Russia invades Georgia

[Ziggurat]

I do not remember when I have limited the discussion to long-range invasions

You did not. But the distinction is quite relevant nonetheless, and very much speaks to the (ir)relevance of your comparison of the US to other countries.

 

[Matteo Martini]

You did not. But the distinction is quite relevant nonetheless, and very much speaks to the (ir)relevance of your comparison of the US to other countries.

As only long-range invasions count?
Or was it, only short-range invasions?
Or are only invasions performed by non-US countries to be called as such, while it is politically correct to call US or US-led or US-sponsored invasions as "freedom-support operations" or "war on terror" (or something like that)??

 

[Ziggurat]

As only long-range invasions count?
Or was it, only short-range invasions?

They both count. But considering that the only invasions the US has done in the last 50 years have been long-range invasions (since we didn't go through with the Bay of Pigs), and considering that nobody else is really capable of doing such invasions, the comparison is not informative of anything other than a difference in capability between us and the rest of the world.

 

[Matteo Martini]

They both count. But considering that the only invasions the US has done in the last 50 years have been long-range invasions (since we didn't go through with the Bay of Pigs), and considering that nobody else is really capable of doing such invasions, the comparison is not informative of anything other than a difference in capability between us and the rest of the world.

The vast majority of the countries of the world try to refrain from invading other countries, being them bordering countries or far-away countries.
The US seem to be an exception.
The fact that the US invaded mostly far-away countries (while apparently many other countries do not have this capability) can not be seen as a justification for this militaristic approach.

 

[Ziggurat]

The vast majority of the countries of the world try to refrain from invading other countries, being them bordering countries or far-away countries.
The US seem to be an exception.

And how exactly can you tell if a country tries to refrain from doing something it's not capable of doing?

The fact that the US invaded mostly far-away countries (while apparently many other countries do not have this capability) can not be seen as a justification for this militaristic approach.

Nobody put it forward as a justification for what you term a "militaristic approach". Rather, the point is that your comparison is worthless, whether or not a "militaristic approach" is justified. Really, Matteo, you're only demonstrating that you don't understand the argument.

 

[Matteo Martini]

And how exactly can you tell if a country tries to refrain from doing something it's not capable of doing?

We are speaking about invasion, not about long-range or short-range invasion, here.

edited to add.
China borders with 10-15 countries, the US with two.
I do not recall China launched any invasion on bordering countries in the last 50 years.
Let alone the fact that China has the capability for a long-range invasion too.
What about Brazil?

 

[egslim]

Sorry, your attempt at a petty redefinition does not answer the mail.

Your ignorance of proper definitions is noted. Moving on...

So what if Cheney or Bush wants Georgia in NATO?

Their desire is not decisive, I'll grant you that.

But to discard the wishes of NATO's by far most powerful member with respect to who should join the organization as irrelevant with a mere "so what"? That's just crzay.

Your own article claims that the US was "pressing hard to bring Georgia into the NATO orbit". Such pressure still weighs severely on other NATO members. Less than it used to, though.

To consider what would have happened had they succeeded is not a fantasy, it's an important hypothetical. Especially next time a new member is proposed.

This narrative, if true, is an eerie replay of the mixed messages sent to Saddam Hussein in the summer of 1991 about Kuwait.

Very true. Bluff makes poor foreign policy. It forces people to guess for real meaning, introducing uncertainty, and that's dangerous.

I didn't spout optimism. If you had read a bit more closely, each set up holds its own risks.

I read it twice now, and I still can’t find a side by side comparison of the pro and cons of those risks in your postings. Maybe my English idiom is failing, or you just weren’t very clear.

Any of those power blocs can, within a generation from today's writing, approximate the power of a global hegemon if America hits the skids due to a cracking economy.

Unlikely. To some extent America is still freewheeling on the (ever declining) remains of its position as the only large, developed nation to escape WWII undamaged.

Without another world war none of the other power blocs can obtain the same advantage, and without that neither of them can get sufficiently far ahead of the others combined to be considered a hegemon.

As to American leadership, of late I've not seen a lot to recommend American leadership writ large in some endeavours, thanks to the Wilsonian/Jacksonian fusion that has characterized the Bush Administration. That will likely change as the administration changes.

Perhaps. McCain's response to this conflict was not encouraging.

How are terrorists relevant to uni polar, bi polar, or multi polar power models?

Their provocations can get countries to do stupid things. Hegemons are more likely to do something stupid, because there is no one to keep them in check. And because they have more power, their stupid actions cause more damage.

Most importantly though, is whether or not a country overestimates its own abilities.

And then my internetconnection failed, hence the delay in posting it.

 

[egslim]

We are speaking about invasion, not about long-range or short-range invasion, here.

Then you have to ask yourself how many invasions each country could perform, and how many of them would advance its interests. For example, while the Netherlands is incapable of invading Eritrea, even if we could that bit of real estate would be entirely worthless to us. Two very good reasons that prevent invasion, and neither points to any moral superiority on our part.

At this point in history full scale invasions have become extremely costly, so they usually have a poor cost/benefit ratio. Only limited invasions have some chance at profitability.

I think all the talk about "this great military", "a unipolar world" and "a hyperpower" has gone to many American politician's head, causing them not to realize the above cost/benefit analysis. Most other nation's politicians have their feet firmer on the ground in this regard, causing them to be more realistic when deciding whether or not to invade. That has little to do with any difference in morality, though.

Note for the future: One way to bring the costs of full scale invasions down is to practice genocide. No expensive, drawn-out conflict with insurgents when most of the local population is dead. At first it will require people to be convinced of the necessity of a full-scale invasion, but I can see it happening someday.

 

[Matteo Martini]

Then you have to ask yourself how many invasions each country could perform,

Talking about capabilities to launch an invasion, not necessarily to win a war
China can invade almost all neighbouring countries (that is already about 15 possible invasions) and has a military by which can attack even far-off countries (nuclear submarines, big army, ICBMs, ..)
Japan, the second economy of the world, could build a nuclear arsenal to compete with the US and Russia and an army to invade any country in South East Asia in a relatively short time (they already did that 70 years ago, much even now)
Brazil could invade almost any country of South America

and how many of them would advance its interests.

That is a different story

 

[Matteo Martini]

Unlikely. To some extent America is still freewheeling on the (ever declining) remains of its position as the only large, developed nation to escape WWII undamaged.

China will catch the US in GDP real terms in 10-15, 20 years maximum

 

[Big Les]

It appears the Russians have got a grip in Gori and are working alongside Georgian police to maintain law and order. Which is a good thing. US military boots are on the ground in a purely humanitarian role, something which the Russians are encouraging. Plans are being made for the Russian withdrawal in an orderly manner; you can't rush these things, comrade.

More importantly, why the hell are they in sovereign (undisputed, non-breakaway) Georgian territory in the first place? I still think they were justified in booting (aggressor, by most accounts) Georgian forces out of a de facto independent state, but this is surely wrong. Also because of their failure to exercise control over the Ossetians, who are running roughshod, looting and even robbing journalists. Of course there are irregulars on the other side too.

I think the blame scales are firmly tilted back toward Russia at this point though. They had the Kosovo comparison moral high ground, and they lost it in their urge to show Georgia, the region, and the world, just how much control they're able to exercise, and just how little everyone else is.

PS Can we stop the derail please? This is history in the making in its own right, without all the OT stuff.

 

[Wire]

They had the Kosovo comparison moral high ground, and they lost it in their urge to show Georgia, the region, and the world, just how much control they're able to exercise, and just how little everyone else is.

If Russia really wanted to use Kosovo as an example why the hell they didn't sign up that sleek mr. Ahtisaari? He should be available by now.

Kosovars got their independence after nearly 10 years of talks involving EU, US and RF where everyone tried to convince them NOT to declare indpendence and the peacekeepers were from multiple countries. In SO the "peacekeepers" were Russian which was one side of the conflict, they were even never able (willing) stop the violence happening in the area. In my opinion Russia was clearly not intresting in solving this situation i.e. negotiating independence for SO but keeping things "hot" to exert pressure on Georgia.

 

[egslim]

@ egslim: nuclear weapons have not taken war off the table.

Not war in general, but war between Great Powers has become prohibitively expensive, in a way that is recognized by everyone. Unlike WWI, when few recognized the great cost that would occur beforehand. Or WWII, when Hitler thought Blitzkrieg offered a cheap solution.

Of course war is still on the table, but only in the form of smaller-scale conflicts.

Your pretense that the relationship between the two has changed is empty

No, it is a direct consequence of changed economic realities.

Over the past several hundred years the effective taxrates in all nations have increased tremendously. It used to be that a government could wage wars until bankrupcy loomed, make peace, and be ready for the next round a few years later. That's because the government's effect on the economy was so small (low taxation, low expenditure), that the national economy would be barely affected by the government's bankrupcy.

The increase in taxation, due to inventions like the income tax and a more effective bureaucracy, allowed governments to raise more money and hence fight wars more effectively. The downside was that wars could now financially exhaust the entire national economy, instead of only the government's treasury.

So the cost of war as a precentage of the economy has blown up.

But the ability to recover said cost from loot, tribute, favorable economic agreements, etc, has not. If anything, looting has become less efficient than it used to be, because proportionally less wealth is nowadays tied up in easily lootable goods like gold and jewelry. Tribute no longer works, instead the defeated country is more likely to need foreign financial support.

the richest nations, who have the most advanced means of industrial age slaughter to hand are also the ones who have the most to lose

Strawman. As long as they only invade weaker nations without strong allies they have nothing to fear from a counterinvasion, and they can pretty much limit the financial cost beforehand by withdrawing when the invasionbudget is spent - at the cost of a prestigehit.

This hard power: it's bloody expensive when chosen, no matter your century.

False. Ask the Vikings, hard power was quite profitable to them. As it was to the Ottoman Empire, who based their economy on the profitable use of hard power: The treasury depended on loot and tribute, its bureacracy on captured slaves.

Of course soft power is more often the tool used, it's a cost benefit winner in most cases. Having recourse to hard power, be it latent or an over threat, also opens options when applying suasion to achieve an end.

Having hard power is nice, but also expensive - even if it's not even used. One has to weigh the cost of maintaining it against the advantages it gives.

And there is always the danger that having hard power by itself entices politicians to use it, even when it's not profitable.

 

[egslim]

Talking about capabilities to launch an invasion, not necessarily to win a war

Why? Nobody is going to invade anyone, unless they expect to have at least some chance at victory. The two are inseperable.

That is a different story

No, it's key. The only reason to invade a nation is if it is expected to be profitable in some way. That's true for even the most morally disgusting worldleader.

Of course said expectation may or may not be realistic. I think people like Rumsfeld were so infatuated with US military power, that they failed to see its limitations.

China will catch the US in GDP real terms in 10-15, 20 years maximum

Perhaps, though China has major hurdles to overcome. Especially its aging population.

But even when the US commanded 50% of the world's GDP it was impotent to interfere inside the USSR's sphere of influence. China just isn't going to get that far with 1/5th of the world's population and without WWIII. It can dominate East Asia, but not Russia or India - assuming they continue to develop too. Chinese domination of the Med or Atlantic is out of the question.

 

[ddt]

I do not recall China launched any invasion on bordering countries in the last 50 years.
Let alone the fact that China has the capability for a long-range invasion too.

You really have to brush up your history knowledge then.

Chinese "volunteers" helped North Korea in invading South Korea in the Korean war (OK, that's just over 50 years ago).

China invaded Tibet around 50 years ago.

China had a nasty border war with India around 1960.

China had another war with Vietnam end 1970s.

 

[egslim]

More importantly, why the hell are they in sovereign (undisputed, non-breakaway) Georgian territory in the first place?

For the same reason US generals during the '91 Gulf War would have prefered to simply move on Baghdad, and wait for the surrender of Iraqi forces in Kuwait there.

Instead they went widely around Kuwait and the Iraqi forces there to cut them off, instead of directly moving into Kuwait as Saddam expected them to.

The answer is: "Because it makes military sense".

They had the Kosovo comparison moral high ground, and they lost it in their urge to show Georgia, the region, and the world, just how much control they're able to exercise, and just how little everyone else is.

Except "moral high ground" is pretty much worthless currency in international politics. Or anywhere else.

 

[AWPrime]

More importantly, why the hell are they in sovereign (undisputed, non-breakaway) Georgian territory in the first place?

To destroy military supplies and equipment.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Here's a short clip from FOX News. They had a 12 year old girl on who was in SO at that time, visiting her aunt. Wanted to do a little appeal to emotions. And what does she say in front of millions of brainwashed TV zombies?

"i want to say that i was running away from Georgian troops bombing our city not Russia troops, .......i just want to thank the Russian troops"


OUTFOXED!

 

[gumboot]

Talking about capabilities to launch an invasion, not necessarily to win a war
China can invade almost all neighbouring countries (that is already about 15 possible invasions) and has a military by which can attack even far-off countries (nuclear submarines, big army, ICBMs, ..)
Japan, the second economy of the world, could build a nuclear arsenal to compete with the US and Russia and an army to invade any country in South East Asia in a relatively short time (they already did that 70 years ago, much even now)
Brazil could invade almost any country of South America

This is a phenomenally ignorant post. Go look up "Strategic Airlift" and "Force Projection" and then get back to us when you understand the relevance. Cheers.

The United States has the only military in the world with force projection capabilities.

 

[Matteo Martini]

More importantly, why the hell are they in sovereign (undisputed, non-breakaway) Georgian territory in the first place?

As superpowers do what they want in world politics.
Look at the US in Iraq

PS Can we stop the derail please? This is history in the making in its own right, without all the OT stuff.

There is no derail here.
Politics of all the world is interconnected