the importance of nuclear weapons (which made them unessacery in that role) but well if you are a meglomanic who has had a european army at the gates of your capital a certian amount of irrationalism (and mass killing) is to be expected.

"If you are a megalomaniac". Yes, well.

I do believe my point stands.

Doubtful. When russian forces were out of Chechnya the attacks continued. Of course this was Yeltsin's russia so not much was done about it.

Come off it. There simply wasn't any significant Chechnyian terrorism before the Russian invasion. Guess why?

Probably stalin being extreamly nervous followed by momentum.

Whatever. I do believe my point stands again.

 

[geni]

Who is "we" here? Just interested. I kinda am boggled by the mindless support of Russian chauvanism / expansionism by some here, but hey, I am willing to believe you give a damn. But who is the group "we" here?

Dunno who were you complaining about

You a pacifist normally, or just this once?

I'm british.

Who is "we" here again? Posters on JREF? My only recommendation to posters on JREF would be not to spout Russian agitprop, or indeed agitprop from any source, or schoolboy poseur cynicism.

So what do you want? Hand wringing over how bad it is for the people living there? Macho calls for large scale millitry intervention? Slateing of russia for being imperialist and agressive?

 

[geni]

Come off it. There simply wasn't any significant Chechyian terrorism before the Russian invasion. Guess why?

Define significant.

 

[geni]

How about the EU? This is their part of the world.

No it isn't. Historicaly Western europe hasn't done much in that area. Tended to be too Russian.

We all know the answer to that one don't we? If the US does nothing then Georgia is lost.

What exactly are you suggesting the US do?

 

[Gurdur]

Dunno who were you complaining about

Then why did you answer, and who the hell do you mean by "we"?

I'm british.

Congratulations. But are you a pacifist just this time or all the time?

So what do you want? Hand wringing over how bad it is for the people living there? Macho calls for large scale millitry intervention? Slateing of russia for being imperialist and agressive?

Read my reply to you again. Quoting myself:

"My only recommendation to posters on JREF would be not to spout Russian agitprop, or indeed agitprop from any source, or schoolboy poseur cynicism."

Also read my reply to Texas just above.

 

[gdnp]

Neither the EU nor the USA can save Georgia through military means (please put away that anti-EU prejudice for the moment, and no, I am not anti-USA, OK?).

Bah. You don't think US air power, with all their precision-guided armament, could stop the Russian tanks?

What stops US or EU intervention is not the inability to "save Georgia through military means" but the desire to avoid all-out war with Russia. It would be too costly, too risky of further escalation, and the west needs their gas and oil.

The only way to help Georgia would be by the application of real, concrete and nasty economic sanctions immediately by both the EU and the USA; either acting unilaterally would not have very much success, both acting together would.

Not as long as Russia has the gas and oil. We wouldn't dare.

 

[Gurdur]

No it isn't. Historicaly Western europe hasn't done much in that area. Tended to be too Russian.

Well, hey, apart from the British invasion of Persia; the British military help to the White armies in Azebaijan and elsewhere in the region, 1918-1923; the British promises to the Kurds, defaulted upon after 1919, and of course the British role in toppling Mossadegh in Iran much later; etc..

Not done much? Really?

 

[Texas]

Neither the EU nor the USA can save Georgia through military means (please put away that anti-EU prejudice for the moment, and no, I am not anti-USA, OK?).

Georgia is simply too far away from necessary supply routes; Turkey won't support any such anti-Russian military moves for fear of the consequences, and Turkey would be right. Iran we already know about. Military options are simply out.

The only way to help Georgia would be by the application of real, concrete and nasty economic sanctions immediately by both the EU and the USA; either acting unilaterally would not have very much success, both acting together would.

Believe me I do not want the US involved militarily anywhere in the world again. I am becoming more and more isolationist. As to my EU bias and how effective it will be with using sanctions, I stand ready to be surprised if it actually follows through.

 

[geni]

Bah. You don't think US air power, with all their precision-guided armament, could stop the Russian tanks?

How you going to get it there? Russia has a real air force.

 

[Gurdur]

Bah. You don't think US air power, with all their precision-guided armament, could stop the Russian tanks?

I don't think the USA would risk the consequences, and I think the USA would be right not to risk so much.

Not as long as Russia has the gas and oil. We wouldn't dare.

They said the apartheid South Africa was vital to security and vital resources supply back in the Cold War too, and finally sanctions toppled that regime. And frankly, it's mainly Russian natural gas, not oil, and Western Europe needs to sharply reduce dependence on that. Sanctions are possible and doable, and would be very effective.

 

[geni]

Well, hey, apart from the British invasion of Persia; the British military help to the White armies in Azebaijan and elsewhere in the region, 1918-1923; the British promises to the Kurds, defaulted upon after 1919, and of course the British role in toppling Mossadegh in Iran much later; etc..

Not done much? Really?

Not by european standards.

 

[Gurdur]

Believe me I do not want the US involved militarily anywhere in the world again. I am becoming more and more isolationist. As to my EU bias and how effective it will be with using sanctions, I stand ready to be surprised if it actually follows through.

* shrug *

That didn't really answer my post at all, so that was a promising side-avenue cut off before its time. In any case, you have my answer.