Russia invades Georgia

[Gurdur]

Not by european standards.

Uh huh, whatever. Seems to me that Britain was very involved, several times. Contrary to your assertion.

So was France, if you think I pick on Britain too much.

 

[gdnp]

As for our support, I can't speak for other small nations but our troops are already busy helping out small nations closer to home that the big boys don't give a fig about, and trying to help fix up the mess in Afghanistan that was created (unsurprisingly) by meddling big boys.

So if something is to be done, it must be done by the Big Boy US, even though we already spend a much higher percentage of GDP on the military than other western governments.

I doubt we'd send anyone to Georgia anyway, because unlike countries like the USA and Russia we know not to stick our noses into matters that are none of our business.

So wait: if the US does nothing, as it appears we will do, are we shirking our responsibility to help the little guys, or just keeping our noses out of other people's business?

I feel nothing but pity for the people of the Balkans and the Caucasus. They've been play things of the world's bullies for centuries.

I feel pity for the civilians in all these conflicts. The vast majority of the world population couldn't give a damn about superpower politics, or regional politics, and would probably not care too much about national politics as long as the government leaves them alone.

That being said, I have no desire to send my son to clean up this mess, whether it is the Russians, South Ossetians, or Georgians that are to blame.

 

[geni]

Then why did you answer, and who the hell do you mean by "we"?

Well going by the text you quote it would appear to be big countries. That however doesn't appear to be consistent with you latter comments so who were you talking about?

Congratulations. But are you a pacifist just this time or all the time?

I'm not sure that pacifism really makes sense as anything other than a universal doctrain. Tell me when you give up on the false dilemma.

Read my reply to you again. Quoting myself:

"My only recommendation to posters on JREF would be not to spout Russian agitprop, or indeed agitprop from any source, or schoolboy poseur cynicism."

Which would you suggest we are acutaly doing then?

 

[Texas]

No it isn't. Historicaly Western europe hasn't done much in that area. Tended to be too Russian.

The EU is no longer comprised of just "Western Europe"

What exactly are you suggesting the US do?

I don't want the US to do anything.

 

[Gurdur]

Well going by the text you quote it would appear to be big countries.

I had no idea you were a big country. In that case, go back and read my reply to Texas. The one I referred you to last time.

That however doesn't appear to be consistent with you latter comments so who were you talking about?

I think you better re-read page 8 of the thread in its entirety.

I'm not sure that pacifism really makes sense as anything other than a universal doctrain. Tell me when you give up on the false dilemma.

Nice evasion of my question, but still only an evasion.

Which would you suggest we are acutaly doing then?

I think you better re-read page 8 of the thread in its entirety, especially my reply to Texas. Cheers.

 

[Gurdur]

.... That being said, I have no desire to send my son to clean up this mess, whether it is the Russians, South Ossetians, or Georgians that are to blame.

It would be a mistake to do so, a big one.

But putting pressure on the USA and EU governments to do effective economic sanctions is doable and would be very effective.

And hell, this time at least (unlike Dafur), China would help.

 

[Texas]

It would be a mistake to do so, a big one.

But putting pressure on the USA and EU governments to do effective economic sanctions is doable and would be very effective.

And hell, this time at least (unlike Dafur), China would help.

Well it would have to be outside of the UN since Russia would just veto. I don't put as much faith in that solution as you do. Russia has NEVER responded to sanctions before and it is also very self sufficient when it comes to resources. I would be interested in hearing what sanctions the west could impose to make Putin take notice.

 

[gumboot]

So if something is to be done, it must be done by the Big Boy US, even though we already spend a much higher percentage of GDP on the military than other western governments.

Well it has occurred to me that it might be nice once in a while for countries like the USA to live up to their self-claimed ideals and use that considerable military expenditure for something other than their own selfish interests. Like stopping a genocide in Rwanada, for example.

So wait: if the US does nothing, as it appears we will do, are we shirking our responsibility to help the little guys, or just keeping our noses out of other people's business?

Please don't take it that I am leveling all of my criticism at the USA. Far from it. As far as "big boys" go the USA has probably been the most restrained large power in human history. In this particular example I think the USA is right to keep out of it.

I feel pity for the civilians in all these conflicts. The vast majority of the world population couldn't give a damn about superpower politics, or regional politics, and would probably not care too much about national politics as long as the government leaves them alone.

That being said, I have no desire to send my son to clean up this mess, whether it is the Russians, South Ossetians, or Georgians that are to blame.

If the big countries (and again, I'm not talking the USA here, just large powerful nations in general) didn't treat the small countries as their play things there wouldn't be a mess to clean up. That's kind of my point.

Take a look at all of the major wars in the last 1000 years or so, and ask yourself two questions:
1) Who was really responsible for it starting
2) Who suffered the most because of it

I am confident you'll find that in the majority of cases it was started by the political maneuvering of large powers, and that small countries or states paid the butcher's bill for it - often with their very existence.

 

[geni]

Uh huh, whatever. Seems to me that Britain was very involved, several times. Contrary to your assertion.

Post WW1 involvement for the most part hasn't stuck. It was mostly fleeting low level. Outside of persia you have what the tiny Dunsterforce? You that is very involved?

Within persia actual occupation was largly limited to either during or just post the world wars and when not occupied the country acted far more independenty than a country in the british sphere of influence proper would.

 

[Texas]

gumboot;3938238]Well it has occurred to me that it might be nice once in a while for countries like the USA to live up to their self-claimed ideals and use that considerable military expenditure for something other than their own selfish interests. Like stopping a genocide in Rwanada, for example.

gumboot had we intervened militarily in Rwanda we would have been as demonized as we are with Iraq. Yes it should have been done but I am ready for one of the other "big-boys" to take the heat militarily.

 

[geni]

The EU is no longer comprised of just "Western Europe"

Yeah but historicaly the existance of most eastern europeans is kinda dicey. Their extra territorial experditions tend to be somewhat limited as a result.

 

[geni]

I had no idea you were a big country.

The responce was considering the situation from the POV of a big country.

In that case, go back and read my reply to Texas. The one I referred you to last time.

Why? are you withdrawing the original comment?

I think you better re-read page 8 of the thread in its entirety.

I have

Nice evasion of my question, but still only an evasion.

Not really. See a pacifist would take the view that Georgia doesn't have the right to fight back. While I think it might be a good idea for them to stop doing so I accept they are free to try.

I think you better re-read page 8 of the thread in its entirety, especially my reply to Texas. Cheers.

You reply is on page 9. In what roll would you like to draw attention to it.

 

[gumboot]

gumboot had we intervened militarily in Rwanda we would have been as demonized as we are with Iraq.

I know. The hypocrisy of the big powers in the way they choose when to intervene and when to condemn others for intervening is just part of the whole pathetic mess.

Put it this way... the United Nations was allegedly a compact by the great powers to use their combined efforts to bring peace and harmony to the globe so we can all frolic through the flowers and cuddle bunnies.

Combined, the permanent Security Council members alone have sufficient military power to shut down every single armed conflict on this planet. Easily.

The consequences of this fact are rather profound. For the first time an international body has pledged itself to "world peace" and actually possessed the capability to make it a reality.

But like all good things, we screwed it up. We let our petty and minor differences get in the way of our common humanity. Instead of bring world peace the permanent security council members have used the UN to perpetuate conflict across the globe.

As for why the big boys should fix things, and not the little guys - it was the big guys that insisted that the Security Council of the UN have all the power and be dominated by them (with veto power nonetheless) and that the General Assembly have no real authority.

They chose the sole responsibility of maintaining world peace and security. When are they going to get on and actually do it?

 

[egslim]

Well we will soon see. The US is airlifting Georgia's Iraq troops back to Georgia to join the fight. Let's see if Russia has the stones to shoot down the troop planes.

Why bother? Those two or three thousand counter-insurgency troops won't make an inch of difference. Not worth the diplomatic hassle.

Unlike Georgia, Russia has enough brains not to cause entirely unnecessry trouble for itself.

So I would assume that you are in favor of leveling Baghdad to lower American losses?

The first priority if you go to war is always to have a clearly defined, achievable objective. So far, the US doesn't have one in Iraq, only some vague ideas about ideal outcomes.

Without having such an objective it's impossible to say whether leveling Baghdad will help accomplish it.

After defining that objective, you should only go to war if you're willing and able to do what it takes to accomplish it. Otherwise, don't bother invading.

How about the EU? This is their part of the world.

The EU is able to defend itself, but it does not do force projection.

And you're quite wrong, the Caucasus is not in the EU's part of the world. The EU's core is Western Europe, we're still having difficulties digesting especially Bulgaria. The Caucasus is firmly in Russia's part.

 

[egslim]

This is why I am glad I live so far away from the rest of you people. For all your talk of freedom and peace and rights, these big countries couldn't give an iota of a damn about the citizens of the little countries of this world.

Actually I rarely talk of "freedom and peace and rights". Not like Georgia was an example in that regard, though. There is a reason why the South Ossetians prefer Russia over Georgia.

The hypocrisy of the big powers in the way they choose when to intervene and when to condemn others for intervening is just part of the whole pathetic mess.

I resent that. It's not hypocrisy, it's ruthlesness.

Going to war for moral reasons is generally stupid. The reason is that despite popular myth clean high-tech wars don't exist, they are always dirty or become so quickly. Not to mention very expensive.
Suppose you decide to fight in Georgia, turning the whole country into a devastated battlefield at great cost. The country has murdered its own citizens and oppressed the political opposition. How is maintaining that system at great cost worth it?

The only valid reason to go to war is for national interests, and only if those interests outweigh the costs of fighting.

 

[egslim]

I can understand people saying (even if I might disagree); "if only the EU could act as a counter balance to the US" but how can it be a good thing that brutal regimes like China and Russia are becoming more powerful?

Because a single hegemon is very dangerous, for everyone including itself. Especially if that hegemon overestimates its own capability as a "hyperpower".

We've had only a small taste of the damage such a country can do, with regards to the adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both of which are still playing, the aftershocks have barely begun and will continue for a long time.

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.

Will their rise help prevent wars?

That depends in large part on the US. Georgia obviously expected US support for its adventure into South Ossetia. In 2004 Colin Powell wisely told Georgia not to provoke Russia. Recently Georgia must have somehow gotten a different idea, and now we have this.

If the US voluntarily surrenders its position as a global hegemon in response to the ascendence of other powers, then the proces will be peaceful. Otherwise we'll see more limited, small scale wars like this one until the point is driven home. The endresult will be a new equilibrium anyway.

Needless to say the four options you gave represent a false dilemma, and your description of the US's role in number two is at the very least subject to interpretation.

 

[geni]

Looks like it might all be over bar the bickering.

 

[ddt]

Depends just when you're talking about. The second time Georgia was subsumed into Russia (=conquered and occupied), it was a fully independent country, unified, and relatively modern. 1921!

Yeah, OK, but we were talking about 1800 with a vibrant Czarist Russia, not the collapsing one of 1917.

Agreed. Everyone has a right to national self-determination.

The other side of the coin of course is: "national self-determination" sounds very nice in a world where we all sing kumbaja and get along nicely, but that's not the case. National independence of all those Caucasian peoples with everyone their own small petty nation-state is very unpragmatic in this world. They'd be all politically heavily influenced/dominated by one of the bigger neighbours.

How much Realpolitik was the Russian idiocy in Eastern Europe, Ukraine, all the other now-independent states? Or for that matter Vietnam? Or Chechnya, which makes Vietnam look like a friendly picnic?

The Ukraine was pure lunacy. They got away with their political dominance over Eastern Europe for 45 years, so I don't see the idiocy in that. In what respect do you name Vietnam here?

Realpolitik is supposed to be intelligent and pragmatic, and above all successful, and trying by force to suppress national independence usually ends up in failure.

It depends how you define it. Real popular nationalism only begins in the 19th C. Before that, in ME Europe, people didn't care much for what went on outside the fief of the lord they lived in, or even outside their village. But, restricting to Europe, I can name a lot of "nations" whose independence didn't survive at all. Let's begin with the Roman conquests of Iberia and Gaul. It wasn't a walk in the park - Caesar slaughtered 1-2 million Gauls - but it worked out. Later on, when the Southern French had some independent ideas from Paris, they were slaughtered in big numbers by the Northern French. Occitan only lives on in placenames. Other French minorities - Bretons, French Flemish - have been ruthlessly suppressed for even daring to speak their own language. The English have been very successful with conquering and suppressing the Welsh - so much that they had to actively support Welsh culture from the 1970s on so it wouldn't die out. Germany's hold on Silesia, Posen and West Prussia and the suppression of the local Poles was only undone because the Germans twice tried "Germany against the world". Those Poles were just lucky to still be alive; the old Prussians didn't even survive long enough to spell the word "independence". Spain has been able to hold off both the Basques' and the Catalans' ideas of independence. The Dutch bid for independence from Spain only worked out half. The Belgians and the Greeks in the 1820s and 1830s only managed with massive help from the Great Powers - unlike the Poles, who had to wait for the simultaneous collapse of Germany and Russia.

So, that's a long laundry list of crushed national aspirations that didn't make it - or only made it due to very unusual circumstances. And it's far from complete.

Well, "reasserting their influence" included helping being an effective block to the Arabs in that direction.

Did the Arabs still have designs in that direction by that time? And well, we're then way past Charles Martell, aren't we?

Honking big "raiding party", see previous point regarding preliminary raids and so on. Martel did the right thing, as far as dissuasion of Arab possible ambitions there went.

Absolutely. It was a bit of a gamble - he didn't have that much advantage - but it paid off. In the end, it also played Aquitaine into his hands and the Provence. Martel laid the groundwork for Charlemagne's empire.

Granted -- but how would it all have turned out had Tours not happened or the Arabs won it?

They would have been stopped in the region of Detmold, I guess At least they would have stopped by at Fulda (much loot with that abbey), so we wouldn't have to learn in primary school that Boniface was slain at Dokkum in 754, in a fashion as if that was a crime.

</end of derail>

 

[CapelDodger]

The Turks being a member of NATO isn't about to jump into this mess unless it is against the Russians..

Membership of NATO does not preclude any actions taken in pursuit of percevied national interests. When the UK took back the Falklands it wasn't a NATO operation, even though the UK is a founder-member. The Iraq War is not a NATO action, even though the US is a founder-member.

If the Turks decide that it serves their national interests to partition "Georgia" in concert with the Russians, membership of NATO will have nothing to do with it. Any more than it will if they decide to move into Iraqi Kurdistan.

 

[CapelDodger]

Turkey has enough issues with the kurds. Last thing it wants is an indefencable bit of land with another problematic ethnic group. With South Ossetia and Abkhazia Russian held there is no realistic way for any other power to have significant militry influence in the area.

As a buffer-zone between Turkey and Russia, Georgia wouldn't need to be defensible. Possession of the Georgian valley would give Turkey control over an important strategic route, especially in concert with their fellow Turks in Azerbaijan.

Not an attractive prospect for Armenia, of course, but there it is.