Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jorgelito · 08-13-2008, 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

I get the impression actually, that this is a complex case.

From what I understand of it so far - there were already peace-keepers in place, in a region that didn't want to be part of Georgia (majority wise). Then the Georgians went in with troops, after which the Russians hit them hard. Probably too hard... But I think they wanted to make a point.

And on the NATO front... this talk of letting Russian neighbors into NATO seems dangerous. Some locations are simply not defensible.

Yeah, that's pretty much it in a nutshell. I also think it's a dangerous situation that could escalate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cybermike

Tune in next week! Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel!

Quote:

I have an idea.. How bout Georgia gives South Ossetia the independence they've wanted since the end of the cold war. Georgia isn't some innocent party just because they help in Iraq, just because they have an oil pipeline, Just because they want to join NATO. They sent troops into a region of their own country because they didn't want to be part of Georgia and hadn't considered themselves to be since the cold war ended.

You have a good point here. I think this is part of a broader question of sovereignty. On that basis, shouldn't the Kurds be allowed to breakaway as well? We may have to open up another thread for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

no. it's not the onset of another cold war.
although something like that is a neocon wetdream: the world would once again make sense and their military keynesianism would once again find a (flimsy) rationale.

i don't see much latitude for old-school imperial penis-waving in this one.

a. what mccain says he would do is in this situation meaningless. it says nothing to claim that next year he would back georgia. the bush people backed georgia now.
this is a little overview:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/wa...3diplo.html?hp

mccain offers little---a bit more of the same incoherent nonsense.
and at this point, the game has been forcibly changed--so at another level, saying "i'd back georgia for nato membership" isn;t worth the air expended in saying the sentence.
but it appeals to the manly man fantasies of the conservative set i suppose.

one way of seeing all this is as a bit of blowback from the american's imploded credibility and strategic weakness thanks to the overwhelming incompetence of the bush administration.
another is that the russians really did nothing to oppose the american invasion of iraq so the americans did nothing to oppose this.
another is that it really has nothing to do with the americans.

no doubt the central role being played by sarkosy rankles some of the same rightwingers---but it mostly got play on cspan (and who watches that) and in other places like the financial times.

geopolitically, this seems not far off the mark at the moment:

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Editorial comment - Living with the Russian bear

It could be blowback for sure. Russia hasn't been exactly pleased with the way things are going. The shift in American led influence to a more European driven one could of interest. Sarkozy's heavy involvement could be telling.