• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Russia invades Georgia

Garrette said:
From the Russian end, I think it rather more significant than you give it credit for. Of such things are local/regional hegemony built.
Click to expand...
Russia has had local hegemony in the Caucasus for a while now. This conflict merely demonstrates what was already either clear or almost inevitable.
 
egslim said:
A unipolar world functions like an international dictatorship, a multipolar one like a democracy. The latter tends to be more stable, because it allows fewer rash and stupid decisions.

How Russia and China behave at home is irrelevant, as long as their foreign policy is rational. US foreign policy often is not.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree.

A multipolar world made up of democracies might well be stable, but the presence of dictatorships skews things. A dictatorship is interested in maintaining its regime in power and/or furthering its ideological goals... unlike democracies which at least have to pay lip service to doing what is best for their citizens.

This is without even going into the demonization and nationalist/ideological posturing that authoritarian regimes typically get into in order to justify their rule over their populace (and such posturing can create momentum that is very hard to stop - riding the tiger - without enraging the population such that the regime fears being overthrown).

So their foriegn policy may be rational in their eyes but because they have different aims it may not prevent conflict, or even appear rational from our point of view.

And as to "tends to be more stable, because it allows fewer rash and stupid decisions." - I take it you have never heard of World War 1?
 
Giz said:
A dictatorship is interested in maintaining its regime in power and/or furthering its ideological goals...
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the same is true for democracies.

They use war or prospective war in their election campaigns:
- Karl Rove's election strategy in 2004 centered on promoting the belief that a Republican President would be a more effective wartime leader.
- McCain and Clinton tried very hard to sound toughest on Iran, no matter how utterly impractical their ideas really are.

One can even argue that a stable non-democracy has no need to use war for maintaining its regime, while a democratic regime always faces regular election cycles.

Furthering their ideological goals:
- "Regime change" is a term invented in the US.
- While democracy, fascism and communism each tried to spread their ideology, countries like China and Russia don't even have a recognisable ideology anymore. So no motivation to spread it.

unlike democracies which at least have to pay lip service to doing what is best for their citizens.
Click to expand...
Or describe any opposition as "unpatriotic".
"Don't ask what your country can do, ask what you can do for your country" - doesn't sound like doing what is best for their citizens...

This is without even going into the demonization and nationalist/ideological posturing that authoritarian regimes typically get into
Click to expand...
Axis of Evil, anyone?

So their foriegn policy may be rational in their eyes but because they have different aims it may not prevent conflict, or even appear rational from our point of view.
Click to expand...
Waging war is rational if the benefits obtained from said conflict outweigh the costs of fighting it. The benefit of a rational foreign policy is not to prevent conflicts, but to keep them predictable.

The war in Georgia has been short and geographically limited. Russia will obtain some local hegemonic benefits during the negotiations, and that's pretty much the end of it all. Sure they've pissed off Cheney, but the US is overstretched as it is so little danger from that angle.
The world can live with such wars.

The war in Iraq, on the other hand, is of unpredictable duration and cost, and runs the risk of spilling over geographically in a variety of ways. That is irrational foreign policy, and dangerous for everyone.

And as to "tends to be more stable, because it allows fewer rash and stupid decisions." - I take it you have never heard of World War 1?
Click to expand...
Back then few realized the much greater destructiveness of industrial-age wars. Nowadays, everyone knows. And there were no nukes to act as a deterrent. There are now.
 
CapelDodger said:
The US audience is so deeply parochial it probably won't notice any of that. Something I've noticed (and wasn't surprised by) is how many people assume that somehow this is all about the US when in reality (there's that word again) it's just another little bust-up in the Caucasus.
Click to expand...


Georgia is US-supplied and backed, or at least it was before this fiasco.

So far the prediction that the US' response would amount to little more than quietly saying "go to war if you must, but make it fast and please, please think of the children!" (i.e. nothing of substance) have proven accurate. This could have involved the US. So far the US have prudently decided not to follow that path.

Anyway, the BBC reports that the end of the conflict is near:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm
 
Who will Russia invade next? Ukraine or Estonia? Russia already destroyed Chechnya. Funny thing is that most americans probaly don"t even know where Chechnya is and who is Ramzan Kadyrov.
 
moon1969 said:
Who will Russia invade next? Ukraine or Estonia?
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to invade anyone. Anyone who it dcould invade is now nicely worried and is going to avoid activly anoying Russia.

Russia already destroyed Chechnya. Funny thing is that most americans probaly don"t even know where Chechnya is and who is Ramzan Kadyrov.
Click to expand...

Chechnya has a population of 15,300 km². If it were an idependent country that would put it between Swaziland and East Timor. Population wise it is between Cyprus and Swaziland. Most of the world doesn't know where Chechnya is (and the locals would probably rather you called it Ichkeria). Even those that do are not going get much beyond it is in the Caucasus somewhere.
 
anek_4.jpg


anek_2.jpg
 
If you replace Georgia with Serbia and South Ossetia with Kosovo, you will understand why the US is not in a position to complain about this. Russia is just doing to Georgia what we did to Serbia, and they probably feel as justified as we did.

This became inevitable as soon as the US recognized Kosovo's indepence.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
I find this to be rather unlikely.
Click to expand...

You'd be amazed by the amount of area one person can cover after being hit by a hyperbaric bomb.
 
Last edited:
Giz said:
I strongly disagree.

A multipolar world made up of democracies might well be stable, but the presence of dictatorships skews things. A dictatorship is interested in maintaining its regime in power and/or furthering its ideological goals... unlike democracies which at least have to pay lip service to doing what is best for their citizens.

This is without even going into the demonization and nationalist/ideological posturing that authoritarian regimes typically get into in order to justify their rule over their populace (and such posturing can create momentum that is very hard to stop - riding the tiger - without enraging the population such that the regime fears being overthrown).

So their foriegn policy may be rational in their eyes but because they have different aims it may not prevent conflict, or even appear rational from our point of view.
Click to expand...

But you haven't shown that their foreign policy has different aims than the foreign policies of democracies. In general, dictatorships and democracies base their foreign policies on the same thing - perceived national self-interest.
 
neutrino_cannon said:
Georgia is US-supplied and backed, or at least it was before this fiasco.
Click to expand...

The least they can do is re-supply them. The Israelis will provide, the US will pay, and people help themselves along the way. It's all terribly vulgar.

So far the prediction that the US' response would amount to little more than quietly saying "go to war if you must, but make it fast and please, please think of the children!" (i.e. nothing of substance) have proven accurate. This could have involved the US. So far the US have prudently decided not to follow that path.
Click to expand...

If the necons had their way Georgia would already be in NATO, and then where would we be? As it is all we have is an embarrassment for the US, and more junkets for European diplomats in a magnificent part of the world. Yummy.

Anyway, the BBC reports that the end of the conflict is near:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm
Click to expand...

Now we start finding out what really happened, and who to. Hopefully the killing has stopped and life has returned to the long-term background of spousal-abuse and vendetta.

Great for a holiday, but I really wouldn't want to live there.
 
geni said:
Doesn't need to invade anyone. Anyone who it dcould invade is now nicely worried and is going to avoid activly anoying Russia.
Click to expand...

Nailed it :).



Chechnya has a population of 15,300 km². If it were an idependent country that would put it between Swaziland and East Timor. Population wise it is between Cyprus and Swaziland. Most of the world doesn't know where Chechnya is (and the locals would probably rather you called it Ichkeria). Even those that do are not going get much beyond it is in the Caucasus somewhere.
Click to expand...

There are two distinct parts to Chechnya. The mountains in the south are typical bandit country, but the steppe in the north was colonised by Russians from the mid-19thCE. (Before that it was Ottoman and the haunt of Cossacks - population close to zero.) So it's just a southward Slavic extension, and is to all intents and purposes part of Russia.

There was more Russian immigration during the Grozny oil-rush of the early 20thCE. That's what Grozny was built on - the only city of note in the entire region. The oil's long gone, of course, but the land is still good. As long as the maniacs are penned-up in the mountains everything's OK.

The Russians are doing everybody a favour by leaning heavily on the Chechens. They're Europe's Pashtuns, and must be held in check. What you mustn't do is hand them the keys to a sovereign nation and hope you can still be friends.
 
moon1969 said:
Who will Russia invade next? Ukraine or Estonia? Russia already destroyed Chechnya. Funny thing is that most americans probaly don"t even know where Chechnya is and who is Ramzan Kadyrov.
Click to expand...


But they are part of Russia's traditional "Sphere of Influnce" and Russia has every right to do what they want.
Let's cut to the chase. This support for Russia is fueled by Anti Americanism.
They want a counterpart to US power, and don't give a damn what kind of coutnerpart it is.
If the Euros prefer a dictator like Putin to a Democracy like the US, then maybe the US should just leave them to their choice. But they should not come screaming to the US when they realise the kind of choice they have made.
 
CapelDodger said:
Nailed it :).





There are two distinct parts to Chechnya. The mountains in the south are typical bandit country, but the steppe in the north was colonised by Russians from the mid-19thCE. (Before that it was Ottoman and the haunt of Cossacks - population close to zero.) So it's just a southward Slavic extension, and is to all intents and purposes part of Russia.

There was more Russian immigration during the Grozny oil-rush of the early 20thCE. That's what Grozny was built on - the only city of note in the entire region. The oil's long gone, of course, but the land is still good. As long as the maniacs are penned-up in the mountains everything's OK.

The Russians are doing everybody a favour by leaning heavily on the Chechens. They're Europe's Pashtuns, and must be held in check. What you mustn't do is hand them the keys to a sovereign nation and hope you can still be friends.
Click to expand...

I think there is nothing Russia can do that you will not be apologist for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom