Does Being A U.S. Ally Mean Anything, Georgia Triggers World To Ask?

[Tech_Esq]

and the next neighbor --and the next neighbor ?

That's what Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are wondering....

 

[KGB]

That's what Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania are wondering....

the Baltics hold no strategic interest for the Russians.....the Caucasus & Central Asian republics do.....

 

[Tech_Esq]

the Baltics hold no strategic interest for the Russians.....the Caucasus & Central Asian republics do.....

They were part of the Russian empire, that's strategic interest enough for Czar Vladimir.

 

[KGB]

They were part of the Russian empire, that's strategic interest enough for Czar Vladimir.

Estonia became part of the Russian Empire because they won it from Sweden during the Great Northern War....

Lituania became part of the Russian Empire due to the partitions of Poland & the Molotiv-Ribbentrop Pact....

Latvia came under Russian occupation due to the Treaty of Nystad & WW2....

in all of these instances, either access to the Baltic Sea or buffer zones were the justification....

currently, the Russians have access to the Baltic Sea, but have limited access to the Black Sea (only the joint base at Sevastopol grants them this access & will only do so until 2017). Georgia is on the Black Sea coast & provides the Russians a sea conduit to get oil out of the country.

The buffer zone theory doesn't hold much water any longer because there are no more ideological struggles with the West. As long as the money keeps flowing east from Europe, there is no reason for a buffer zone.....both societies are capitalistic in nature.....

Put simply, the threat for the Russians doesn't come from the West anymore because of business relationships & major economic dependencies & the lack of any ideological difference. The threat comes from the South with militant Islam & the Chinese. Creating an economic powerhouse by invading Georgia & possibly the other old Soviet Central Asian Republics serves the goal of keeping militant Islam at bay (here is where your buffer zone theory comes into play) & putting the Chinese on notice that Russia can project both economic & military power....Putin isn't stupid & he realizes this all too well....the Baltics are already in NATO & the EU so they are off the table politically & militarily.....

 

[Tech_Esq]

Estonia became part of the Russian Empire because they won it from Sweden during the Great Northern War....

Lituania became part of the Russian Empire due to the partitions of Poland & the Molotiv-Ribbentrop Pact....

Latvia came under Russian occupation due to the Treaty of Nystad & WW2....

in all of these instances, either access to the Baltic Sea or buffer zones were the justification....

currently, the Russians have access to the Baltic Sea, but have limited access to the Black Sea (only the joint base at Sevastopol grants them this access & will only do so until 2017). Georgia is on the Black Sea coast & provides the Russians a sea conduit to get oil out of the country.

The buffer zone theory doesn't hold much water any longer because there are no more ideological struggles with the West. As long as the money keeps flowing east from Europe, there is no reason for a buffer zone.....both societies are capitalistic in nature.....

Put simply, the threat for the Russians doesn't come from the West anymore because of business relationships & major economic dependencies & the lack of any ideological difference. The threat comes from the South with militant Islam & the Chinese. Creating an economic powerhouse by invading Georgia & possibly the other old Soviet Central Asian Republics serves the goal of keeping militant Islam at bay (here is where your buffer zone theory comes into play) & putting the Chinese on notice that Russia can project both economic & military power....Putin isn't stupid & he realizes this all too well....the Baltics are already in NATO & the EU so they are off the table politically & militarily.....

I understand your points. They are rational and well thought out. However, I believe you are living in the past. The recent past, but the past.

I certainly hope you are right about him not having designs on the West, but I have very little confidence in that prediction. This isn't about whether Putin is stupid or not. As people on this thread have pointed out, what exactly would the West do if Putin took Ukraine? Besides shit their collective pants.

But, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the basket of he's not interested in going west. He wants Sevastopol and a way to get to it. I'm sure he doesn't want to rebuild any naval bases someplace else. Anyway, neither of us can predict the future, I just think you're being a tad optimistic and I don't see a reason for optimism at the present.

 

[sealybobo]

So how is Iraq going? Afganistan? Our economy? Oil prices? Karl Rove still in contempt of court?

Oh you freaks looooove to change the subject to this itty bitty place over by Russia. Sorry Georgia, we can't help you. Bush broke the army. Its the only toy he ever broke that daddy couldn't fix.

 

[KGB]

I understand your points. They are rational and well thought out. However, I believe you are living in the past. The recent past, but the past.

I certainly hope you are right about him not having designs on the West, but I have very little confidence in that prediction. This isn't about whether Putin is stupid or not. As people on this thread have pointed out, what exactly would the West do if Putin took Ukraine? Besides shit their collective pants.

But, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the basket of he's not interested in going west. He wants Sevastopol and a way to get to it. I'm sure he doesn't want to rebuild any naval bases someplace else. Anyway, neither of us can predict the future, I just think you're being a tad optimistic and I don't see a reason for optimism at the present.

it's not a question of optimism, but of realism....realistically, Russian needs Western markets, invading a NATO member & EU member isn't going to accomplish this.....Ukraine could be a target for Russia since it isn't in NATO & it historically was the breadbasket for the USSR, not to mention, it would provide Russia with all the access to the Black Sea it enjoyed as the USSR....I would access the risk to Ukraine to be in the neighborhood of 15-20% liklihood....

currently, the Central Asian republics have to be shitting themselves since they have large natural resource pools & could be used as the buffer zone I mentioned.....

 

[editec]

and the next neighbor --and the next neighbor ?

Holy ба́бушка, Batcomrade! ​

There really are a dominos ready to fall, after all.

We were only off on their location by what? ~ about 12,000 miles and thirty years or so?

Originally Posted by dilloduck

I think it's a real possiblilty. I understand the Ukraine is stepping up a bit so maybe those a bit closer and a better understanding of the conflict can make Russia aware that there might be consequences of it's latest grab.

Heaven knows that the Ukraines share so many happy memories about their close relationship with Russia, too.

Here's just one of about 5,000,000 memories they have.​

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Oh, c'mon guys, Russia's not going to invade the Ukraine OR Central Asia. They can't do it, it'd be ridiculous. They'd just be caught into a most likely unwinnable war in either place. Nah, that kind of imperialism is long gone. What I'd 'predict', if I really had to, is muscle-flexing and coercion, not outright conquest. If you wanna see what it'd be most likely to be, it'd be economic strangulation, denouncing of anti-russian leaders in the region, assassination, funding of pro-russian coups, etc. It's much more manageable, and it has been done with some limited "success" in the past (Specifically, the US in Latin America).

 

[Article 15]

So how is Iraq going? Afganistan? Our economy? Oil prices? Karl Rove still in contempt of court?

Oh you freaks looooove to change the subject to this itty bitty place over by Russia. Sorry Georgia, we can't help you. Bush broke the army. Its the only toy he ever broke that daddy couldn't fix.

The situation in Georgia is a big deal, sealy ... it isn't a distraction ... this is a genuine debate that needs to be had ... Burma wasn't a distraction either ... the world watches how the US reacts to situations like these ... and they read into it ... the points you bring up ... Iraq, the economy, and our army are things that do have some relevance in the discussion ... but when you call Georgia an "itty bitty" place in your next breath in an attempt to minimize the issue you contradict yourself ... probably better to get your ducks in a row before you send 'em out attacking on this topic.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Holy ба́бушка, Batcomrade! ​

There really are a dominos ready to fall, after all.

We were only off on their location by what? ~ about 12,000 miles and thirty years or so?

Originally Posted by dilloduck


Heaven knows that the Ukraines share so many happy memories about their close relationship with Russia, too.

Here's just one of about 5,000,000 memories they have.​

Nothing the Times couldn't cover up. I'm sure the New York Times would do the same job this time as they did in 1933. Russians Hungry not Starving
When they told us there was no sign of mass starvation as 25,000 people per day dies. 5 - 7 million systematically starved by Russian collectivization. But, that's ok, the New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for covering it up.

 

[Ravi]

Oh, c'mon guys, Russia's not going to invade the Ukraine OR Central Asia. They can't do it, it'd be ridiculous. They'd just be caught into a most likely unwinnable war in either place. Nah, that kind of imperialism is long gone. What I'd 'predict', if I really had to, is muscle-flexing and coercion, not outright conquest. If you wanna see what it'd be most likely to be, it'd be economic strangulation, denouncing of anti-russian leaders in the region, assassination, funding of pro-russian coups, etc. It's much more manageable, and it has been done with some limited "success" in the past (Specifically, the US in Latin America).

Exactly. I agree with this...Russia is just trying to tell the west that they are not going to sit back idly and let the west gobble up all their influence. Georgia, by invading O.S., gave them a perfect chance to flex their muscle and everyone is having hysterics over yet another boogey man.

I'm still mystified at why we have been encouraging Georgia to join NATO when we have no ability to treat them like a member of NATO - namely, fight their wars for them. The entire thing reminds me of when we encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and then we turned our backs on them.

Well, maybe I'm not mystified. Dick Cheney's fingerprints are all over both issues.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Exactly. I agree with this...Russia is just trying to tell the west that they are not going to sit back idly and let the west gobble up all their influence. Georgia, by invading O.S., gave them a perfect chance to flex their muscle and everyone is having hysterics over yet another boogey man.

I'm still mystified at why we have been encouraging Georgia to join NATO when we have no ability to treat them like a member of NATO - namely, fight their wars for them. The entire thing reminds me of when we encouraged the Iraqis to rise up against Saddam and then we turned our backs on them.

Well, maybe I'm not mystified. Dick Cheney's fingerprints are all over both issues.

I wish you both were right. Maybe you both should do a more in-depth study of Russia and what makes it tick. Look at its history with Authoritarian leaders. Look what they do when they begin their rise.

It is a mistake to think that Russia will not commit naked aggression. Look, they are doing it right now and you are defending them saying they won't do it or maybe it's ok that they are doing it or you aren't sure. Meanwhile, Georgia is being raped. There are reports from there that concentration camps are being set up and atrocities are occurring, but you aren't even sure if Russia would do such a thing.

So, why wouldn't Russia rape another small country? You probably won't be sure if that country deserved it too. You probably will say maybe Russia's right, like now. If they go through the process of creating a phony fig leaf for them to hide behind like they did this time, you'll probably buy it again. If they can just run around taking over other countries and there is no price to pay, why not keep doing it?

 

[Ravi]

I wish you both were right. Maybe you both should do a more in-depth study of Russia and what makes it tick. Look at its history with Authoritarian leaders. Look what they do when they begin their rise.

It is a mistake to think that Russia will not commit naked aggression. Look, they are doing it right now and you are defending them saying they won't do it or maybe it's ok that they are doing it or you aren't sure. Meanwhile, Georgia is being raped. There are reports from there that concentration camps are being set up and atrocities are occurring, but you aren't even sure if Russia would do such a thing.

So, why wouldn't Russia rape another small country? You probably won't be sure if that country deserved it too. You probably will say maybe Russia's right, like now. If they go through the process of creating a phony fig leaf for them to hide behind like they did this time, you'll probably buy it again. If they can just run around taking over other countries and there is no price to pay, why not keep doing it?

I don't know if any of it is true, and neither do you. You said yourself the reporters are getting a lot of things wrong.

I have no idea who is right, but in my view, both sides are WRONG.

And of course I can believe a big country can rape a small country. It happens all the time.

I'm just extremely skeptical of what is going on at the moment. Ask me again next week...maybe I'll have a more definite opinion.

btw, did you read this? I don't know if it means anything, but it's interesting.

Bank analyst forecast Georgian crisis 2 days early | Reuters

 

[dilloduck]

Holy ба́бушка, Batcomrade! ​

There really are a dominos ready to fall, after all.

We were only off on their location by what? ~ about 12,000 miles and thirty years or so?

Originally Posted by dilloduck


Heaven knows that the Ukraines share so many happy memories about their close relationship with Russia, too.

Here's just one of about 5,000,000 memories they have.​

I was speaking of other neighbors of Russia rising up to put pressure on Russia for their invasion of Georgia. NOT Russia attacking them.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I don't know if any of it is true, and neither do you. You said yourself the reporters are getting a lot of things wrong.

I have no idea who is right, but in my view, both sides are WRONG.

And of course I can believe a big country can rape a small country. It happens all the time.

I'm just extremely skeptical of what is going on at the moment. Ask me again next week...maybe I'll have a more definite opinion.

btw, did you read this? I don't know if it means anything, but it's interesting.

Bank analyst forecast Georgian crisis 2 days early | Reuters

I wouldn't say that exactly. If a reporter is standing in Gori and says he's looking at a tank, barring some reason not to, I believe he's looking at a tank. I also think that if you hear something that cuts dramatically for one or the other contestants in the issue, absent a reason to believe otherwise, it's probably propaganda.

For instance:
The Russians are just keeping the peace in Georgia -- Propaganda
The Russians are setting up concentration camps -- Propaganda
The Georgians attack South Ossetia without provocation -- Propaganda
The Georgians were committing genocide -- Propaganda
The Georgians were ill-disciplined and some commanders lost control of their troops -- probably true
Same thing for the Russians -- Probably true

I have heard one reporter on the ground say that alcohol is a major problem among the troops right now. There is a lot of drinking and firing weapons indiscriminately.

Next week Georgia could be gone, but I'll ask you.

No, i hadn't seen that. Probably not hard for them to predict if they are paying attention to this part of the world. This has been a long time coming. Still, it's cool for the guy to have called it. I did that with Gulf War 1. I called the start of the war to within 2 hours.

 

[sealybobo]

Yes, it means you feel safe having the world super power on your side. It also means selling us your natural resources for less than you can get on the free market. And when times get tough, we will bolt.

 

[Annie]

Estonia became part of the Russian Empire because they won it from Sweden during the Great Northern War....

Lituania became part of the Russian Empire due to the partitions of Poland & the Molotiv-Ribbentrop Pact....

Latvia came under Russian occupation due to the Treaty of Nystad & WW2....

in all of these instances, either access to the Baltic Sea or buffer zones were the justification....

currently, the Russians have access to the Baltic Sea, but have limited access to the Black Sea (only the joint base at Sevastopol grants them this access & will only do so until 2017). Georgia is on the Black Sea coast & provides the Russians a sea conduit to get oil out of the country.

The buffer zone theory doesn't hold much water any longer because there are no more ideological struggles with the West. As long as the money keeps flowing east from Europe, there is no reason for a buffer zone.....both societies are capitalistic in nature.....

Put simply, the threat for the Russians doesn't come from the West anymore because of business relationships & major economic dependencies & the lack of any ideological difference. The threat comes from the South with militant Islam & the Chinese. Creating an economic powerhouse by invading Georgia & possibly the other old Soviet Central Asian Republics serves the goal of keeping militant Islam at bay (here is where your buffer zone theory comes into play) & putting the Chinese on notice that Russia can project both economic & military power....Putin isn't stupid & he realizes this all too well....the Baltics are already in NATO & the EU so they are off the table politically & militarily.....

Um hmm, sure:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS; Another Setback for BP Amoco in Its Investment in Russia - New York Times

Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

Same stuff happened after WWI, when the new regime appeared to be lightening up on the people. US and other Western interests invested and had confiscated the fruits of their investments.

 

[sealybobo]

Didn't Georgia invade another former USSR country that wants to split from Georgia and become their own country?

They thought they could get away with that? Russia aint playin.

 

[Annie]

Didn't Georgia invade another former USSR country that wants to split from Georgia and become their own country?

They thought they could get away with that? Russia aint playin.

Where they were being shelled from, with Russian missiles btw. Sort of like Hamas, Hizbollah into Israel, with Russian missiles provided by Iran. Proxies everywhere.

Hey, let's talk about the Evil Joos now. Just like Putin's puppet.