Russia invades Georgia

[dudalb]

Georgia (without South Ossetia and Abkhazia, obviosuly) is one hell of a bait to dangle in front of the Turks, What purpose does Georgia serve, after all? Wouldn't life be simpler if is was got rid of and never mentioned again?

God, you are not to be taken serioudly with statments like that.

 

[egslim]

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.

It's interesting that moon1969 (and dudalb?) seems to feel sorry for the Chechens, while the latter are really natural allies for Al Qaeda. I realise it is natural to support the underdog, but let's use some critical thinking when deciding who to root for...

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

There are other ways to garner votes, such as jingoism. Saakashvili has based his political career on Georgia's national dignity and territorial rights where they're not wanted. He is a bellicose Russophobe simply because that's his act, and the damage it does to ordinary Georgians is immaterial. The neocons in Washington like it, and the money gets shovelled in. Not to ordinary Georgians, of course, but to, you know, influential Georgians.

"Democracy" and "demagogue" come (rather obviously) from the same root. Established oligarchies are far more stable and predictable than democracies. I blame universal suffrage myself.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's interesting that moon1969 (and dudalb?) seems to feel sorry for the Chechens, while the latter are really natural allies for Al Qaeda. I realise it is natural to support the underdog, but let's use some critical thinking when deciding who to root for...

I'm glad you raised the Chechen-Al Qaeda connection, which doesn't get a lot of mention. I suspect that's because it pre-dates 9/11, when Al Qaeda first hove into view of a mass US audience. As afficionados of Small Wars we noticed it at the time, of course . That many Chechen goat-botherers in Afghanistan was a bit of a give-away. And the Chechens were getting money from somewhere.

I recall seeing an anti-AIDS, pro-condom commercial with the tag-line "You're having sex with everybody they've had sex with". Frankly, I wouldn't have gone with the "Downtrodden Chechens" thing myself. It does not bear scrutinity. It doesn't bear casual scrutiny. It's a frickin' embarrassment in the cold light of day.

 

[geni]

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.

Got enough straw there?

 

[geni]

"Democracy" and "demagogue" come (rather obviously) from the same root. Established oligarchies are far more stable and predictable than democracies. I blame universal suffrage myself.

Only in the short term. Long term countries without a peaceful means of transition tend to go through periods of instabilty and chaotic action from time to time that more overwelms the effect of the previous stability.

 

[Cleon]

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.

I think there is nothing Russia can do that you will not be apologist for.

God, you are not to be taken serioudly with statments like that.

Do you have anything substantial to contribute about the topic, or just empty hostility towards anyone with a different POV than your own?

 

[Nogbad]

It is hard to fathom what Georgia thought it could achieve by going into S. Ossetia. The Russians had already given most of the Ossetians Russian passports and had troops on the ground. The Georgians did not fare well in the 1990s when the Ossetians and Abkhazians broke away, so quite why they thought it would go better when they had the Russians to contend with too is a mystery. The chances of US or European assistance was zero.

That said, the Ossetians have a right to self determination and for whatever historical reason they did not want to be part of Georgia. I think Georgia has to be realistic and accept the reality of the borders as they stand. They are not going to retake these areas by force and the people there are not going to want to rejoin after this little adventure.

The issue of Georgian membership of NATO is a minor one, regardless of Russian grumpy faces over the matter. It is a tiny country on the Turkish border, the latter being in NATO and therefore it hardly stretches NATO's reach any great distance. If Georgia had been in NATO it might have acted as a brake against this sort of reckless behaviour. There was balance in the old détente.

 

[egslim]

But they are part of Russia's traditional "Sphere of Influnce" and Russia has every right to do what they want.

Most of Russia's traditional sphere of influence is gone, so that part of your statement is meaningless.

As for Russia's rights, the only universal right in international politics is "might makes right". Which is why the US could invade Iraq against overwhelming international opposition. In the Caucasus modern Russia has pretty much the same ability.

Let's cut to the chase. This support for Russia is fueled by Anti Americanism.

That statement is clear proof of your egocentric worldview. The US has no business getting involved in the Caucasus. The US should have stayed out of that place.

The US got involved because of the America-centric worldview that the US needs to be involved everywhere. Now the situation has become an embarassment for the US, and those who point out the America-centric worldview as the cause of this are accused of anti-Americanism.

Americanism is NOT America-centrism. The Fouding Fathers supported the former, but they warned against the latter. In the modern world isolationism is a bad idea, but interventionism does not mean "intervening all over the world, all of the time".

They want a counterpart to US power, and don't give a damn what kind of coutnerpart it is.

Actually I want multiple counterparts to US power. And I prefer organizations like the EU, with their focus on political and economic development instead of military power - the latter is often too tempting to use. But since we can't always get what we want, others will have to suffice.

If the Euros prefer a dictator like Putin to a Democracy like the US

Let me see: The US got us entangled in an intervention in Afghanistan, where the situation is now deteriorating. The US also brought us the conflict in Iraq, which is a major stability risk in an area vital for its oil supply. With accompanying higher oil prices, and no end in sight either.
Russia stomped on Georgia, where we don't really care about.

It's safe to say that Bush has caused us more problems than Putin has.

That doesn't make me anti-American, but I am anti-American-centric. Big difference.

(Edited to replace "Americanism-centric" with "America-centric")

 

[Nogbad]

The semi-criminal capitalism of modern Russia is a worry.

However, in this instance the Ossetians really do see Russia as the good guys. The Georgians do seem to have mis-played their hand very badly and may very well have killed hundreds of innocent civilians in a very short space of time. This is not good.

 

[egslim]

I'm glad you raised the Chechen-Al Qaeda connection, which doesn't get a lot of mention. I suspect that's because it pre-dates 9/11, when Al Qaeda first hove into view of a mass US audience. As afficionados of Small Wars we noticed it at the time, of course . That many Chechen goat-botherers in Afghanistan was a bit of a give-away. And the Chechens were getting money from somewhere.

Actually that was before I became interested in international politics.

But it is important that people realize Russia is a natural ally against Islamic terrorism. The fact that Russians are a bit less squeemish than most of the West also opens "interesting" possibilities for cooperation.

 

[CapelDodger]

God, you are not to be taken seriously with statments like that.

Why so? Georgia's been around for less than twenty years and has proved a nightmare from day one. What actual good is it doing anybody? Apart from connected people, I mean.

Turkey has found itself in an uncomfortable position recently. The European option is on permanent hold; ain't gonna happen. US interests in Iraqi Kurdistan limits their options (and perhaps makes them question how much NATO membership is actually worth to them, in practical terms). And there's this new-sprung thing calling itself "Georgia" in territory that used to be Turkish.

This "Georgia" appears to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of an oil-based US Administration. A US that is at its most potent about half-a-planet away. The Russians are guys on the mountains across the valley - on a clear day you can see them, and they can see you.

So why shouldn't Turkey annexe Georgia, with tacit Russian approval? Harsh words from Washington or New York are only to be expected. No response from the Moslem world, of course, since it would be promoted as a secular military triumph (gifting the Kamalists a poison-pill distraction). A shrug from Europe, less than that from places east.

So why not? Everybody gains except connected Georgians. Russians could buy the Georgian wine they love so much, Georgians would love to start selling it to them again, everybody wins.

 

[gumboot]

Al Qaeda only became involved in Chechnya after Russia went in - the Islamists felt it was their duty to go fight for the glory of Allah or whatever. They do that every time a fight starts up that involves Muslims in any way shape or form.

Funnily enough Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the USA went in too, but while Russia in Chechnya is meant to be a good thing, the USA in Iraq is meant to be a bad thing. Good ole hypocrisy.

 

[Nogbad]

Al Qaeda only became involved in Chechnya after Russia went in - the Islamists felt it was their duty to go fight for the glory of Allah or whatever. They do that every time a fight starts up that involves Muslims in any way shape or form.

Funnily enough Al Qaeda went into Iraq after the USA went in too, but while Russia in Chechnya is meant to be a good thing, the USA in Iraq is meant to be a bad thing. Good ole hypocrisy.

Fair point....so are they are both good things?

or both bad things?

 

[egslim]

The issue of Georgian membership of NATO is a minor one, regardless of Russian grumpy faces over the matter. It is a tiny country on the Turkish border, the latter being in NATO and therefore it hardly stretches NATO's reach any great distance. If Georgia had been in NATO it might have acted as a brake against this sort of reckless behaviour. There was balance in the old détente.

The first problem is that few, if any, NATO countries would really be willing to wage war against Russia to defend Georgia.

For most of us Georgia is far from home. And it's not exactly a shining beacon of democracy either - to put it mildly. Among others, the country includes a number of seperatist regions - South Ossetia is only one of them. It's not worth fighting for the protection of a country that is in serious danger of falling apart all by itself.

Second, I believe eastern Turkey has lousy logistics. Defending it against invasion is one thing - the mountains do most of that for you, and there is little worth conquering anyway. But using the area as a supply line to first send and then supply an army fighting in Georgia is a whole different kettle of fish.

 

[egslim]

Al Qaeda only became involved in Chechnya after Russia went in - the Islamists felt it was their duty to go fight for the glory of Allah or whatever.

After the first or second Chechen war? Because the second was a Russian response to a series of raids and kidnappings, the latter some 3,000, of Russians by Chechens.

 

[CapelDodger]

Actually that was before I became interested in international politics.

The enquiring mind is always drawn backward in time even as it observes what's occuring day-to-day.

As a Small War enthusiast I never took my eyes off Afghanistan; I knew that after the Soviets withdrew, hardcore Small War material would kick in.

But it is important that people realize Russia is a natural ally against Islamic terrorism. The fact that Russians are a bit less squeemish than most of the West also opens "interesting" possibilities for cooperation.

I think it's important that we not attach undue importance to "Islamic terrorism". Russia, China, India, Europe, the US, and 'most everybody else are natural allies against anarchy.

 

[Nogbad]

The first problem is that few, if any, NATO countries would really be willing to wage war against Russia to defend Georgia.

For most of us Georgia is far from home. And it's not exactly a shining beacon of democracy either - to put it mildly. Among others, the country includes a number of seperatist regions - South Ossetia is only one of them. It's not worth fighting for the protection of a country that is in serious danger of falling apart all by itself.

Second, I believe eastern Turkey has lousy logistics. Defending it against invasion is one thing - the mountains do most of that for you, and there is little worth conquering anyway. But using the area as a supply line to first send and then supply an army fighting in Georgia is a whole different kettle of fish.

Sorry, I was talking more about radar, air bases and missile shields than invasion platforms. Turkey is not a country replete with flat bits to stage military invasions (neither is Georgia either come to think of it).

 

[egslim]

I think it's important that we not attach undue importance to "Islamic terrorism". Russia, China, India, Europe, the US, and 'most everybody else are natural allies against anarchy.

Fair enough. It's just that with modern Russia cooperation often makes more sense than attempts at containment - especially if they fail.

 

[gumboot]

Fair point....so are they are both good things?

or both bad things?

Good question. Perhaps worth debate. I'd argue both bad things.