|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 28, 2008 10:55:32 GMT -5
Don't know if anyone is still interested in this or not, but here's an interesting well-written viewpoint by Mr Dyer. Later in the column he compares this conflict to Russia's attack on Chechnya. 10 August 2008
South Ossetia: A Monumental Miscalculation
By Gwynne Dyer
The three-day war in South Ossetia is settled, and the Georgians
have lost. There may be some more shooting yet, but it is now clear that
Georgia will never regain control of the rebel territories of South Ossetia
and Abkhazia, that President Mikhail Saakashvili has handed Russia a major
victory, and that Georgia's hopes of joining NATO are gone. Pretty
impressive work for one long weekend.
Now Saakashvili is playing on old Cold War stereotypes of the
Russian threat in a desperate bid for Western backing: "What Russia is
doing in Georgia is open, unhidden aggression and a challenge to the whole
world. If the whole world does not stop Russia today, then Russian tanks
will be able to reach any other European capital." Nonsense. It was Georgia
that started this war.
The chronology tells it all. Skirmishes between Georgian troops and
South Ossetian militia were more frequent than usual over the past several
months, but on the afternoon of Thursday, 7 August, Saakashvili offered the
separatist South Ossetian government "an immediate ceasefire and the
immediate beginning of talks," promising that "full autonomy" was on the
table. The same evening, however, he ordered a general offensive.
South Ossetian's president, Eduard Kokoity, called Saakashvili's
ceasefire offer a "despicable and treacherous" ruse, which seems fair
enough. Through all of Thursday night and Friday morning Georgian artillery
shells and rockets rained down on the little city of Tskhinvali, South
Ossetia's capital, while Georgian infantry and tanks encircled it. Russian
journalists reported that 70 percent of the city was destroyed, and by
Friday afternoon it was in Georgian hands.
It was obvious that this offensive had been planned well in
advance, but this, it appears, was as far as Saakashvili's plan extended.
He assumed that the world's attention would be distracted by the opening of
the Olympics, and that the Russian reaction would be slow because Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin was off in Beijing.
If he had three or four days to establish full military control of
South Ossetia, then he could put a pro-Georgian administration in place and
declare the problem solved. Then, with Western diplomatic support and
military aid, he could withstand the furious Russian protests and (perhaps)
military responses to his action. But all of his calculations were wrong.
There was no delay in the Russian response. A large Russian force
was on its way from North Ossetia (which is part of the Russian Federation)
by mid-day on Friday, and Russian jets began striking targets inside
Georgia proper. By the time Vladimir Putin reached the North Ossetian
capital of Vladikavkaz on Saturday morning, the Georgian forces were
already being driven out of Tskhinvali again.
By Saturday evening, Georgia was calling for a ceasefire and
declaring that all its troops were being withdrawn from South Ossetia to
prevent a "humanitarian catastrophe." Saakashvili's gamble had failed, and
any future prospect for Georgia to recover the rebel province had vanished.
As Putin put it, the territorial integrity of Georgia has "suffered a fatal
blow".
Not just South Ossetia has been lost for good. Any hope that
Georgia could ever recover its other breakaway province, Abkhazia, has also
evaporated. On Saturday, the Abkhazian government announced a military
offensive to drive Georgian troops out of the Kodori gorge, the last bit of
Abkhazian territory that it doesn't control. With overt Russian military
support, it is very likely to succeed. How much does all of this matter?
It matters a great deal to Saakashvili, who is likely to lose
power. It matters a lot to the 300,000 Georgians who fled their homes in
Abkhazia and South Ossetia when the two ethnic enclaves, which had been
autonomous parts of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic in Soviet times,
declared their independence after the old Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
The Georgian attempts to reconquer them in 1992-93 were bloody failures,
and after this second failure it is clear that the Georgian refugees will
never go home.
It is a reason to rejoice for most Abkhazians and South Ossetians.
Although they share much history and a common eastern Orthodox Christianity
with the far more numerous Georgians, they are ethnically distinct peoples
with different languages, and they always resented Stalin's decision to
place them under Georgian rule. It will probably be decades before they
achieve formal independence or are fully absorbed into the Russian
Federation, but either way they will be happy with the outcome.
The Bush administration's ambition to extend NATO into the Caucasus
mountains is dead, which will please the French, the Germans and other NATO
members who always found it bizarre and wilfully provocative. Russians, who
were the target of the provocation, will be quietly pleased with the speed
and effectiveness of their government's response. And nobody else really
cares.
There is no great moral issue here. What Georgia tried to do to
South Ossetia is precisely what Russia did to Chechnya, but Georgia wasn't
strong enough and South Ossetia had a bigger friend. There is no great
strategic issue either: apart from a few pipeline routes, the whole
Transcaucasus is of little importance to the rest of the world. In six
months' time, we probably won't even remember this foolish adventure.www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20South%20Ossetia.txt |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Aug 28, 2008 12:03:28 GMT -5
Good read. Thanks for sharing.
The press was too quick to jump on the "Russia is invading Georgia!!" bandwagon, before the true facts were publicly available. Or perhaps they were, but decided Georgia starting a war wasn't sensationalist enough.
Regardless, it's over for the time being.
|
|
|
|
Post by MC Habber on Aug 28, 2008 20:42:45 GMT -5
I'm wondering more and more whether I should even pay any attention to the "mainstream" media at all. A "free press" is of little value when it operates this way. The superior attitude that some people in the West have towards less "democratic" countries sort of puzzles me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 29, 2008 13:08:30 GMT -5
I'm wondering more and more whether I should even pay any attention to the "mainstream" media at all. A "free press" is of little value when it operates this way. The superior attitude that some people in the West have towards less "democratic" countries sort of puzzles me. You know yourself, we're basically at the mercy of what the mainstream media wants us to read and think. Writers like George Friedman and Gwynne Dyer are very good at collecting all of the data and drawing well thought-out conclusions. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Aug 30, 2008 1:26:29 GMT -5
And if Quebec dares to separate, the tanks will roll in from Ottawa and annex the west island to save the English speaking Canadian citizens from the oppressive French speaking QPP.
You did correctly point out that I jumped to the conclusion that Putin started all this, but I am skeptical that Georgia wanted to start a conflict with Russia.
Bottom line, we really don't know all the facts about what goes on 7,000 miles away on the other side of the world, especially when we are fixated on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Michael Phelps and 11 year old Chinese gymnasts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 30, 2008 11:38:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 30, 2008 11:41:49 GMT -5
I'm wondering more and more whether I should even pay any attention to the "mainstream" media at all. A "free press" is of little value when it operates this way. The superior attitude that some people in the West have towards less "democratic" countries sort of puzzles me. If you expect anyone to spoon feed you a version of "truth" that you can believe in then you missed the Ergo Sum part. |
|
|
|
Post by duster on Aug 30, 2008 16:51:05 GMT -5
I like Gwynne Dyer. He is pretty astute in his analysis usually. This time, I would disagree with his assessment that Georgia, and by extension Ukraine, will not be admitted to NATO. It's clear to me that Sarkozy and Merkel have realized that delaying Georgia's admission earlier this year was, in many ways, responsible for the latest Russian incursion. They will avoid a repeat. Already, Merkel is on record saying that Georgia would be admitted. I think Ukraine will be on the fast track now.
Who provoked who? Well, it's true the Georgians fired the first shots, but the Russians were issuing passports to Ossetians and, in so doing, setting the stage for an intervention, possible civil war, and eventual annexation of the territory. The similarities with the German take over of the Sudetenland in 1938 are there. It's clear that other countries such a Azerbajan, Ukraine, and most of the border states are seeing the same thing i.e Russia issuing passports to Russian speaking people of those countries, and have the same fears. Ukraine, in particular, is concerned about the Crimea. It explains why all of them, except Belarus, condemned Moscow's actions.
Transcaucasus not important? Not so sure. It does have the only pipeline that provides oil and gas to Europe that is not under Russian control. Furthermore, Azerbaijan is rapidly becoming a significant exporter of oil and gas. Having Georgia as a NATO ally effectively negates Russia's attempt at using oil and gas as a weapon. Patriotism being what it is, I doubt very much that the Georgian electorate will choose a pro-Russian leader in the near future. It would be like the French choosing a pro-German leader after losing Alsace-Lorraine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Aug 30, 2008 19:32:50 GMT -5
What I like about the last article is that they mention Exercise Immediate Response 2008. This was a joint US/Georgian exercise meant to counter Russia's Caucasus 2008 exercise. Why are the Americans there and why are they involved in Asian politics? Why was this joint-exercise "planned by the U.S. Armed Forces European Command and financed by the U.S. Defense Department." To not talk about that as well would be ignoring subsurface agendas, no? If the Georgians considered those Russian maneuvers a threat then why did they choose to invade South Ossetia? That's just stupidity. So why did Georgia invade? Because they felt threatened? Because they felt SO was rightfully theirs? Bull! Odd that 80% of SO's population is Russian isn't it? I think Duster has a good argument and I would rebut that there are many people in the world who hold duo citizenship (the passport thing). But the articles you've posted really don't prove anything to me other than Georgia probably felt brave with US backing. So much for "Exercise Immediate Response 2008." There were other ways of handling this instead of invading SO. But, we're talking about the Eagle and the Bear. THAT'S what the real problem is. All the rest of this story is smoke and mirrors. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 31, 2008 19:25:36 GMT -5
What I like about the last article is that they mention Exercise Immediate Response 2008. This was a joint US/Georgian exercise meant to counter Russia's Caucasus 2008 exercise. Why are the Americans there and why are they involved in Asian politics? Why was this joint-exercise "planned by the U.S. Armed Forces European Command and financed by the U.S. Defense Department." To not talk about that as well would be ignoring subsurface agendas, no? Why shouldn't the US be there? Why would Georgian not ask the Americans to come in so as not to suffer the same fate as the Chechen's? If the Georgians considered those Russian maneuvers a threat then why did they choose to invade South Ossetia? That's just stupidity. So why did Georgia invade? Because they felt threatened? Because they felt SO was rightfully theirs? Bull! Odd that 80% of SO's population is Russian isn't it? SO's population is NOT Russian. It is a distinct enthinicity that have been wooed and pampered by the Russia as a means of breaking up Georgia. They were given Russian passports about a year ago as an excuse for Russia to do exactly what it did. But the articles you've posted really don't prove anything to me other than Georgia probably felt brave with US backing. Don't prove anything? Well, let's see, the Russian transfer vast amount of military hardware to the region under the pretense of "military exercise". They transfer some of the units that had an EXCELLENT record of wiping out populations from Chechnya. They mass them within an hour of the Georgian border. I would call theat more then a "subtle" threat. In fact, the only thing wrong that Georgia did was not wait until they were a member of NATO. The hard cold reality of the situation is that Russia wants control of the oil in the region and Georgia was not playing ball. Second thing is that they don't want the Americans in the Black Sea. The American navy is inconveniencing the Russians attempts of regional hegemony and intimidation. And last but not least, the Americans can easily bottle the Black Sea and deny them naval access to the Mediterranean. THAT is what this is all about. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Aug 31, 2008 19:36:02 GMT -5
I like Gwynne Dyer. He is pretty astute in his analysis usually. This time, I would disagree with his assessment that Georgia, and by extension Ukraine, will not be admitted to NATO. It's clear to me that Sarkozy and Merkel have realized that delaying Georgia's admission earlier this year was, in many ways, responsible for the latest Russian incursion. They will avoid a repeat. Already, Merkel is on record saying that Georgia would be admitted. I think Ukraine will be on the fast track now. Who provoked who? Well, it's true the Georgians fired the first shots, but the Russians were issuing passports to Ossetians and, in so doing, setting the stage for an intervention, possible civil war, and eventual annexation of the territory. The similarities with the German take over of the Sudetenland in 1938 are there. It's clear that other countries such a Azerbajan, Ukraine, and most of the border states are seeing the same thing i.e Russia issuing passports to Russian speaking people of those countries, and have the same fears. Ukraine, in particular, is concerned about the Crimea. It explains why all of them, except Belarus, condemned Moscow's actions. Transcaucasus not important? Not so sure. It does have the only pipeline that provides oil and gas to Europe that is not under Russian control. Furthermore, Azerbaijan is rapidly becoming a significant exporter of oil and gas. Having Georgia as a NATO ally effectively negates Russia's attempt at using oil and gas as a weapon. Patriotism being what it is, I doubt very much that the Georgian electorate will choose a pro-Russian leader in the near future. It would be like the French choosing a pro-German leader after losing Alsace-Lorraine. Pretty good analysis Duster. Putin's oligarchy should NEVER, EVER be trusted. BTW, I was reading that Stalin reputation is been "rejuvinated" and his atrocities "rewritten" by Putin. To say that is frightnening is an understatement. |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Aug 31, 2008 23:17:48 GMT -5
Russia ad Georgia are about as far away from the "North Atlantic" as is Ethiopia .....
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 1, 2008 14:08:34 GMT -5
What I like about the last article is that they mention Exercise Immediate Response 2008. This was a joint US/Georgian exercise meant to counter Russia's Caucasus 2008 exercise. Why are the Americans there and why are they involved in Asian politics? Why was this joint-exercise "planned by the U.S. Armed Forces European Command and financed by the U.S. Defense Department." To not talk about that as well would be ignoring subsurface agendas, no? Why shouldn't the US be there? Why would Georgian not ask the Americans to come in so as not to suffer the same fate as the Chechen's? SO's population is NOT Russian. It is a distinct enthinicity that have been wooed and pampered by the Russia as a means of breaking up Georgia. They were given Russian passports about a year ago as an excuse for Russia to do exactly what it did. But the articles you've posted really don't prove anything to me other than Georgia probably felt brave with US backing. Don't prove anything? Well, let's see, the Russian transfer vast amount of military hardware to the region under the pretense of "military exercise". They transfer some of the units that had an EXCELLENT record of wiping out populations from Chechnya. They mass them within an hour of the Georgian border. I would call theat more then a "subtle" threat. In fact, the only thing wrong that Georgia did was not wait until they were a member of NATO. The hard cold reality of the situation is that Russia wants control of the oil in the region and Georgia was not playing ball. Second thing is that they don't want the Americans in the Black Sea. The American navy is inconveniencing the Russians attempts of regional hegemony and intimidation. And last but not least, the Americans can easily bottle the Black Sea and deny them naval access to the Mediterranean. THAT is what this is all about. As I was saying, HA, it really doesn't matter who did what to who. This is all smoke and mirrors, buds. The actual problem is between two Alpha Males. One is called the USA and the other Russia. The USA has NATO and ever since the Warsaw Pact Alliance dissolved the Russians have had nothing. They've tried the BRICS strategic alliance but I don't know if South Africa either dropped out of it or was never part of it. Right now it's simply called the BRIC Alliance. This is all about the USA working behind the scenes to protect their self-proclaimed Superpower status and the Russians trying to re-establish their status. Two Alpha Males butting heads. It was that way before the wall came down and it's becoming that way once again. All the rest is simply smoke and mirrors. Besides, the USA (with her allies) would rather take on Russia than, say, China. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Sept 2, 2008 7:50:09 GMT -5
BTW, I was reading that Stalin reputation is been "rejuvinated" and his atrocities "rewritten" by Putin. To say that is frightnening is an understatement. What do you mean? *** I just don't get why wouldn't Russia want to defend herself when NATO is getting closer and closer to its borders (despite an agreement that it wouldn't do it...too bad it wasn't a writen one...or was it?). NATO warships are 200 km away from Sochi...do you think Russians think it's okay, nothing to worry about? One more thing I don't get is why Kosovo can become independent despite all written and signed agreements but S.Ossetia and Abkhazia can't. BTW, I believe Chechnya should have been let go 15 years ago. But it didn't happen back then and it's strange if not dangerous to raise this question now that they are trying to put their life back on track as part of Russia. Why Georgia is called democracy when their president closes all opposing media outlets? Why Ukraine is a democracy when you can get arrested and lose your job if you don't agree with the president line (I have relatives in Ukraine, I know it for a fact)? Why the USA can stretch its sphere of influence across the whole world but other countries can't? Maybe because the USA rescues the poor and oppressed? Give me a break! Do any of you know the history of Crimea? Do you really think Russia would want to occupy it? I could go on but there is no use because.... This is all about the USA working behind the scenes to protect their self-proclaimed Superpower status and the Russians trying to re-establish their status. Two Alpha Males butting heads. It was that way before the wall came down and it's becoming that way once again. All the rest is simply smoke and mirrors. Besides, the USA (with her allies) would rather take on Russia than, say, China. I agree 100%. That is why my questions above don't need answers. They are smoke and mirrors  |
|
|
|
Post by Skilly on Sept 2, 2008 12:14:00 GMT -5
I just don't get why wouldn't Russia want to defend herself when NATO is getting closer and closer to its borders (despite an agreement that it wouldn't do it...too bad it wasn't a writen one...or was it?). NATO warships are 200 km away from Sochi...do you think Russians think it's okay, nothing to worry about? I agree... NATO has no business in Eastern Europe, it goes against their mandate. Unless they changed the name to NAATO (North Atlantic-Arctic treaty Organization) overnight.  NATO was set up to protect the North Atlantic, not to venture inland to Siberia .... |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 2, 2008 12:39:35 GMT -5
I just don't get why wouldn't Russia want to defend herself when NATO is getting closer and closer to its borders (despite an agreement that it wouldn't do it...too bad it wasn't a writen one...or was it?). NATO warships are 200 km away from Sochi...do you think Russians think it's okay, nothing to worry about? I agree... NATO has no business in Eastern Europe, it goes against their mandate. Unless they changed the name to NAATO (North Atlantic-Arctic treaty Organization) overnight. NATO was set up to protect the North Atlantic, not to venture inland to Siberia .... Both Clinton and George H Bush agreed with Russia that they wouldn't bring any former Soviet satilite countries into NATO. They lied and did it anyway. As I was saying to Tattac, I think this conflict is purely between two Alphas butting heads. One side is worried that the other side will usurp their Superpower status. The other side wants it's old recognition back. Both want to be the top dog. Georgia and South Ossetia are merely pawns. The comparisons are pretty close: * The pawns represent the weak, which is why there are so many of them on the board, * They are the slowest, moving only one step at a time and can NEVER jump over anyone else, * Once they're committed they can NEVER go back, and * They're expendable and are the ones you sacrifice to win the game. I think the Russians and the USA know exactly what they're doing actually. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 2, 2008 16:01:16 GMT -5
Why shouldn't the US be there? Why would Georgian not ask the Americans to come in so as not to suffer the same fate as the Chechen's? SO's population is NOT Russian. It is a distinct enthinicity that have been wooed and pampered by the Russia as a means of breaking up Georgia. They were given Russian passports about a year ago as an excuse for Russia to do exactly what it did. So why should the US be in there? I mean the people of SO might not be ethnically Russian/Slavic, but they're a hell of a lot closer to the Russians than the Georgians are to the Americans. As for the people of SO not being Russian, they're not Georgian either, and they have a pretty big hate on for the Georgians too (stems from a very bloody conflict from the early 20th century between the two peoples - the Ossetians sided with the Bolsheviks while the Geogians supported the White Russians. The words "ethnic cleansing" have hung around it, although its debatable if it really applies). When it comes down to it, you can say the Russians wooed them, but traditionally the people of SO and AK have sided with the Russians over the Georgians. And they've asked the Russians for help because they were afraid that Georgia would turn them into the Georgian Chechnya. It swings both ways, right? Don't prove anything? Well, let's see, the Russian transfer vast amount of military hardware to the region under the pretense of "military exercise". They transfer some of the units that had an EXCELLENT record of wiping out populations from Chechnya. They mass them within an hour of the Georgian border. I would call theat more then a "subtle" threat. In fact, the only thing wrong that Georgia did was not wait until they were a member of NATO. So? Are you going to blame the Russians for having good intel on a potential enemy? Are you going to blame them for being prepared? This is not the case of some young rebel who had no association with a government whatsoever shooting the Archduke in the streets of Sarajevo. Or does the blame lie with the Georgians, who thought they could act with impudence. I'm sorry - I understand them not wanting to part with SO, but really - whose bright idea was it to poke the bear when the bear is a mean old polar bear who is clearly within clawing/biting distance? Sorry - not buying it. If they were worried about Russia attacking their borders they should've dug in and waited for someone with an army capable of handling the Russians to commit to their aid. Or at least attacked Russia. Not attack a more or less defenseless third country to give the Russians and excuse to cakewalk over them. The hard cold reality of the situation is that Russia wants control of the oil in the region and Georgia was not playing ball. Second thing is that they don't want the Americans in the Black Sea. The American navy is inconveniencing the Russians attempts of regional hegemony and intimidation. And last but not least, the Americans can easily bottle the Black Sea and deny them naval access to the Mediterranean. THAT is what this is all about. There's very little oil in Georgia. There's a trans-Caucasus pipeline or three, but really - SO, Georgia and AK have all the strategic importance of Victoria, B.C. (that's Behind Carbonear, not British Columbia). The Black Sea/Mediterranean access is a valid point (the Russians having fought a greta many wars over this), but in practice the question is rather moot. The U.S. is more or less tight with Turkey, and Turkey controls the Dardenelles and the Bosporous, which controls the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Russia plays hardball with Turkey, then Turkey can shut them down fairly quickly and easily. In truth, this is just another example of one-upsmanship, which has been prevalent since the days of Nap Bonaparte and even before. The Gerogians are, sadly, just a small piece in a greater game. In one hand the U.S. wants to menace Iran from the northand add more bases in a region where they have been engaged in active operations on and off for more than a decade and a half. The Russians, on the other hand, want to increase their influence in international affairs. It's not about oil, but about telling the Americans that they can not act as if they are in a vacuum - that other powers will respond. The Georgians were stupid enough to call a bluff when the Russians were holding four aces and a king kicker. No sympathy for them there. No one's really right or wrong in Georgia. Just different shades of gray. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 2, 2008 19:35:57 GMT -5
BTW, I was reading that Stalin reputation is been "rejuvinated" and his atrocities "rewritten" by Putin. To say that is frightnening is an understatement. What do you mean? Tell us about the new teaching manuals. The one that claim that the Sovviet collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". LOL! Funny thing though, the eastern European countries consider it one of the GREATEST moment in their history. I just don't get why wouldn't Russia want to defend herself when NATO is getting closer and closer to its borders (despite an agreement that it wouldn't do it...too bad it wasn't a writen one...or was it?). NATO warships are 200 km away from Sochi...do you think Russians think it's okay, nothing to worry about? Who's planning to invade Russia? Because that would be BIG news to me...and the rest of the world. EVERY eastern European country wants to make sure there are no more Russian adventurism. One more thing I don't get is why Kosovo can become independent despite all written and signed agreements but S.Ossetia and Abkhazia can't. BTW, I believe Chechnya should have been let go 15 years ago. But it didn't happen back then and it's strange if not dangerous to raise this question now that they are trying to put their life back on track as part of Russia. Their life back on track? You mean what left of them. [ Why Georgia is called democracy when their president closes all opposing media outlets? Why Ukraine is a democracy when you can get arrested and lose your job if you don't agree with the president line (I have relatives in Ukraine, I know it for a fact)? I guess they are all using the Russian model of democracy. Why the USA can stretch its sphere of influence across the whole world but other countries can't? Maybe because the USA rescues the poor and oppressed? Give me a break! Do any of you know the history of Crimea? Do you really think Russia would want to occupy it? Russia has shown REPEATEDLY that they will use energy in the least, as a lever, in the worst, as a weapon, for foreign policy. The US, the Europeans, Asian are only concerned about access to energy and nothing more. Whether Russia wants to invade Kazakhstan is not really the issue, it's economic survival......and Putin knows this... and so does everyone else. The reality here that this has nothing to do with anyone threatening Russia, but rather a pure power play for hegemony. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 2, 2008 19:53:37 GMT -5
So? Are you going to blame the Russians for having good intel on a potential enemy? Are you going to blame them for being prepared? This is not the case of some young rebel who had no association with a government whatsoever shooting the Archduke in the streets of Sarajevo. Or does the blame lie with the Georgians, who thought they could act with impudence. I'm sorry - I understand them not wanting to part with SO, but really - whose bright idea was it to poke the bear when the bear is a mean old polar bear who is clearly within clawing/biting distance? Sorry - not buying it. If they were worried about Russia attacking their borders they should've dug in and waited for someone with an army capable of handling the Russians to commit to their aid. Or at least attacked Russia. Not attack a more or less defenseless third country to give the Russians and excuse to cakewalk over them. Do you realize that you are not really arguing against what I am saying? LOL! There's very little oil in Georgia. There's a trans-Caucasus pipeline or three, but really - SO, Georgia and AK have all the strategic importance of Victoria, B.C. (that's Behind Carbonear, not British Columbia). Not really. Russia has tried very hard to become the energy czar and Georgia's pipepline allow Caucasian oil to bypass Russian control. Have you ever watched the movie "Dune'? Then you will understand.... he who controls the spices controls the universe. The Black Sea/Mediterranean access is a valid point (the Russians having fought a greta many wars over this), but in practice the question is rather moot. The U.S. is more or less tight with Turkey, and Turkey controls the Dardenelles and the Bosporous, which controls the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Russia plays hardball with Turkey, then Turkey can shut them down fairly quickly and easily. Turkey is no longer a reliable ally of the US. Nor is Greece. In truth, this is just another example of one-upsmanship, which has been prevalent since the days of Nap Bonaparte and even before. The Gerogians are, sadly, just a small piece in a greater game. In one hand the U.S. wants to menace Iran from the northand add more bases in a region where they have been engaged in active operations on and off for more than a decade and a half. The Russians, on the other hand, want to increase their influence in international affairs. It's not about oil, but about telling the Americans that they can not act as if they are in a vacuum - that other powers will respond. The Georgians were stupid enough to call a bluff when the Russians were holding four aces and a king kicker. No sympathy for them there. No one's really right or wrong in Georgia. Just different shades of gray. I took exception to the article conveniently missing that Russia had held "military exercises" on the intent of transferring war material to the region. While the Georgian move was beyond stupid, Russia was going to do this and it was a question of when. The realpolitik that it's about regional hegemony ....which might as well be called energy hegemony. If I say it's about the oil, will you go Canadian on me? LOL! . |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 2, 2008 20:42:45 GMT -5
Why shouldn't the US be there? Why would Georgian not ask the Americans to come in so as not to suffer the same fate as the Chechen's? SO's population is NOT Russian. It is a distinct enthinicity that have been wooed and pampered by the Russia as a means of breaking up Georgia. They were given Russian passports about a year ago as an excuse for Russia to do exactly what it did. So why should the US be in there? I mean the people of SO might not be ethnically Russian/Slavic, but they're a hell of a lot closer to the Russians than the Georgians are to the Americans. As for the people of SO not being Russian, they're not Georgian either, and they have a pretty big hate on for the Georgians too (stems from a very bloody conflict from the early 20th century between the two peoples - the Ossetians sided with the Bolsheviks while the Geogians supported the White Russians. The words "ethnic cleansing" have hung around it, although its debatable if it really applies). When it comes down to it, you can say the Russians wooed them, but traditionally the people of SO and AK have sided with the Russians over the Georgians. And they've asked the Russians for help because they were afraid that Georgia would turn them into the Georgian Chechnya. It swings both ways, right? So? Are you going to blame the Russians for having good intel on a potential enemy? Are you going to blame them for being prepared? This is not the case of some young rebel who had no association with a government whatsoever shooting the Archduke in the streets of Sarajevo. Or does the blame lie with the Georgians, who thought they could act with impudence. I'm sorry - I understand them not wanting to part with SO, but really - whose bright idea was it to poke the bear when the bear is a mean old polar bear who is clearly within clawing/biting distance? Sorry - not buying it. If they were worried about Russia attacking their borders they should've dug in and waited for someone with an army capable of handling the Russians to commit to their aid. Or at least attacked Russia. Not attack a more or less defenseless third country to give the Russians and excuse to cakewalk over them. The hard cold reality of the situation is that Russia wants control of the oil in the region and Georgia was not playing ball. Second thing is that they don't want the Americans in the Black Sea. The American navy is inconveniencing the Russians attempts of regional hegemony and intimidation. And last but not least, the Americans can easily bottle the Black Sea and deny them naval access to the Mediterranean. THAT is what this is all about. There's very little oil in Georgia. There's a trans-Caucasus pipeline or three, but really - SO, Georgia and AK have all the strategic importance of Victoria, B.C. (that's Behind Carbonear, not British Columbia). The Black Sea/Mediterranean access is a valid point (the Russians having fought a greta many wars over this), but in practice the question is rather moot. The U.S. is more or less tight with Turkey, and Turkey controls the Dardenelles and the Bosporous, which controls the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Russia plays hardball with Turkey, then Turkey can shut them down fairly quickly and easily. In truth, this is just another example of one-upsmanship, which has been prevalent since the days of Nap Bonaparte and even before. The Gerogians are, sadly, just a small piece in a greater game. In one hand the U.S. wants to menace Iran from the northand add more bases in a region where they have been engaged in active operations on and off for more than a decade and a half. The Russians, on the other hand, want to increase their influence in international affairs. It's not about oil, but about telling the Americans that they can not act as if they are in a vacuum - that other powers will respond. The Georgians were stupid enough to call a bluff when the Russians were holding four aces and a king kicker. No sympathy for them there. No one's really right or wrong in Georgia. Just different shades of gray. Hey man ... I didn't make those quotes. HA did mate. But, it's cool anyway ... I've done it ... err ... the odd time. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 2, 2008 21:01:07 GMT -5
Russia has shown REPEATEDLY that they will use energy in the least, as a lever, in the worst, as a weapon, for foreign policy. Actually, I believe the Russians opened their taps five-times wider for China in exchange for security of their eastern border. I believe, though not sure about present day, that they are now also the world's number-2 producer of oil. However, I'm unaware they're using it in the way you describe. A link would help. I could get into US foreign policy but ... In your opinion ... not everyone else's mate. It reads like a blanket statement that was made with no substantiation. So in that context, why would the world's number-2 producer of oil (as of 2006) be concerned about economic survival? Their counterpart, the USA (number-3 as of 2006), has a national debt that has been spiraling out of control ever since they went into Iraq. Conversely, Russia has been exporting their oil and banking billions. Where's the threat here? Or, which countries do you feel might be threatened by that? So, let's see; Russia is the second-highest oil producer and China will soon usurp the USA as the energy cow of the future. Again, who, or which countries do you feel would be most threatened by this. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 2, 2008 21:03:51 GMT -5
Have you ever watched the movie "Dune'? Then you will understand.... he who controls the spices controls the universe. Excellent quote! I keep telling you that this is all about the USA and Russia. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 2, 2008 22:31:07 GMT -5
Russia has shown REPEATEDLY that they will use energy in the least, as a lever, in the worst, as a weapon, for foreign policy. Actually, I believe the Russians opened their taps five-times wider for China in exchange for security of their eastern border. I believe, though not sure about present day, that they are now also the world's number-2 producer of oil. However, I'm unaware they're using it in the way you describe. A link would help. I could get into US foreign policy but ... In your opinion ... not everyone else's mate. It reads like a blanket statement that was made with no substantiation. So in that context, why would the world's number-2 producer of oil (as of 2006) be concerned about economic survival? Their counterpart, the USA (number-3 as of 2006), has a national debt that has been spiraling out of control ever since they went into Iraq. Conversely, Russia has been exporting their oil and banking billions. Where's the threat here? Or, which countries do you feel might be threatened by that? So, let's see; Russia is the second-highest oil producer and China will soon usurp the USA as the energy cow of the future. Again, who, or which countries do you feel would be most threatened by this. Cheers. Dis, I am talking about the US's and West economic survival. Not Russias. As for Russia using energy as a weapon. It used it against on the Baltic countries, Ukraine, Latvia. It is currently using it against Europe to "devide and conquor". Putin is not happy just to collect the money, he wants to yield it for power politics. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4708256.stmwww.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=17040Russia wants to control the spice......... |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 2, 2008 22:43:58 GMT -5
So why should the US be in there? I mean the people of SO might not be ethnically Russian/Slavic, but they're a hell of a lot closer to the Russians than the Georgians are to the Americans. As for the people of SO not being Russian, they're not Georgian either, and they have a pretty big hate on for the Georgians too (stems from a very bloody conflict from the early 20th century between the two peoples - the Ossetians sided with the Bolsheviks while the Geogians supported the White Russians. The words "ethnic cleansing" have hung around it, although its debatable if it really applies). When it comes down to it, you can say the Russians wooed them, but traditionally the people of SO and AK have sided with the Russians over the Georgians. And they've asked the Russians for help because they were afraid that Georgia would turn them into the Georgian Chechnya. It swings both ways, right? So? Are you going to blame the Russians for having good intel on a potential enemy? Are you going to blame them for being prepared? This is not the case of some young rebel who had no association with a government whatsoever shooting the Archduke in the streets of Sarajevo. Or does the blame lie with the Georgians, who thought they could act with impudence. I'm sorry - I understand them not wanting to part with SO, but really - whose bright idea was it to poke the bear when the bear is a mean old polar bear who is clearly within clawing/biting distance? Sorry - not buying it. If they were worried about Russia attacking their borders they should've dug in and waited for someone with an army capable of handling the Russians to commit to their aid. Or at least attacked Russia. Not attack a more or less defenseless third country to give the Russians and excuse to cakewalk over them. There's very little oil in Georgia. There's a trans-Caucasus pipeline or three, but really - SO, Georgia and AK have all the strategic importance of Victoria, B.C. (that's Behind Carbonear, not British Columbia). The Black Sea/Mediterranean access is a valid point (the Russians having fought a greta many wars over this), but in practice the question is rather moot. The U.S. is more or less tight with Turkey, and Turkey controls the Dardenelles and the Bosporous, which controls the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Russia plays hardball with Turkey, then Turkey can shut them down fairly quickly and easily. In truth, this is just another example of one-upsmanship, which has been prevalent since the days of Nap Bonaparte and even before. The Gerogians are, sadly, just a small piece in a greater game. In one hand the U.S. wants to menace Iran from the northand add more bases in a region where they have been engaged in active operations on and off for more than a decade and a half. The Russians, on the other hand, want to increase their influence in international affairs. It's not about oil, but about telling the Americans that they can not act as if they are in a vacuum - that other powers will respond. The Georgians were stupid enough to call a bluff when the Russians were holding four aces and a king kicker. No sympathy for them there. No one's really right or wrong in Georgia. Just different shades of gray. Hey man ... I didn't make those quotes. HA did mate. But, it's cool anyway ... I've done it ... err ... the odd time. Cheers. My bad. Copied the wrong quote text. Have fixed. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Sept 2, 2008 23:35:42 GMT -5
Hey man ... I didn't make those quotes. HA did mate. But, it's cool anyway ... I've done it ... err ... the odd time. Cheers. Ohh sure, blame the old cranky guy ....  I deny EVERYTHING! |
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Sept 3, 2008 3:48:48 GMT -5
Tell us about the new teaching manuals. The one that claim that the Sovviet collapse "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century". LOL! Funny thing though, the eastern European countries consider it one of the GREATEST moment in their history. Is it a teaching manual? I thought it was Putin who said it. It could end up in the manuals of course. I can see his point. He was born and raised in a huge influential country (an empire) that suddenly collapsed. Many people think it was a real tragedy; it changed their lives. They want their children to remember it. Can you please find what British teaching manuals say about the British Empire and its collapse? I wonder what Spaniards think about their long gone Empire. As for Eastern Europeans, it would be a generalization to think that they all agree on the matter. But let them write their own teaching manuals. My question about Stalin stands. You didn’t answer it. Who's planning to invade Russia? Because that would be BIG news to me...and the rest of the world. EVERY eastern European country wants to make sure there are no more Russian adventurism. And whom is Russia planning to invade? NATO is coming closer to its borders not the other way around. Seriously….you think Russia is plotting an attack on some eastern European country? Their political elites have their own agenda to say what they say. Their life back on track? You mean what left of them. What’s your point? That it was a horrible war? It was but they are still trying to live their lives now. Why do some people want them to start fighting again? I guess they are all using the Russian model of democracy. Oh…I was under the impression that they are trying to use the western model of democracy. That is why they need the US and NATO protection. At least it is what Western politicians and mass media is saying. Silly me. Russia has shown REPEATEDLY that they will use energy in the least, as a lever, in the worst, as a weapon, for foreign policy. The US, the Europeans, Asian are only concerned about access to energy and nothing more. Tell me when it happened. I know nothing of such cases but I live in an evil empire that has no free press. Edit: I saw your links. I didn't see any examples of any REPEATED use of energy as a weapon. On the contrary, they both state that Russia has always been a reliable partner for Western Europe. Looks like western media and politicians want to scare their general public in an attempt to justify their agenda. As for Ukraine, you reap what you saw. Whether Russia wants to invade Kazakhstan is not really the issue, it's economic survival......and Putin knows this... and so does everyone else. I asked about Crimea. What does Kazakhstan have to do with it? The reality here that this has nothing to do with anyone threatening Russia, but rather a pure power play for hegemony. What about threat to Russia to achieve this hegemony? And vice versa. Everybody wants to rule the world. |
|
|
|
Post by Tattac on Sept 3, 2008 3:58:29 GMT -5
The Black Sea/Mediterranean access is a valid point (the Russians having fought a greta many wars over this), but in practice the question is rather moot. The U.S. is more or less tight with Turkey, and Turkey controls the Dardenelles and the Bosporous, which controls the link between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean. If Russia plays hardball with Turkey, then Turkey can shut them down fairly quickly and easily. Why would Russia play hardball with Turkey? As far as I know, these two countries have very good relationship and haven't fought over anything for a long time. Turkey is one of those NATO countries that were not happy with Georgia's actions. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 3, 2008 6:33:09 GMT -5
Hey man ... I didn't make those quotes. HA did mate. But, it's cool anyway ... I've done it ... err ... the odd time. Cheers. Ohh sure, blame the old cranky guy .... I deny EVERYTHING! Bah! Look what it did for Michael Jackson Bart Simpson  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Sept 3, 2008 6:49:59 GMT -5
Dis, I am talking about the US's and West economic survival. Not Russias. Here's what I mean TNG ... sometimes it happens mate. DAG NAMIT! Sigh! Had to reread your post, HA. Got you now, man. Thanks. I don't have a lot of time on my hands this morning HA. I'm only skimming right now (freakin' busy here at work even before 8 AM), but here's some observations anyway. OK, just accessed the title to the BBC column. Reminds me of the movie, "Pacific Heights". I can also recall their reference to Saudi Arabia turning off the taps to the USA. It backfired because there were other sources of oil the USA could turn to. However, in this instance, Russia has plenty of other customers willing to buy their oil. The article concludes that the world is waiting to see how Russia uses their petro-power. I can see this being a threat to the USA for the reasons I cited earlier. The second article uses some of the same examples and makes similar observations and conclusions but like I said I only skimmed through it. I see the two columns as pretty close to the same thing. Will go over them more later but they seem far too similar in that they almost look like they were written by the same staff. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Sept 3, 2008 8:45:12 GMT -5
Do you realize that you are not really arguing against what I am saying? LOL! Actually I am. Or at least I think I am. I may be misunderstanding what you're saying. But what I take away from the quoted diatribe (and other posts) is that you believe the Russians provoked Georgia into attacking SO. I'm saying, quite the opposite, that Georgia is the ultimate provocateur and that Russia, while heavy handed, is simply doing what it feels it should. And what any state would do in a similar situation. Georgia sent its tanks across the border. Georgia sent its fighting men and women off to war. Georgia - ye reap what ye sow. In fact, Russians involvement in this conflict is not only Russia acting in her own interest (although her interests are clearly served), but Russia adhering to her international obligations as set out in the terms of a ceasefire from the 1991-1992 conflict. When Georgian tanks rolled across the frontier they were in violation of that ceasefire, which Russia was mandated to protect. Not really. Russia has tried very hard to become the energy czar and Georgia's pipepline allow Caucasian oil to bypass Russian control. Have you ever watched the movie "Dune'? Then you will understand.... he who controls the spices controls the universe.I haven't watched the movie, but I've read a couple of the books. It's a good quote, But there's a flaw there with that line of thought. Russia's involvement in SO predate any pipelines through the area. Russia was involved in the original War of Independence in 1991-1992. In fact it was Soviet forces that brokered the first cease fire (that, and a failed military coup within Georgia). The Trans-Caucasus Pipelines were first proposed in 1993, and initially were intended to route through Armenia rather than Georgia (as the route through Armenia was far shorter). Georgia only entered into it when the Armenians refused to work with the Turks. Unless Russia had a crystal ball kicking around somewhere, its hard to say their involvement in Georgia is truly tied to oil. Much more likely is the suggestion that the Russians went in all hammer-fisted and broke the back of the Georgian military to make a statement. A great leader once said that a nation must walk softly and carry a big stick. Well, Russia is still showing that it has a good old Louisville Slugger tucked away back there, and that people should listen to them. Turkey is no longer a reliable ally of the US. Nor is Greece. Are they less reliable than Georgia, a tiny nation virtually incapable of defending itself for even a short period of time, whose democratic process is limited and often and flawed, and led by a leader dumb enough to give the Russians a reason to turn his army into road kill? I took exception to the article conveniently missing that Russia had held "military exercises" on the intent of transferring war material to the region. While the Georgian move was beyond stupid, Russia was going to do this and it was a question of when. Or maybe it was just a question of when Georgia was going to move. I mean you look at it from your point of view, but if you look at the NATO exercise in the area you could make the same case against the Georgians. That an attack was coming, it was only a matter of when. To me your thesis doesn't hold water. That Russia planned the attack and just happened to luck out that Georgia virtually invited a beat down on themselves doesn't seem to add up. Too much of that plan hinges on luck (because really, if Russia was just planning on invading Georgia, wouldn't they have done it in advance of Georgia voting to join NATO?) I find it much easier to believe that Russia knew what they were planning in Tblisi, knew what was coming, and made themselves ready. But yeah, a journalist left something out. No shock there. And no worse than what the other side left out (you know, what with Georgia starting the fight and all). The realpolitik that it's about regional hegemony ....which might as well be called energy hegemony. If I say it's about the oil, will you go Canadian on me? LOL!. No, because I rarely believe you can sum up anything a country does into a single reason. Unless the nation is a tightly controlled autocracy straight from the wet dreams of Stalin himself, no nation speaks with one voice. It speaks with a multitude of voices. A cacophony of sound. Is oil and the Trans-Caucasus Pipelines on the mind of Moscow? Sure. Are the lives of the (more or less) innocent people of SO on their minds? Yes. Is the NATO action in Kosovo on their mind? I'd bet on it. Are the Russians trying to send a message to their neighbors about who really holds the balance of power in the region? Certainly. Are their people in power who see the war as a chance to make a fortune for themselves? Yes. Are there (at least a couple) insane people who just want war? Probably. But no one reason ever suffices for a war (unless that reason is "the bastards attacked us first"). |
|
NATO was set up to protect the North Atlantic, not to venture inland to Siberia ....
