Russian Roulette - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

jorgelito · 08-12-2008, 01:20 PM

Punishing Russia

The US and allies are now scratching their heads trying to figure out punitive action against Russia to express their extreme displeasure with the Russian invasion of Georgia. Realistically, their hands are tied as there's not much they can really do without risking further escalation or military action.

Options:

1. Sanctions. Yawn. Like that's gonna work. At most it will be symbolic and just piss off the Ruskies even more. Plus, this could backfire especially since Russia supplies Western Europe with a significant amount of oil (~40%) and could easily withold it.

2. UN commits peacekeepers to the area. Not a chance in hell. Russia has veto power on the Security Council so it is highly unlikely any resolution will come from the UN.

3. US and Allies (NATO) take military action and occupy the contested areas as peacekeepers. No one wants to see this happen except maybe the Georgians. The US and NATO do not have the will power or the stomach for this not to mention the US is spread out way to thin already.

4. Admit Georgia and Ukraine to NATO asap. Doesn't really serve much purpose except to rankle the Russians which presumably, flexed their muscles in protest of this very idea in the first place. Still, may be the better option anyways.

I really don't know what to make of it. Maybe it's not a big deal. Maybe it is. The status quo is Russian occupies parts of Georgia. How long will that last?

Will Russia continue moving in on its satellites like the Ukraine? Will the Ukraine refuse to let the Russian Navy return to dock?

What will it take for the US and NATO to respond?

Could this be the onset of Cold War 2?
-----Added 12/8/2008 at 11 : 04 : 51-----
Update: Interesting comment from John McCain.

McCain would back Georgia NATO bid if elected - Yahoo! News

Quote:

McCain would back Georgia NATO bid if elected

2 hours, 47 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Republican White House contender John McCain said Tuesday he would support Georgia's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) if he is elected president in November.

"I would move forward at the right time with the application for membership in NATO by Georgia," McCain told Fox News television.

"As you know, through the NATO membership, that if a member nation is attacked, it is viewed as an attack on all," said the Arizona senator, alluding to Russia's military aggression on Georgia.

"We don't have, I think, right now, the ability to intervene in any way except in a humanitarian, economic way, and do what we can to help the Georgians," he added.

McCain, 71, also reiterated his call for Russia to be kicked out of the Group of Eight most industrialized nations.

"Russia no longer shares any of the values and principles of the G-8, so they should be excluded," he said.

Georgia's bid to join NATO has divided the alliance. During an April summit in Bucharest, NATO leaders deferred putting Georgia and Ukraine on a formal path to membership but agreed that the two former Soviet republics "will become members" at some point.

The formula was intended as a compromise between opposing positions taken by France, Germany and several other members, and the United States, which had pushed hard on behalf of Georgia and Ukraine's NATO aspirations.

It extended no security commitments, but it may have emboldened Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his dealings with the Russians, as they stepped up pressure on Tblisi.

And it infuriated the Russians who had been given assurances that the summit would not approve a further NATO expansion into the two former Soviet republics.

To distance himself from President George W. Bush on the Georgia-Russia conflict, McCain said the US leader "probably had a higher opinion of (Russian Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin than I do."

Bush once said he that upon looking into Putin's eyes he saw "his soul" while McCain said he saw "three letters: K-- G-- B."

"Yes, I saw that," McCain said Tuesday.

Asked about his Democratic rival Barack Obama's view of the ongoing conflict in the Caucasus, McCain said he respected the Illinois senator's views, adding that he believed it "important that we act in a bipartisan fashion now.

"There's no room for partisanship now."

Obama, on vacation in Hawaii, on Tuesday read a statement blaming Russia for increasing tensions in the Caucasus.

"No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country," said Obama, 47.

"There is no possible justification for these attacks," he added.

Nimetic · 08-13-2008, 04:13 AM

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.

Reese · 08-13-2008, 06:17 AM

Quote:

I really don't know what to make of it. Maybe it's not a big deal. Maybe it is. The status quo is Russian occupies parts of Georgia. How long will that last?

Will Russia continue moving in on its satellites like the Ukraine? Will the Ukraine refuse to let the Russian Navy return to dock?

What will it take for the US and NATO to respond?

Could this be the onset of Cold War 2?

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

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.

roachboy · 08-13-2008, 06:34 AM

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:

Quote:

After Mixed U.S. Messages, a War Erupted in Georgia
By HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON — One month ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Tbilisi, Georgia, for a high-profile visit that was planned to accomplish two very different goals.

During a private dinner on July 9, Ms. Rice’s aides say, she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win. “She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he had to put a non-use of force pledge on the table,” according to a senior administration official who accompanied Ms. Rice to the Georgian capital.

But publicly, Ms. Rice struck a different tone, one of defiant support for Georgia in the face of Russian pressure. “I’m going to visit a friend and I don’t expect much comment about the United States going to visit a friend,” she told reporters just before arriving in Tbilisi, even as Russian jets were conducting intimidating maneuvers over South Ossetia.

In the five days since the simmering conflict between Russia and Georgia erupted into war, Bush administration officials have been adamant in asserting that they warned the government in Tbilisi not to let Moscow provoke it into a fight — and that they were surprised when their advice went unheeded. Right up until the hours before Georgia launched its attack late last week in South Ossetia, Washington’s top envoy for the region, Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried, and other administration officials were warning the Georgians not to allow the conflict to escalate.

But as Ms. Rice’s two-pronged visit to Tbilisi demonstrates, the accumulation of years of mixed messages may have made the American warnings fall on deaf ears.

The United States took a series of steps that emboldened Georgia: sending advisers to build up the Georgian military, including an exercise last month with more than 1,000 American troops; pressing hard to bring Georgia into the NATO orbit; championing Georgia’s fledgling democracy along Russia’s southern border; and loudly proclaiming its support for Georgia’s territorial integrity in the battle with Russia over Georgia’s separatist enclaves.

But interviews with officials at the State Department, Pentagon and the White House show that the Bush administration was never going to back Georgia militarily in a fight with Russia.

In recent years, the United States has also taken a series of steps that have alienated Russia — including recognizing an independent Kosovo and going ahead with efforts to construct a missile defense system in Eastern Europe. By last Thursday, when the years of simmering conflict exploded into war, Russia had a point to prove to the world, even some administration officials acknowledge, while Georgia may have been under the mistaken impression that in a one-on-one fight with Russia, Georgia would have more concrete American support.

After a meeting at the White House on Tuesday, Ms. Rice emphasized the urgency of bringing the fighting to a halt, rather than how and why it started. But around Washington, there are some rumblings already over whether the crisis might have somehow been headed off.

In a flurry of briefings intended to counter the critics and overcome the impression of having been caught flatfooted, senior Bush administration officials tried to paint a portrait of American reason and calm in the midst of hot tempers in what several called “a hot zone.”

Officials at the White House, State Department and the Pentagon said that President Saakashvili did not officially inform the Bush administration in advance of his offensive — let alone ask for support. “The Georgians figured it was better to ask forgiveness later, but not ask for permission first,” said one administration official. “It was a decision on their part. They knew we would say ‘no.’ ”

But critics say the United States may have given Georgia reason to hope.

Ms. Rice went to Tbilisi just as tensions between Russia and Georgia were escalating. Standing next to Mr. Saakashvili during a press conference, she said that Russia “needs to be a part of resolving the problem and solving the problems and not contributing to it.” Mr. Saakashvili, for his part, was clearly thrilled to host Ms. Rice.

“We are also very grateful for your support for our peace plan for the conflicts and for your unwavering support for Georgia’s territorial integrity,” he said.

Ms. Rice left Tbilisi, but the violence between the Georgians and the South Ossetian separatists continued to get worse, until 10 days ago, when it suddenly escalated. Each side accused the other of setting off the fighting, which began on Aug. 1 and involved mortars, grenade launchers and small-arms fire. Troops from Georgia battled separatist fighters, killing at least six people; the Georgians accuse the South Ossetians of firing at Georgian towns from behind Russian peacekeepers.

By Thursday night, Aug. 7, things had gotten out of hand, almost everyone agrees.

At the State Department in Washington, Mr. Fried, the top envoy for the region, received a phone call on Thursday from Georgia’s foreign minister, Eka Tkeshelashvili, who said the country was under attack. The foreign minister said Georgia had to protect its people.

“We told them they had to keep their unilateral cease-fire,” the official said. “We said, ‘Be smart about this, don’t go in and don’t fall for the Russian provocation. Do not do this.’ ”

Around the same time, members of the Georgia army unit assigned to a training program under American advisers did not show up for the day’s exercises. In retrospect, American officials said, it is obvious that they had been ordered to mobilize for the mission in South Ossetia by their commanders.

“This caught us totally by surprise,” said one military officer who tracks events in the region, including the American-Georgian training effort. “It really knocked us off our chairs.”

Ms. Rice did not get on the phone with her Georgian counterpart on Thursday, but left it to Mr. Fried to deliver the “don’t go in” message, a senior administration official said. “I don’t think it would have made any difference if she had,” the official said. “They knew the message was coming from the top.”

A few hours later, in the early morning hours of Friday, Aug. 8, Georgia launched its offensive in South Ossetia, and Russia responded with a tenfold show of force. Ms. Rice, the administration official said, “called Saakashvili on Friday morning, after their folks were in.”

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:

Quote:

Living with the Russian bear

Published: August 12 2008 19:46 | Last updated: August 12 2008 19:46

Russia has, for the moment, more or less ended its assault on Georgia. Diplomacy, led by Nicolas Sarkozy, the French and current European Union president, has entered the arena to try to separate and reconcile the combatants, But Vladimir Putin, re-emerging as Russia’s real leader over the past week, has achieved nearly all of Moscow’s war aims, in the face of a feeble western response. Russia looks in no mood to negotiate anything. This is going to be a difficult crisis to manage.

Russia has seized full control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two separatist enclaves it sponsors on Georgian territory. It has damaged and humiliated the US and Israeli-trained Georgian army, and re-established its writ in the Caucasus. The likelihood of Nato now embracing Georgia and Ukraine – and committing to defend them – has receded, despite Tuesday’s assertion by Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, its general secretary, that the alliance’s pledge to admit them eventually still stands.

Mr Sarkozy arrived in Moscow with a plan for a truce, Russian commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity, a return to each side’s positions before Georgia attacked the South Ossetian capital last week, and a peacekeeping force under the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).

Russia pre-empted him on the ceasefire but is unlikely to give too much on the rest. Moscow argues that just as the west acted to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, and eventually separated the province from Serbia, so Russia acted to protect its nationals and peacekeepers in South Ossetia from “genocide”. Unlike in Kosovo, the world has, so far, seen no proof of these alleged massacres. The Russian peacekeepers, moreover, acted more as fireraisers than as firefighters.

But, absurd though Moscow’s mimetic argument is, the west should call its bluff. If Russia’s real worry is the humanitarian situation in the enclaves, an OSCE peacekeeping mission should present it with no problem. The future of the disputed territories must be decided by negotiation, not by land-grabs.

The EU and the US have limited leverage with Russia; giving Georgia’s erratic leadership an IOU on Nato entry has not increased it. Yet the west must engage with Moscow and robustly test its intentions. Russia’s membership of the G8, its wish for strategic partnership with Nato and the EU and entry to the World Trade Organisation – all part of its self-image as a world power – should be made conditional on its behaving as a responsible power. That is the least that anxious former Soviet vassals can expect.

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

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.

jorgelito · 08-13-2008, 09:07 PM

Damn, now the Russian's are really playing hardball.

Russia to U.S.: Choose us or Georgia - CNN.com

Quote:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Russia pressed the United States on Wednesday to choose between "a real partnership" with Moscow or an "illusory" relationship with U.S. ally Georgia.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Wednesday says the United States should choose sides.

Washington said it's sticking with Georgia.

"As to choosing, the United States has made very clear that it is standing by the democratically elected government of Georgia," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Wednesday.

She spelled out the Bush administration's stance after Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called Georgia's government "a special project for the United States."

"And we are aware that the U.S. is uptight about this project," Lavrov said in remarks broadcast on Russian television. "But a choice will have to be made someday between considerations of prestige related to an illusory project and a real partnership in matters which indeed require collective efforts."

Rice, amid reports that Russian troops remained on the move Wednesday, pushed Russia to abide by a cease-fire signed Tuesday by the Russian and Georgian presidents.

Russian military action in Georgia "must stop and must stop now," Rice said.

Rice said Moscow already faced "quite significant" diplomatic consequences over its conflict with Georgia before Tuesday's cease-fire agreement, which calls for Russian and Georgian troops to return to pre-conflict positions.

Bush said reports he had received were contrary to Russian assurances that it had halted military operations. Bush said he was told the Russian military had blocked Georgia's major east-west highway, and had soldiers at the main port at Poti. There were reports that some ships had been attacked, he said.

Russia has likely moved additional troops into the disputed Georgian provinces and into Georgia proper over the past several days, several administration officials told CNN on Wednesday.

The officials said the United States now believes Russia may have 15,000 or more troops in the region. That would be an increase from the 8,000-10,000 the U.S. government estimated when the fighting began. A Bush administration official stressed that the scope of Russia's military effort remains unclear.

Any violations of the cease-fire would call into question Russia's "suitability" as an international partner, Rice told reporters before leaving on a diplomatic trip to Europe.

Bush administration officials told CNN the United States and its European allies were considering kicking Russia out of the G-8, the group of the world's largest industrial economies, and other international organizations as punishment for its actions in Georgia.

Rice discounted concerns that Moscow would no longer assist Washington on thorny diplomatic issues such as efforts to halt nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea, saying it had its own interests at stake.

"Let's be very clear whose interests are being served by the partnership that Russia and the United States have engaged in on Iran or North Korea," she said. "Again, it's not a favor to the United States."

Russia sent troops and tanks into the breakaway Georgia region of South Ossetia last week after Georgia's military acted to clamp down on Russian-linked separatists there. Separatists in South Ossetia want independence -- or unification with North Ossetia, which is in Russia.

The conflict quickly spread to other parts of Georgia, including Abkhazia, another separatist region.

Georgia has been a close U.S. ally, contributing troops to the war in Iraq and seeking to join NATO with Washington's support. In a CNN interview Wednesday, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili criticized the United States for not doing more to help his nation.

"America is losing the whole region, and this is the region of eastern and central Europe," said Saakashvili, who called for the United States and European powers to send peacekeepers to the region. "This is much bigger than any other place where there is American influence, and this is the most natural allies of America."

But later Wednesday, in an interview with CNN's "Situation Room," Saakashvili seemed to have a change of heart. He said that after speaking with President Bush earlier in the day, he felt "there will be no compromise at the expense of our territorial integrity."

"I never accused the United States in the first place of anything," he said. "I just said that the Russians mistook some of the statements at certain levels."

Rice defended the administration's response to the fighting. Video Watch Bush express support for Georgia's democracy »

"I don't think you can have any doubt but that the United States has, from the very beginning, believed that the South Ossetian situation needed to be resolved and resolved peacefully, as we've been working for months and months and months to do, but that Russia seriously overreached, that Russia engaged in activities that could not possibly be associated simply with the crisis in South Ossetia," she said.

U.S. officials said they warned Saakashvili not to provoke Russia militarily by sending Georgian troops into South Ossetia and they had ruled out any U.S. military action to defend Georgia.

Rice spoke after Bush's announcement that U.S. aircraft and ships would deliver humanitarian aid to victims of the fighting.

Bush and Rice warned Russia not to interfere with the delivery of humanitarian aid, noting that Tuesday's French-brokered cease-fire allows for the delivery of international relief, and expressed concern over reports that Russian units were continuing to advance into Georgian cities despite Tuesday's cease-fire. Video Watch Russian tanks move toward Tbilisi »

"We expect Russia to meet its commitment to cease all military activities in Georgia, and we expect all Russian forces that entered Georgia in recent days to withdraw from that country," Bush said.

Rice will travel to France and then head to Tbilisi, Bush said.

Next week, Rice will travel to NATO headquarters in Brussels, Belgium.

Russia's move into Georgia came amid a struggle between the United States and Russia for influence within Eastern Europe. From Russia's point of view, American support for Georgia is a direct threat to its influence.
advertisement

By striking heavily in Georgia, Moscow is sending a signal to other former Soviet republics, such as Ukraine and Moldova, said Sarah Mendelson, the director of the Human Rights and Security Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"If I were a neighbor of Russia and I saw what Russia had done in Georgia, I would be very nervous," Mendelson said. "I think those countries that are leaning toward the West are very nervous today."

One other thing the US and Allies could do is expel Russia from the G8 (not really sure why they were there in the first place). But even then, it is mostly symbolic. Any other insights?

Baraka_Guru · 08-20-2008, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Russian anger at US missile deal

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said that a preliminary deal allowing the US to site missiles in Poland is aimed against Russia.

Poland will host the missiles as part of a defence shield the US says it needs against "rogue states" like Iran.

But Mr Medvedev said it demonstrated that Russia's concerns about new systems in eastern Europe were valid.

"The deployment of new anti-missile forces has as its aim the Russian Federation," he said.

Mr Medvedev was speaking at a press conference after holding talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel over the on-going unrest in Georgia.

Under the deal signed on Thursday, the US will install 10 interceptor missiles at a base on the Baltic coast in return for help strengthening Polish air defences.

A top general in Moscow said the move would worsen ties with the West already strained by the Georgian conflict.

'Worsen ties'

Russia's envoy to Nato has meanwhile been quoted as saying the timing of the deal shows its true purpose is to counter Russia's "strategic potential".

At a press conference in Moscow on Friday, Russia's deputy chief of general staff, Gen Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said the US move "cannot go unpunished".

"It's a cause for regret that at a time when we are already in a difficult situation, the American side further exacerbates the situation in relations between the United States and Russia," Gen Nogovitsyn said.

The deployment of new anti-missile forces has as its aim the Russian Federation
Dmitry Medvedev
Russian President

Russia's envoy to Nato, Dmitry Rogozin, meanwhile reportedly criticised the decision to sign the deal during a "very difficult crisis in the relations between Russia and the United States over the situation in Georgia".

Mr Rogozin told Reuters news agency the timing showed "the missile defence system will be deployed not against Iran but against the strategic potential of Russia".

Moscow has long argued the project will upset the military balance in Europe and has warned it will be forced to redirect its missiles at Poland.

'New proposals'

The US has urged Russia to withdraw troops that have fought with Georgian forces after Tbilisi attempted to retake the separatist region of South Ossetia late last week.

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

"I consider that the United States is not acting in a cautious manner in this situation," Mr Rogozin said, when asked about US-Russian relations and the situation in Georgia.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told the BBC's World Tonight programme on Thursday that the timing of the missile deal had nothing to do with hostilities in Georgia.

"We agreed this negotiating phase a week ago, which was... before the events in Georgia, and because of the US calendar there was some urgency," he said.

"But, what is crucial, and what decided the success of the talks over the last couple of days, was that the US offered us new proposals."

Unlike the US, Poland sees Russia as a bigger threat to its security than so-called rogue states such as Iran, the BBC's Adam Easton in Warsaw says.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov is reported to have cancelled a scheduled visit to Poland shortly after the deal was announced.

Story from BBC NEWS:
BBC NEWS | World | Europe | Russian anger at US missile deal

Published: 2008/08/15 14:02:52 GMT

Is this just a coincidence, or is the U.S. doing this to Russia on purpose in light of current events?

jorgelito · 08-20-2008, 12:45 PM

Baraka, I think it may be "happy" coincidence as the Polish deal was already on the table. It's more..unfortunate timing?

In any case, it does have a Cold War Part Deux feel to it no? With Ukraine, Poland, Georgia all feeling testy these days, even NATO is divided. Germany sides with the Russians while others are for the addition of former Soviet states. This is a hotbed region to watch.

ratbastid · 08-20-2008, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nimetic

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

Poor thing. Just keep watching Fox News, and that troublesome impression will gradually fade.

jorgelito · 08-31-2008, 12:38 PM

Here's in some more background and a different perspective.

Georgia and the Balkans | Parallel bars | Economist.com

Quote:

Georgia and the Balkans
Parallel bars

Aug 28th 2008
From The Economist print edition
Serbia and Kosovo ponder their positions after the war in Georgia

RUSSIA’S road to South Ossetia went through Kosovo. Or so many Russians and even some Western diplomats believe. It has become commonplace to assert that Russia’s invasion of Georgia and its recognition this week of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia flowed directly from Kosovo’s declaration of independence from Serbia in February, which was recognised by many Western countries. The parallels are superficial at best, but they have led to new calculations in Serbia and Kosovo over which stands to gain or lose the most from the war in Georgia.

Russia has long supported Serbia’s claim that Kosovo, 90% of whose 2m people are ethnic Albanians, has no right to independence. The reasoning is that it was a province of Serbia and not, like Montenegro, a republic in the federation of Yugoslavia. Only former republics within the old communist federations, together with the two parts of former Czechoslovakia, have become independent since 1989. Yet America and 21 out of 27 European Union countries have endorsed Kosovo’s independence.

Now the West and the Russians seem to have exchanged arguments. Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, says that the world can forget about Georgia’s territorial integrity, whereas Western countries are demanding that it be respected. With their patrons apparently flip-flopping like this, it is no wonder the authorities in Belgrade and Pristina feel embarrassed—and that both have been largely mute over Georgia.

An early test will come on September 17th. A United Nations committee will decide whether to put on the agenda of the UN General Assembly a Serbian motion to request from the International Court of Justice an opinion on the legality of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. If the motion were proposed, Serbia would need only a majority of those voting to get it passed.

The Russian action in Georgia “may have helped us”, claims one senior Serbian official, noting that many countries agnostic about breakaway states were frightened by Russia’s war. Or maybe not, retorts Lulzim Peci, a Kosovar foreign-policy analyst. Since Russia backs both the motion and self-determination for the South Ossetians and Abkhaz, it may seem no more than a cynical manoeuvre, “because Russia’s claim to be helping Serbia will no longer seem like a matter of principle but rather like a political game. Russia has now lost credibility.”

Serbian sympathies have always lain with Russia because of its support over Kosovo. But it is clear to Serbia’s leaders that they are to some extent in the same boat as Georgia. However, Veton Surroi, publisher of Kosovo’s main daily, insists that, if one wants comparisons, “we are Georgia”. He argues that since Kosovo is independent, the Serb-run north of the country is the new potential breakaway, no longer Kosovo itself.

highthief · 08-31-2008, 01:58 PM

Here's an idea: The US could mind it's own business and stop trying to tell everyone else what to do.

jorgelito · 08-31-2008, 02:40 PM

True, but this isn't just about the US. As you can see, that part of the world has been at this for quite some time and much of its history has little or nothing to do with the US. The Balkans, Crimea, ex-Soviet satellites have been mixing it up for years. If anything, it seems like Russia should be the one to "mind it's own business and stop trying to tell everyone else what to do."

roachboy · 08-31-2008, 03:10 PM

one of the main drivers behind american involvement in the region is oil.
this is an extension of the redefinition of american military-strategic priorities of the late 1970s.
until the americans get a saner energy policy/way of life in place, there's little likelihood that this doctrine will change, and unless that doctrine changes, situations like this will recur. this is a baseline strategy for the us.

other countries have parallel strategies, including russia---but with the fading reactionaries in power in the states, it's not hard to see how american energy interests could be understood to be more equal and others. one would hope that if obama gets elected, there might be some modulation of the big dick approach which hasn't worked out so well for the zanies in the bush administration--but i don't anticipate any strategic change unless and until obama were to follow through with his energy proposals. mc-cain promises to continue the neo-con approach. one more reason not to elect mc-cain then.

jorgelito · 08-31-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

one of the main drivers behind american involvement in the region is oil.
this is an extension of the redefinition of american military-strategic priorities of the late 1970s.
until the americans get a saner energy policy/way of life in place, there's little likelihood that this doctrine will change, and unless that doctrine changes, situations like this will recur. this is a baseline strategy for the us.

other countries have parallel strategies, including russia---but with the fading reactionaries in power in the states, it's not hard to see how american energy interests could be understood to be more equal and others. one would hope that if obama gets elected, there might be some modulation of the big dick approach which hasn't worked out so well for the zanies in the bush administration--but i don't anticipate any strategic change unless and until obama were to follow through with his energy proposals. mc-cain promises to continue the neo-con approach. one more reason not to elect mc-cain then.

I would agree that the issue of oil is of great importance, especially in that region. Just look at the other players such as Armenia, Azerbajian, et al. Of course the US has a stake there but my point was the US is not the only player and that Russia certainly plays an important role. In other words, instead of strictly looking at this situation through anti-US lens as is often perpetuated here, to take a step back and look at the whole picture. Not everything is the US' fault.

roachboy · 08-31-2008, 05:30 PM

to say that "not everything is the fault of the us" is a nice thing to keep in mind--but that doesn't change anything about the background of the situation around georgia. the americans played a significant role in the unspooling of all this. putin has his own political interests--no-one has said the contrary.

but this notion that looking at this situation and saying, to the extent we can, who has fucked up can be understood as "anti-american" is just goofy tv stuff.

08-20-2008, 12:45 PM	#8 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	Baraka, I think it may be "happy" coincidence as the Polish deal was already on the table. It's more..unfortunate timing? In any case, it does have a Cold War Part Deux feel to it no? With Ukraine, Poland, Georgia all feeling testy these days, even NATO is divided. Germany sides with the Russians while others are for the addition of former Soviet states. This is a hotbed region to watch. __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-31-2008, 01:58 PM	#11 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Here's an idea: The US could mind it's own business and stop trying to tell everyone else what to do. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.

08-31-2008, 02:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	True, but this isn't just about the US. As you can see, that part of the world has been at this for quite some time and much of its history has little or nothing to do with the US. The Balkans, Crimea, ex-Soviet satellites have been mixing it up for years. If anything, it seems like Russia should be the one to "mind it's own business and stop trying to tell everyone else what to do." __________________ "The race is not always to the swift, nor battle to the strong, but to the one that endures to the end." "Demand more from yourself, more than anyone else could ever ask!" - My recruiter

08-31-2008, 03:10 PM	#13 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	one of the main drivers behind american involvement in the region is oil. this is an extension of the redefinition of american military-strategic priorities of the late 1970s. until the americans get a saner energy policy/way of life in place, there's little likelihood that this doctrine will change, and unless that doctrine changes, situations like this will recur. this is a baseline strategy for the us. other countries have parallel strategies, including russia---but with the fading reactionaries in power in the states, it's not hard to see how american energy interests could be understood to be more equal and others. one would hope that if obama gets elected, there might be some modulation of the big dick approach which hasn't worked out so well for the zanies in the bush administration--but i don't anticipate any strategic change unless and until obama were to follow through with his energy proposals. mc-cain promises to continue the neo-con approach. one more reason not to elect mc-cain then. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-31-2008, 05:30 PM	#15 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	to say that "not everything is the fault of the us" is a nice thing to keep in mind--but that doesn't change anything about the background of the situation around georgia. the americans played a significant role in the unspooling of all this. putin has his own political interests--no-one has said the contrary. but this notion that looking at this situation and saying, to the extent we can, who has fucked up can be understood as "anti-american" is just goofy tv stuff. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-13-2008, 04:13 AM	#2 (permalink)
Nimetic Junkie Location: Melbourne, Australia	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.