Russia invades Georgia

[Garrette]

Absolutely; the last thing anybody should do is draw attention to their own failings.

NATO, the EU, and the UN have only highlighted their own flabby impotence.

The UN is impotent. The EU is simply not yet cohesive but is still on that path. NATO has power they boxed away a decade ago but which they still possess. This itty bitty Georgia thing is a reminder that while they needn't necessarily drag the boxes back down from the attic, they can certainly make sure the path to them is clear.

At minimal cost to the Russians, and quite possibly at a profit, considering all the NATO-grade kit and copper wire they've shipped home from Georgia.

No argument from me about their coup.

Talking quietly is cheap and easy, but where's the big stick to come from? The G8? The WTO? I don't think so.

Who mentioned them? We were talking NATO, the US and the UN.

Russia has ditched the USSR and become Russia again. A place with a name and a history and a grudge. Much like France, except that the Russians can do something about it.

You are among the most insightful and impressively well informed posters here, and you outstrip me in both those areas, but I think you give a hint here of the reason I find many of your comments mysteriously disagreeable.

Trends are trends only so long as they are trends. I was stationed in Germany during those years when we knew that the Soviet Union need only give the word and T-80s uncounted would roll virtually unopposed to Paris and the Channel. Political antagonism was seen as reckless and military brazenness was the first step toward armageddon. Yet the Soviets fell. Russia was in turmoil and the new sick man of Europe only ten years ago yet now they are again the regional power to be reckoned with.

Yes, the geopolitical situation is different today than it was a year ago or a month ago, but that does not equate to a need to fold and assume the game is lost.

N.B. I am not advocating any particular action or stance in this post. I have long thought a friendly relationship with Russia is not only necesesary but feasible. I still think so. I think that about China, too.

 

[egslim]

Trends are trends only so long as they are trends.

The international balance of power is both dynamic and under some fairly static geographic restrictions.

The Caucasus has lousy land connections, and its sea connection is under control of the country that owns the Bosporus. That is as true now as it was 2,000 years ago.

Similarly, while not entirely static, several countries have coexisted in one form or another for many hundreds of years. Turkey/Ottoman Empire and Russia/USSR have been neighbours since before the foundation of the US, and I expect they'll continue to be neighbours long after the US has disappeared from the Med.

The French held a 40-year grudge against Germany, that was strong enough to significantly influence French warplans in 1914. Not too long ago a Japanese politician almost caused a crisis in Japanese-Chinese relations by visiting some kind of Japanese warmemorial. And there are many more similar long-time grudges, held all over the world.
That makes pissing off your neighbour a risky business, because the consequences can last for decades or even centuries. In comparisson, US presence in the Med is only temporary, because the country's heartland is on the other side of the world.
Unless its own interests are concerned, it makes more sense for Turkey to not antagonize its perpetual neighbour than to please its far away friend.

 

[Garrette]

The international balance of power is both dynamic and under some fairly static geographic restrictions.

Agreed

The Caucasus has lousy land connections,

Yes.

and its sea connection is under control of the country that owns the Bosporus. That is as true now as it was 2,000 years ago.

Advantage of control goes to the land owner, but it is not absolute.

Similarly, while not entirely static, several countries have coexisted in one form or another for many hundreds of years. Turkey/Ottoman Empire and Russia/USSR have been neighbours since before the foundation of the US, and I expect they'll continue to be neighbours long after the US has disappeared from the Med.

Without speculating on any US disappearance from the Med, I agree, but it does not argue against my point.

The French held a 40-year grudge against Germany, that was strong enough to significantly influence French warplans in 1914. Not too long ago a Japanese politician almost caused a crisis in Japanese-Chinese relations by visiting some kind of Japanese warmemorial. And there are many more similar long-time grudges, held all over the world.
That makes pissing off your neighbour a risky business, because the consequences can last for decades or even centuries.

That risk does not remove the parallel risk of overly acquiescing to your neighbor.

In comparisson, US presence in the Med is only temporary,

Possibly, depending on the definition of temporary.

because the country's heartland is on the other side of the world.

Precisely. We aren't Russia's neighbors. Our perceived risk and that of our European friends are not identical. Interesting that those who are Russia's closest neighbors (Ukraine and Poland) haven't minded a little pissing off.

Unless its own interests are concerned, it makes more sense for Turkey to not antagonize its perpetual neighbour than to please its far away friend.

Self interest is always the driving force. No argument there.

 

[egslim]

Advantage of control goes to the land owner, but it is not absolute.

Apart from an amphibious assault or otherwise invasion of Turkey it's as close to absolute as possible.

That risk does not remove the parallel risk of overly acquiescing to your neighbor.

That's only true insofar as it would hurt your own interests, directly or indirectly.

We aren't Russia's neighbors. Our perceived risk and that of our European friends are not identical. Interesting that those who are Russia's closest neighbors (Ukraine and Poland) haven't minded a little pissing off.

Not every government has a long term perspective. Some focus more on the short term, or on plain populism. Sometimes they act dumb.

 

[Garrette]

Not every government has a long term perspective. Some focus more on the short term, or on plain populism. Sometimes they act dumb.

I can think of no examples of such a government. None. Not one.

Really.

Stop laughing.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Absolutely; the last thing anybody should do is draw attention to their own failings.

NATO, the EU, and the UN have only highlighted their own flabby impotence. At minimal cost to the Russians, and quite possibly at a profit, considering all the NATO-grade kit and copper wire they've shipped home from Georgia.

Talking quietly is cheap and easy, but where's the big stick to come from? The G8? The WTO? I don't think so.

Russia has ditched the USSR and become Russia again. A place with a name and a history and a grudge. Much like France, except that the Russians can do something about it.

NATO and the EU have no stake in this last Russian spasm. No flabby impotence has been shown or even hinted at.

The UN does have a stake in the sense that UN Resolutions have been violated.

The big stick, which you ask for, will, if it is applied, come from exclusion of Russia from WTO, G8, etc.

 

[egslim]

NATO and the EU have no stake in this last Russian spasm. No flabby impotence has been shown or even hinted at.

Correction: They had no stake in this conflict.

But they chose to get involved. When Sarkozy brokered a ceasefire its succes or faillure became of interest to the EU.

When you get involved by threatening with sticks and the reply is to get lost, then your impotence shows.

The upside is that a unified foreign policy has never been one of the EU's hallmarks, so little credibility is at risk there.

The big stick, which you ask for, will, if it is applied, come from exclusion of Russia from WTO, G8, etc.

That's a wet newspaper, not a stick. Reality is that Russia is a major economic player that cannot be ignored, by virtue of its energy supplies. Exclusion from the WTO or G8 does nothing to change that fact.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Correction: They had no stake in this conflict.

But they chose to get involved. When Sarkozy brokered a ceasefire its succes or faillure became of interest to the EU.

When you get involved by threatening with sticks and the reply is to get lost, then your impotence shows.

The upside is that a unified foreign policy has never been one of the EU's hallmarks, so little credibility is at risk there.

Sarkozy was acting as a mediator. His potency or impotency was not at stake, no matter the outcome. Neither was the potency or impotency of the EU.

The potency of the EU is not determined by the altruistic attemps of the current head of the EU to be a broker in a militaristic tense situation, but by his ability to further the economic well-being of the union.

 

[Ziggurat]

The potency of the EU is not determined by the altruistic attemps of the current head of the EU to be a broker in a militaristic tense situation, but by his ability to further the economic well-being of the union.

Given Europe's dependence on Russian energy, do you honestly think that there isn't any connection between the two?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Given Europe's dependence on Russian energy, do you honestly think that there isn't any connection between the two?

What European dependence?

 

[egslim]

Sarkozy was acting as a mediator.

Exactly. And the outcome of any mediation reflects on the credibility of the mediator, which affects future diplomatic interactions.

The potency of the EU is not determined by the altruistic attemps of the current head of the EU to be a broker in a militaristic tense situation, but by his ability to further the economic well-being of the union.

Economics, foreign policy and defense are inseperable, except when considered very superficially. That's why the former Eastblock nations were so keen to join the EU: For both economic development and protection against Russia.

Economic integration within the EU long ago reached a point where the EU can no longer be considered a solely economic organization, though of course that continues to be its main section of interest.

And forget about the altruism: For obvious reasons it was very much in the EU's interest to prevent the conflict from spilling over into all kinds of nastiness between the US and Russia.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Exactly. And the outcome of any mediation reflects on the credibility of the mediator, which affects future diplomatic interactions.

Not in the real world.

Economics, foreign policy and defense are inseperable, except when considered very superficially. That's why the former Eastblock nations were so keen to join the EU: For both economic development and protection against Russia.

Economic integration within the EU long ago reached a point where the EU can no longer be considered a solely economic organization, though of course that continues to be its main section of interest.

And forget about the altruism: For obvious reasons it was very much in the EU's interest to prevent the conflict from spilling over into all kinds of nastiness between the US and Russia.

Once again, the EU and Sarkozy has no stake in the Georgia conflict. The US likewise has no stake. Russia likes to ruffle its feathers. Which is OK.

Once again, there is a difference between being a member of an organization and almost being a member.

 

[Ziggurat]

What European dependence?

Are you really unaware of how much Europe depends upon Russia for oil and natural gas? Well, rest assure that the Russians are not similarly ignorant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ussian-energy-may-be-a-pipe-dream-891499.html

The European Union is keen to wean itself off Russia, which supplies a quarter of its oil and half its natural gas, and is targeting central Asia, one of the world's few untapped oil provinces.
The BTC pipeline, which cost $4bn to build, is the heart of that effort. It was bitterly opposed by Moscow, which feared an easing of its energy stranglehold and a dilution of influence in the region."
...
"But if Georgia is no longer a safe passageway, then all of these schemes for diminished dependency on Russia go up in smoke," says Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy."

 

[DanishDynamite]

Are you really unaware of how much Europe depends upon Russia for oil and natural gas? Well, rest assure that the Russians are not similarly ignorant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ussian-energy-may-be-a-pipe-dream-891499.html

Yes, I'm unaware. Denmark is entirely independent, so oil supply is not a question of relevance here. Is France and hence Sarkozy really dependent on Russian supplies of energy?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yes, I'm unaware. Denmark is entirely independent, so oil supply is not a question of relevance here. Is France and hence Sarkozy really dependent on Russian supplies of energy?

France less so than some other countries in the EU, since it gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear power. But yes, the EU really is heavily dependent upon Russian energy supplies. And control over a significant fraction of those supplies really IS at stake in Georgia. Enough for NATO to go to war? Probably not. But enough for it to matter quite a bit how things turn out.

 

[PogoPedant]

Precisely. We aren't Russia's neighbors. Our perceived risk and that of our European friends are not identical. Interesting that those who are Russia's closest neighbors (Ukraine and Poland) haven't minded a little pissing off.

... or Georgia, who also didn't seem to mind pissing off Russia. Initially.

Self interest is always the driving force. No argument there.

Self interest requires rationality to work, and rationality isn't always in ample supply.

 

[DanishDynamite]

France less so than some other countries in the EU, since it gets the majority of its electricity from nuclear power. But yes, the EU really is heavily dependent upon Russian energy supplies. And control over a significant fraction of those supplies really IS at stake in Georgia. Enough for NATO to go to war? Probably not. But enough for it to matter quite a bit how things turn out.

A lot of talk and no evidence. Please provide some evidence of your fantasies. Thanks.

 

[SDC]

The Russians could roll through Georgia, link-up with the Azeris and roll through Armenia, and do a mutually advantageous deal with the Turks, cutting out the US entirely. The situation would revert to the old days, but with a Turko-Russian understanding.

An intriguing scenario, and possible, but unlikely.

Unlikely is the word for it. It is the Armenian government which is pro-Russian, not Azerbaijan's.

I have heard nothing to indicate that Russia and Turkey are any cozier than they ever were (not much). Which doesn't mean that Turkey would want to get involved.

 

[Ziggurat]

... or Georgia, who also didn't seem to mind pissing off Russia. Initially.

Georgia didn't piss off Russia. Russia got their Ossentian proxies into attacking Georgia, and Russian regular troops (as in tank columns, not simply the peace keepers they were allowed to deploy) started to invade through South Ossetia. The Georgians tried to head off the Russian invasion by moving their own troops through the South Ossentian capital, and that was what most people think started the war. But it wasn't. That wasn't Georgia trying to piss off Russia, that was Russia instigating a war of their choice.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

 

[Ziggurat]

A lot of talk and no evidence.

It was in my first quote. Russia supplies a quarter of the EU's oil supply and half their natural gas. Did you not read what I wrote?