Russia invades Georgia

[Oliver]

It's the evil caucasians again, isn't it?

That didn't cross my mind ... not at all.

I was referring to all the patriotic Yay-sayer who applauded Bush back at the SOTU - yet I correctly assumed that none of those will applaud to the Georgian point as well. Quite common American hypocrisy/ignorance - as sad this may be.

 

[Childlike Empress]

That didn't cross my mind ... not at all.

I was referring to all the patriotic Yay-sayer who applauded Bush back at the SOTU - yet I correctly assumed that none of those will applaud to the Georgian point as well. Quite common American hypocrisy/ignorance - as sad this may be.

Just pulling your leg, Oliver. Couldn't resist.

 

[egslim]

Though I don't see any cause to celebrate Russian ascendancy, regardless of Georgian or US or European political stupidity.

Russian ascendancy means the US needs Europe more as a global counterweight, which means we get more concessions.
It will also function as a brake on US unilateral actions that messes up parts of the world, like Iraq.

Note that Russia hates Islamic terrorism at least as much as the West does, and historically has had little love for China.

And of course there is the artistical beauty of a well-played political game.

 

[SDC]

It's somewhat comic to see Putin hailed as a mastermind. Let's see; how is the old USSR nowadays? Much smaller than the old, and without its European puppet states -- where is East Germany? The communist Polish Rzeczpospolita and the rest of the gang? Putin fortunately is nowhere stupid enough to try and reconstruct the Soviet empire. You'll notice he hasn't tried to invade Ukraine, without which the present Russian federation is hardly even the historic Russian state; and he keeps Belarus' tawdry little dictatorship at arm's length.

And where is the outrage from Quebec? After all, Poutine is threatened! (The rest of you can look that up.)

 

[gumboot]

The standard of world leadership these days is woeful. Where's the FDR, the Mao, the Churchill? Even Hitler and Stalin had stature.

I've got a theory.

1) Strong leaders only ever appear in a period of crisis, when things get so desperate we choose the leader we need rather than the leader we want. (Usually the leader in question has been warning us about the impending crisis for years, but we've treated them and their warnings with contempt until the crisis threatened to devour us, at which point we went crying to said leader like a baby whining for its mommy) As soon as the crisis ends we dump our hero like a bad smell without so much as a thank you.

2) Humans (particularly in the West) are spineless, self important, apathetic cretins, who couldn't give the slightest care about anything outside our own precious little irrelevant existence. As such we tend to vote in bumbling irrelevant and impotent leaders because the prospect of voting in a strong effective leader who might actually do the right think terrifies us.

3) Humans suck.

4) Democracy relies on humans not sucking, and thus is fundamentally flawed.

 

[egslim]

It's somewhat comic to see Putin hailed as a mastermind. Let's see; how is the old USSR nowadays? Much smaller than the old, and without its European puppet states -- where is East Germany? The communist Polish Rzeczpospolita and the rest of the gang? Putin fortunately is nowhere stupid enough to try and reconstruct the Soviet empire. You'll notice he hasn't tried to invade Ukraine, without which the present Russian federation is hardly even the historic Russian state; and he keeps Belarus' tawdry little dictatorship at arm's length.

Putin was a mere colonel when the USSR fell, to judge him you need to look at how Russia has done since Putin came to power.

You're the only one implying a comparisson between the USSR and an ascendent Russia. The fundamental difference is that the USSR posed a major military threat to Western-Europe, while modern Russia doesn't. So the country is reasserting part of its former sphere of influence, that's only natural and no threat, hence of no real concern to the rest of the world.

We can and should relax our attitude towards Russia, precisely because the USSR is dead and burried.

 

[Childlike Empress]

@Gummi: You are wrong. Humans are great but the system sucks. We are in the last days of capitalism where some of the biggest entities are not states, but corporations. The politicians we have in "the west" now are mere puppets of financial and economic interests and intelligent, integer people have long stopped thinking about a career in politics.

 

[Uzzy]

I could have sworn I asked about Georgian villages getting attacked by speratists, but it's late, I could be wrong.

The Georgians started it by invading South Ossetia. A plain and simple fact.

Roight. Of course, all neutral reports (I.e. Those not coming out of Russia) say that it's entirely unclear who started the shooting.

The Russians have been attacking military targets. They haven't attacked power stations, water supplies, or civilian communications. It's not exactly Shock and Awe, is it? It's more "Here's a slap, now behave yourself".

International Civilian Airports are military targets now? The city of Gori is a military target now? Georgia has stopped fighting, and yet the Russians keep up the bombing.

The Russians have been putiing up with a bellicose Russiphobe nationalist demagogue on their border for some years now, and yes, they would like to see him gone. The Russians would like to see a government in Georgia that doesn't give a toss for the symbolic significance of "national territory" ut looks to more practical matters. Such as making a real killing off the Caspian-Black Sea pipeline.

Wow. Who'd have guess that nations who have suffered under Russian rule for 80 years would have presidents opposed to Russian rule.

Do let us know how that works out for you.

For you? Hmm. So you're with Putin. I wonder how you'll like having him in control of European Energy.

Only one, and his name was Yeltsin.

More then that really. But meh.

Note that the article you cite about the autonomous status mentions that this move heavily favoured the pro-Georgian faction inside South Ossetia.

There was indeed some fighting before the 8th. But by all accounts, Georgia launched an all-out offensive on the 8th, which cost over 1,000 civilian lives and a dozen or so Russian peacekeepers.

By Russian accounts, yes. Certainly not by all.

Russia picked up from the Lebanon 2006 war that when the underlying party begs for a ceasefire, you should at least go on for two more days with some more bombing. If Georgia feels slighted, it should send the tab to Washington and Jerusalem.

So don't blame the aggressor. Interesting.

Cold war rhetoric.

Cold war rhetoric for a hot war from the Russians. Sounds rather mild, in my view.

And what do you suggest NATO does? Be specific. We need Russian logistical support in Afghanistan and their political support against Iranian nuclear ambitions. We also need their oil and gas. And the Caucasus is far out of NATO's logistical reach, but bordering Russia.

Russian troops aren't dying in Afghanistan. They are the ones supplying the Iranians with nuclear power, they have a tendancy of cutting off the oil and gas, and the Caucasus's are in NATO's logistical reach, if we go through Turkey. Russia is far from an ally, especially let by Putin, who seems to be living in the Cold War.

 

[SDC]

I didn't "imply a comparison," I made one. Present day Russia is a lot weaker in many senses than the old USSR. You seem to be assuming that I am making a cold war argument, which I didn't mean to, but there you are.

The way it looks to me is that Russia is indeed moving to dominate the Trans-Caucasus, and further I feel it's rather sad to find people arguing that "sphere of influence" is still a valid argument. Does it apply to Russia and Ukraine? Or Russia and the Baltic states? Finland? (Which Russia ruled for over a century). Poland? (Much of it, likewise.) I doubt it; I don't look for Russian tanks in Helsinki, Vilnius, Warszawa, or even Kyiv anytime soon, for which I am profoundly grateful. I thought I had suggested that Putin was not such a fool as to run crazy with adventures but obviously I didn't say it clearly. My fault.

I have no idea what political miscalculations led the Georgian government to its present predicament, though if they counted on serious US involvement they were incredibly naive; so much so that I find it hard to imagine that they had any encouragement beyond, perhaps, Saakashvili's own desperation. I look forward to hearing what actually was said or done to get Georgia into this mess. The Transcaucasus has been a tangle of nationalist and secessionist movements for generations, and the Russian states have played an imperialist game for a long time, one against the other.

Again, nothing to celebrate. It's sad that some of the posters (I'm not including you) seem to be saying, "Hey, good on Putin, he bloodied the nose of the US." If that is what one takes away from this particular debacle, well, sad times for everyone, not just for Tbilisi, or any other place in the region. Much of it is a hideous, wrecked tangle of failing states, secessionist movements, banditry, and ruined cities; in Chechnya, Dagestan, now Georgia (with So. Ossetia and Abkhazia), and what the heck will happen with Armenia and Azerbaijan.

There's nothing to celebrate here. Any blow to the US in this region is small time, because there could never be a realistic expectation of American power there anyhow. But whatever floats boats.

ETA: I was responding especially to Egslim's post, just above.

 

[hamelekim]

Don't forget that Russia had brought this issue up in talks at the UN Security council in the weeks leading up to this conflict. They wanted a resolution to prevent any sort of armed conflict, and this was rejected by the US and Britian as well as several other countries.

This leads me to believe that they knew what Georgia had planned or they had planned this in advance. Why would they reject violence unless they were planning violence? Seems very strange to me.

Now with Turkey and the Ukraine getting involved politically and possibly militarily we could see a much larger regional conflict which could spread very quickly to a global conflict.

I really hope that these neoconservatives in Washington know what they are doing. The US is in no position to be starting up proxy wars with Russia.

 

[gtc]

The Russians have been putiing up with a bellicose Russiphobe nationalist demagogue on their border for some years now, and yes, they would like to see him gone. The Russians would like to see a government in Georgia that doesn't give a toss for the symbolic significance of "national territory" ut looks to more practical matters. Such as making a real killing off the Caspian-Black Sea pipeline.

Supporting regime change works both ways. You don't think Israel is concerned by the Judeo/Israelo phobic regimes in Palestine (both of them), Syria, South Lebanon and Iran?

We are in the last days of capitalism where some of the biggest entities are not states, but corporations.

Funnily enough, people have been saying that for over a century now but all of Europe is now, more or less, capitalist.

 

[SDC]

I am waiting for someone to point out that Georgia was, historically, in the Persian imperial sphere of interest for centuries; to counter that is why the Georgian kingdom originally turned to Russia (ca.1801). Obviously the Israelis are behind it all, with the cunning plan to invade Iran with Georgian help... Aha.

Come on, folks. Do I have to make everything up for you?

ps I bet that, even as we speak, the son of the last Shah is preparing his forces, ready to march from Tbilisi to Tehran.

pps Probably as a puppet of the Mossad, surrounded by Israeli commandos. Gadzooks! Is there no end to the perfidy?

 

[Childlike Empress]

Did you know that Saakashvili was born on 21st December, the day Stalin choose as his birthday? Those evil caucasians! Off to bed now.

 

[ddt]

By Russian accounts, yes. Certainly not by all.

Do you have accounts that say something else than that the Georgians started a big offensive?

So don't blame the aggressor. Interesting.

You didn't pick up on my sarcasm? Israel and the US pulled a little stunt in the Lebanon 2006 war by needlessly postponing a ceasefire arrangement. You can't blame Russia for doing the same now, can you?

Cold war rhetoric for a hot war from the Russians. Sounds rather mild, in my view.

Russian troops aren't dying in Afghanistan. They are the ones supplying the Iranians with nuclear power, they have a tendancy of cutting off the oil and gas, and the Caucasus's are in NATO's logistical reach, if we go through Turkey. Russia is far from an ally, especially let by Putin, who seems to be living in the Cold War.

There you go again with the Cold War comparison. That's only meant to say something like "Putin evil commie". Why don't you compare Putin with, say, Ivan III, the czar who, IIRC, threw off the Mongol yoke and was the first to seriously work on Muscovite expansion? Expansion into and influencing of its neighbours is a constant in Russian politics for the last, say, 500 years - and not only of Russia but of all great powers. In fact, when it comes to foreign policy, the whole Communist period is not different than before and - gasp - than after. You could just as well compare Putin with Ivan IV, Peter the Great, Catharine II or Alexander I who managed to conquer Paris.

ETA: that last tidbit is a bit over the top indeed. See here.

 

[SDC]

Ddt, acceptance of notions of the historic Russian sphere of influence is one thing from the Netherlands, or New York. It looks different not only in Tbilisi, but in Kyiv and Warszawa and Vilnius. I've said before I don't expect Putin is such a fool as to dream of rolling tanks into the centers of those cities. But just shrugging off the wreckage of the Transcaucasus, and the North Caucasus, which Putin's Russian state has played a key role in creating, is... Well, let's just call it a sad and cynical statement.

I think I'll follow the Polish and Ukrainian press reports. Get a somewhat broader perspective than appears to be available in western Europe. (I don't read Georgian, though.)

 

[senorpogo]

Don't forget that Russia had brought this issue up in talks at the UN Security council in the weeks leading up to this conflict. They wanted a resolution to prevent any sort of armed conflict, and this was rejected by the US and Britian as well as several other countries.

Do you feel that under your feet?

It's America's moral high ground eroding under your very feet.

At the request of Russia, the United Nations Security Council held an emergency session in New York but failed to reach consensus early Friday (8th) on a Russian-drafted statement.

The council concluded it was at a stalemate after the United States, Britain and some other members backed the Georgians in rejecting a phrase in the three-sentence draft statement that would have required both sides "to renounce the use of force," council diplomats said.

 

[gumboot]

@Gummi: You are wrong. Humans are great but the system sucks. We are in the last days of capitalism where some of the biggest entities are not states, but corporations. The politicians we have in "the west" now are mere puppets of financial and economic interests and intelligent, integer people have long stopped thinking about a career in politics.

This has always been the case. Who Ruled Rome? The corporations. Who ruled Medieval Europe? The corporations. It's the golden rule. Capitalism isn't going away any day soon, I'm afraid.

 

[Texas]

Putin was a mere colonel when the USSR fell, to judge him you need to look at how Russia has done since Putin came to power.

You're the only one implying a comparisson between the USSR and an ascendent Russia. The fundamental difference is that the USSR posed a major military threat to Western-Europe, while modern Russia doesn't. So the country is reasserting part of its former sphere of influence, that's only natural and no threat, hence of no real concern to the rest of the world.

We can and should relax our attitude towards Russia, precisely because the USSR is dead and burried.

I would like some facts to back-up the assertion that Russia has risen from the ashes to become a major military player since the fall of the USSR. They spent 40 billion on their military last year while the US spent 500 billion not including the Iraq/Afghanistan operations. Russia has no meaningful global presence outside its borders and it's equipment such as the radar systems they gave to Syria and Iran are a joke. It appears that they are a the biggest fish in a very small pond but this admiration of their resurgence as a world power appears to be a bit premature. What I detect with your posts and others is almost a wistful nostalgia for the glory days of the cold war.

 

[egslim]

I would like some facts to back-up the assertion that Russia has risen from the ashes to become a major military player since the fall of the USSR. They spent 40 billion on their military last year while the US spent 500 billion not including the Iraq/Afghanistan operations.

You're quite wrong to equate global influence with military spending. Russia's influence stems from its control over oil and gas supplies to the rest of the world, especially with current and future high prices. Of course its still huge landmass, sizable population and army, and large arsenal of nukes play a part too.

Since the US military can do little about those energy supplies and nukes, the US could double its defense budget, and the effect on Russian ascendance would still be minor.

Russia has no meaningful global presence outside its borders

Then you admit that Russia reasserting part of its former sphere of influence isn't really a problem, since they have little to begin with?

What I detect with your posts and others is almost a wistful nostalgia for the glory days of the cold war.

Then you've missed the point entirely. I don't want a return to the Cold War, I want an end to the unipolar world. And the reason is that I don't trust the US to not mess things up. Which under Bush it arguably has already done.

The upside is that the world has already become somewhat multipolar, only that some people haven't figured it out yet. Hence Washington's current embarrasment with Georgia. Consider it a valuable lesson.

 

[Wire]

THere was no need to Godwin this thread.

Sorry for the Hitler bit. Bildt himself probably used it because Russia has developed a habit of calling other people Nazis lately.

What I meant to say the message is that Russia is willing to create and use ethnic tensions to the level shown in Georgia. I'm concerned with it because it lowers my personal life expectancy.

So the country is reasserting part of its former sphere of influence, that's only natural and no threat, hence of no real concern to the rest of the world.

But the nations next to Russia do not want to be in its "sphere of influence"! They had endured it for longer or shorter periods and it got a lot of people killed.