• 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

Shamil Basayev and Ruslan Gelayev both fought alongside the russians during the War in Abkhazia on 1992–1993. Shamil Basayev was probaly trained by the FSB and so was Ruslan Gelayev.
 
CapelDodger said:
They both used the same pretext (defence of their nationals or clients), but a pretext is not a plan. As I pointed out it's a pretext that's been used by the Romans and many others since, in pursuit of their various plans.

Passports are neither here nor there; plans are ranked by how they work out.
Click to expand...

Pretext - same
plan - SAME!
Because germans tried "revolt" (not sure with wording...) here.They failed because police and army had quick reaction and stopped outright.And that is happing in SO and A...
Wanted outcome - SAME Another land under control...

The only difference is,that Russinans understimated respons of world...
 
Childlike Empress said:
Putin repeated what he told CNN about american involvement and in general, as usual, was quite on top of the discussion.

...

That's the good thing about this affair, a lot of people start smelling the propaganda (and the german TV is harmless compared to the Murikan and British media).
Click to expand...

And you don't think that Putin's little conspiracy theory was propaganda?
 
That is the bit I am talking about.

Isn't that just more propoganda?
 
The only thing Putin says that can not be independently verifed at the moment is that they found evidence that the american "advisers" were activly involved in combat.

If he lies about that, it's indeed propaganda. But i don't believe he is lying. What i believe is that his speculation about the motive (helping McCain) is directed at the western audience to present them something they can more easily believe than the real motives (empire and such, don't get me started). I would call that diplomacy.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Mad I'd dispute. When you try to demonize someone by considering them insane, you may well be the one with issues in perspective. No question, however, Putin is hard case.
Click to expand...

I'm not demonizing Putin, I just don't think, taking all into consideration, he's any better than a certain "I-hear-voices-in-my-head" president like some people in the west do.
 
SDC said:
"Ukraine" most definitely does not mean "New Territories," which would be "Novyi Krai" or something of the sort in all 3 languages (for example, in Polish Nowy Kraj, pronounced the same). Ukraina (to use the original) is derived from "at the border." (There is that root, "krai" following "u" which can mean "at.") English-language standard has been "the Ukraine" because of that, but people are moving away from it in the field. And that is neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

Oh dear, that'll teach me not to rely on memory :o. I mesrembered it from One Crowded Hour, the engaging (although rather far-fetched) autobiography of Count Bohdan de Castellane. He in fact translates it as "The Border Country", comprising the three provinces of Kiev, Podolia and Volhynia along the Dnieper.

To quote (for no particular reason) from Chapter 2, Entering the World via the Ukraine :

"... The peasants and workers were Ukrainians, whose language, though of Slavic origins,differed from both. It is a distinct language, not a dialect, and is very musical.

The Ukrainians are a gay, carefree people, very clean, fond of music and song and, as a rule, fine-looking."
Click to expand...



Full disclosure of personal bias: I would prefer an independent Ukrainian state, not incorporated into the Russian Fed nor a satellite. I have studied extensively the horrors of the old Soviet Union and believe that it is too late to go back for Russia and Ukraine. I gather you regard yourself as a Realpolitiker and believe that Russian hegemony in that region is preferred, or inevitable.
Click to expand...

A Ukraine in the traditional territory, centred on Kiev and the Dnieper, would a fine thing in principle. What concerns me about modern Ukraine is the insistence on territories and populations which have no traditional connections with Kiev. It's inherently destabilising.

Seriously, check your Slavic-language sources. As for Moldova, it's still a state. I didn't speak as to its viability. Don't muddle is and should.
Click to expand...

Moldova (once Bessarabia, more or less) split in two at the very moment of birth. I think we could argue the meaning of "is" regarding Moldova. It "is" on the map and on the roll-call of nations, but otherwise? Not so much, I think. I expect one day it will merge into Romania and Ukraine.

Count Bohum lived in Bessarabia as well; from Chapter 3 Wolves on Bessarabian Plains

"The population was Moldavian, which is a mixture or Roumanians and Wallachians, while their language was Roumainian. The country was so thinly populated that all servants and labourers had to be imported. My father, consequently, made a journey into Galicia and brought from there three thousand hands for summer work."
Click to expand...

That would be in the 1880's, and you can see the beginnings of the current schism in the latter part. Roumainian-speaking natives on the one hand, Slavic immigrants on the other. Not good material for a nation
 
mr rosewater said:
Maybe Russia should keep out of Cuba, central America, and south America, Do you think that will happen?
Click to expand...

It seems wildly improbable that they won't. That's China's future sphere of influence, and the Russians do not want to mess with them. That way lies the nightmare war-on-two-fronts scenario.

Russia is a continental power and will stick to what it knows. It has a whole new frontier opening up in the Arctic, which is where its attention will be directed.
 
CapelDodger said:
It seems wildly improbable that they won't. That's China's future sphere of influence, and the Russians do not want to mess with them. That way lies the nightmare war-on-two-fronts scenario.

Russia is a continental power and will stick to what it knows. It has a whole new frontier opening up in the Arctic, which is where its attention will be directed.
Click to expand...

Oh OK, wait,

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/04/russia.cuba.ap/index.html

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for Russia to regain its influential position in former Cold War ally Cuba, Russian news reports said Monday.



That was August 4, 2008
 
mr rosewater said:
Oh OK, wait,

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/04/russia.cuba.ap/index.html

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for Russia to regain its influential position in former Cold War ally Cuba, Russian news reports said Monday.



That was August 4, 2008
Click to expand...

August 4th, you say. And the Georgia thing kicked off shortly afterwards. There could be a connection.

Russia's influence in Cuba used to be artificially cheap oil-products in exchange for artificially expensive sugar. Those days have gone, and I doubt Putin thinks otherwise. Cuba's chummied up with Venezuela these days.

Putin is a politician and a diplomatic so it's best not to get excitable about what he says, let alone what he's reported as saying.
 
mr rosewater said:
And this,

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL2150399620080721

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez will seek to buy Russian diesel submarines, mobile missile systems and tanks, this week during a trip aimed at boosting trade, Russian media reported on Monday.


July 21, 2008
Click to expand...

It's aimed at boosting trade; is there something wrong with that? Cannot Russia trade with whom it wants? If the Russians have weapons to offer and people want to buy them, that's just business.
 
CapelDodger said:
It's aimed at boosting trade; is there something wrong with that? Cannot Russia trade with whom it wants? If the Russians have weapons to offer and people want to buy them, that's just business.
Click to expand...

OK, now how about the U.S. and Georgia, or Poland? You say China has an interest in Cuba and south America as well and yet the U.S. is not rolling it's tanks why? I think it's because Russia is held to a different standard than the U.S.
 
mr rosewater said:
OK, now how about the U.S. and Georgia, or Poland? You say China has an interest in Cuba and south America as well and yet the U.S. is not rolling it's tanks why? I think it's because Russia is held to a different standard than the U.S.
Click to expand...

US rolling its tanks where?
 
geni said:
US rolling its tanks where?
Click to expand...

I'm asking if Russia and China can trade with Cuba and Venezuela for example why can't the U.S. do the same with Georgia, and in the case of Venezuela this trade involves arms, I have no doubt Russia continues to supply arms to Cuba yet the U.S. is not over reacting with force why? Why is it that if the U.S. is involved with Georgia it's meddling, but Russian involvement with Cuba or Venezuela is just good business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom