Girl on Fox News Frustrates Neocon Portrayals

[editec]

I was of the impression that Ossetia is a Georgian province, and as such, what the hell is Russia doing fighting Georgians there?
That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

It's a land grab by the Russians and they will follow it up with more. I'd bet my second computer monitor on it.

That is my impression, too.

 

[editec]

While I do not support what Russia is doing. I have to point out that the population of Ossetia Is predominately Russian and has expressed the desire to be part of Russia. I think that is part of what is motivating Russia here.

That said the rest of what is motivating Russia is a desire to control the oil and gas pipe line, and to keep Georgia out of NATO.

This conflict is just a warm up, the real one will be over Ukraine.

You have been misinformed.

Ossetia is about 3/4 osettians, about 1/4 Georgians. there are very few russians living there...unless you accept tht they are all FORMER russians because of their ties to the former Soviet Union.

 

[editec]

I must say, I'm loving your cynicism.

Cynacism is a good thing for the brain, but it causes a sickness of the heart. I don't advise anyone to follow me down the rathole of intellecual cynacism I have fallen into.

I agree in whole or in part with what you say, even the US should stay out of it part. Except that a reinvigorated Russian foreign policy will not be able to be long ignored by the US.

Of course it won't. We're scared to death of Russia. ESPECIALLY a Russia that is now competing in the same way we do..through cronnie capitalism.

The US is left with a choice to make: Is it in the US's interest for Russia to be strong and exerting (sometimes apparently, militarily) its influence over at least close neighbors. Or, would it be in the US's interest to use some influence to keep Russia relatively weak and pursue a policy tends to have corrosive effect on Russian foreign power in the "near abroad"?

EXactly!

The US for its part usually cuts and runs when democracy is at stake.

We have a long and tainted history of it

I don't think it too much of a stretch to suggest that the USA's foreign policy has never been interested, and doesn't trust DEMOCRACY.

After all, we don't have it here, and lords know what people might do in some foreign land if they had it.

We hung the Hungarians out to dry in 1956, we did the same to the Czechs in 1968, the Iraqi Shiites in 1991 and I'm sure I'm missing a good half dozen examples.

Dozesn of examples where American foreign policy actively fought to supress anything that even remotely appeared to be moving toward a more democratic nation, I think.

But you are basically right about all the examples you cited, for sure.

So getting involved in saving a democracy just isn't what we do. We also have no stated interest in this part of the world. We have the Carter Doctrine (for better or worse) in the Persian Gulf region so we at least have a stated interest in that region.

We don't have a stated interest? Well perhaps we're stating it (sotto voce) right now.

I think we all know that at least one "interest" we have is the ZERO SUM GAME of controlling oil wherever it exists, yes?

If our masters control it, somebody's else's masters don't.

But regardless of our "interest" in the area, we will have to deal with a resurgent Russia if we do nothing. What should be done to effectuate either policy alternative is another question. But I think we need to answer the primary question first. Nobody should be confused, we don't get to decide whether Russia is strong or weak, but we get to decide on whether our policies tend to assist Russia or tend to hinder Russia.

Spot on.

I must say, that speaking as a nationalist, I believe that American foreign policy should be forged in the geopolitical blastfurnace of

"What is BEST for AMERICANS?​

Notice I didn't say:

What is best for for some special interests who control our government?​

They are, I often note, wildly different things.

But here is what I think....I think that no matter who controls the oil...it WILL be sold to the highest bidder on the WORLD MARKET.

So, as far as I can see, AMERICANS have no real vested interest in this outcome... UNLESS we believe that thrwarting RUSSIAS control of this resource is a good thing in the longer run.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I think we all know that at least one "interest" we have is the ZERO SUM GAME of controlling oil wherever it exists, yes?

I think that so long as it is sold on the market and does not have the tendency of reducing the total available supply of oil, we don't too much care about this particular oil. We don't get our oil from the Georgians so the only way it would impact us is if some country that does get their oil from Georgia stopped getting it from there and had to compete with us for oil. That we would not like.

So, as you correctly state later, no matter who has the oil, it will be sold on the world market to the highest bidder. (Unless some country is feeling particularly self-destructive.)

... should be forged in the geopolitical blastfurnace of

"What is BEST for AMERICANS?

Notice I didn't say:

What is best for for some special interests who control our government?

Sigh....then you go and waste all that wonderful cynicism and take off in flight of fantasy like this. Yes and it would be nice if we had rivers made of chocolate, money that grew on trees, candycanes and rainbows everyday.

While we might agree on what it SHOULD be, we can probably also agree, that is precisely what it will NEVER be.

 

[mightypeon]

@ Editec
Beeing Cynic Rocks, at least thats what I try to keep telling to myself.
Maybe you are more furios about the media because you may have been raised with a "The Press is free" attitude.
Having grown up in German Democratic Republic, my total distrust in the words of anyone coming from either the media and/or the politicial class started at the age of 5, and I never expected any media to be impartial.

I do expect every head of state to do what is best for his people.
Most however, do what is best for whoever pays them.

But lets go back to the topic and look at Russias pov.

The situation:
Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia lost significant territories (among them territories which are populated by Russians and where Russian for a fairly long time, I am not talking about South Ossetia here), while it did offer the west a "new deal", the west did, in the Russian perception, used this to "mess up Russia as much as it could".
Russias currently gained Strength is a bit akin to the "No-more-Mao" effect that happened in China. Removing an incompetent gouverment (Jelzin was propably as disastrous as Mao in economical things) will always increase the well beeing of the nation.

When Russia "woke up" again, they found that their neighbouring countries were going to join Nato, that American backed "revolutions" began to remove their political influence and that America wishes to gain a nuclear edge upon Russia.

Russia also feels blatantly betrayed on at least two counts.
1: Following the German reunification, the reunified German army numbers were supposed to be the West German Army numbers (300K) minus the East German ones (ca 150K) according to the various agreements. While the NVA (East Germany army) got dissolved, the West German army was not reduced.
2: The US promised that no former Warsaw pact member (excluding East Germany) and no former Soviet Republic would ever become a part of Nato.


Of course, Gouverments lie all the time, especially to their own citizens, but lieing to another goverment is supposed to be rarer.
Also, contrary to some citicens, a foreign gouverment has a good shot of getting satisfaction for beeing lied to too.


While the fact that the US removed itself from several "no more arms race" agreements is more aimed at "Terrorists" according to the (western)media, Russia does not buy that someone needs "better tactical nukes" against a Terrorist opponent. They also do not buy the whole "missle defense" thing.
In that regard, I would ask you to note a misconception prevalent in the west: Russia does not care (not that much) about a bunch of additional rockets in poland or whereever, obviously they are not nice(and quite provocative), but they will not change MAD in a significant manner.
They are not significantly closer than some other rockets in the area. Also, even if the missle defense system would work(which it does not), it could be easily avoided by launching nukes from submarines and/or launching them over the poles/bering strait.
A often forgotten detail is that the missle defense shield does encompass some highly nifty Radar things, which are supposed to reach nearly as far as Teheran.
If this Radar thing can reach Teheran, it can also reach Moscow.
That Russia is not amused by Washington beeing able to peek into its capital is quite obvious. They claim the rocket threat because people are usually more concerned about rockets than about Radars.

So what can Russia, strategically speaking, do against the perceived "western aggression"?
1: It can use its ressources to apply pressure on gouverments depending on these ressources, however it has to be carefull as to much shown force will make Europe rethink its dependencies in a faster way.
2: It can create divergences for the USA. In the Russian point of view, the US has supported variuos "extremists" in countries like the Ukraine or Georgia. Obviously, Russia will lend economic and political support to countries beeing threatened by the US. While Russia is quite liberal with the political and econimic support they give to f.e. Iran, it is more restricted about Selling Weapons. Likely because they want the keep the "we will give Iran Air actual defenses!" threat as a something to keep the USA "in line".
3: The US is beeing perceived as highly aggressive by many, especially non western, countries. Russia could try to play the role of "protector of everyone who is not in NATO" although they do not seem to be strong enough for that yet as they lack long range force projection capacitys at the moment. Given continued escalation, such attempts are likely to follow.

It can be seen as an interesting parallel to the Peloponese War in Old Greece, the "democratic" city state Athens (and its Delphian League) was highly aggressive (both towards neutrals and towards its own allies) while Sparta, while beeing an militocraty, was significantly less aggressive towards neutral powers. In the end, several unaligned states choose to ally with Sparta, because of that (and Athen attacking perceieved threats in really far away Sicily, another nice USA Irak comparision) Athens eventually lost the war.

History aside, we also have a disparity between the cards Russia and the USA are holding at the moment, the US does already attack Russia politically and will soon attack it econimically (f.e. Removing Russian shareholders from "nationally important" enterprises etc. something Russia is doing too) it also (openly) supports forces hostile to Russia with arms and advisors. Short of starting a direct war, The US cannot become significantly more hostile to Russia than it already is (which means that McCain is shouting really loudly and has absolutly no stick), while Russia has several significant ways it can hurt/annoy America much more than it does now.
In addition, the other Nato member states have a say in the amount of escalation the US can reach without political fallout. Both France and Germany are clearly opposed of escalating things. Russia on the other hand is making moves to increase the seperation between the Nato-factions, the Baltic See Pipeline is clearly a move in this direction.
Incidently, the states which oppose an escalation-policy towards Russia are also the ones least threatened by it. Apart from beeing a slight prestige loss, it would not hurt Germany or France if the Ukraine or even Poland turn Pro-Russian.

Note that there reasons to believe that beeing aggressive towards Ukraine/Poland Georgia etc. is not something that is inherent in Russian politics. Finnland, which certainly has its own troubled history with Russia, did so far stick with the "We will never join Nato" deal they had with the Soviets. I am not aware of Putin cutting of Finlands Gas and or Oil.
Note that Finland and esp. the Ukraine are different keggles of fish, but the notion that "Russia aggresivly expands its influence into small neighbouring countries" does not seem to hold true in case where these countries dont think about joining NATO and/or demonize Russia.

Onto Georgia:
So, what are the Russian interests here?
1: Russia likes monopolizing the Energy flowing into Europe. Getting Money and political power togehte obviously rocks.
Controlling Georgia politcally (without occupying it, occupying a nation with a different language against its will is very expensive) would be a fine way to achieve this.
2: S-Vilis rethoric (try translating some of his Georgian speeches into English, Babel fish may be wrong, but he sounds MUCH more nationalistic there and basically blames Russia for everything) puts him in line with what Chavez is for the USA, so removing him is seen as a good thing.
3: Russia likely does not want the independence of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia, and its ally China, have significantly more national minorities that could be exploited/encouraged to rebel than Nato does.
4: Russia would obviuosly prefer to have a Nato sporting less countries, although one could argue that Natos efficiency will decrease if it expands further.

This was the situation prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

When hostilities started, several things got added.
1: If Georgia would have won, Russia would have been seen as not standing up to its obligations. Countries like Iran or Sudan may question Russias reliability as an "ally" if it would not even stand up against Georgia. Russia could have chosen to be perceived as "weak" or as "agressive". Completely in line with just about any theory about statecraft, they choose to be agressive.
2: Although Russia is not completely democratic, a gouverment that does not "avenge" its suprise-attacked peace keeping soldiers would likely face internal turmoil.
3: S-Vili parading in Zhinvali would have likely been the political end of Medwedew.
4: Both Russia and its gouverment feel slighted by the west breaking its promises on orchestrating the whole Jugoslavia affair. Payback is sweet.


My total bottom line on the affair:
Russia had the right to react due to having several legitimate and strong Casus Belli. How they reacted was in line with what could be expected, given their situation. If the Georgian informations are true (which I doubt) than they did exceed what can be labeled as appropriate force. If Russias Genocide information are true (I doubt that too, as a matter of fact I trust Putin as far as I can throw a T-80) than the force used was appropriate.
While Georgias invasion was not illegitimate (however it was a breach of the Sochi agreement, and it was sneaky) they have no grounds for whining about the evil russians and blaiming the EU/USA for not interfering in a stronger way.


I hereby propose a bet: The Russians will use the "security zone" as a brokering tool to entice Georgia to a more pro Russian gouverment.

 

[editec]

I think that so long as it is sold on the market and does not have the tendency of reducing the total available supply of oil, we don't too much care about this particular oil. We don't get our oil from the Georgians so the only way it would impact us is if some country that does get their oil from Georgia stopped getting it from there and had to compete with us for oil. That we would not like.

So, as you correctly state later, no matter who has the oil, it will be sold on the world market to the highest bidder. (Unless some country is feeling particularly self-destructive.)

Hence all such wars to protect resources ceases making sense in an international-corporate run universe.

This is actually a good thing.

Sigh....then you go and waste all that wonderful cynicism and take off in flight of fantasy like this. Yes and it would be nice if we had rivers made of chocolate, money that grew on trees, candycanes and rainbows everyday.

Presuming that I expect our, or any other (for that matter) ship of state will become the good-ship lollipop is presuming much about my position that you won't find supported in any of my posts, don't you think?

I define "for the welfare of this nation" to mean for the welfare of this nation, a nationm which includes the people in it, not merely very special elite who are nominally associated with the nation by dint of having chartered their corporations here, and bought and paid for our politicians.

There was a time, no so very long ago, either, when the needs of a nation's corporations weren't thought of as the ultimate wellspring from whence all national policy flowed

I think is necessary to limit this tyranny of the international merchant class.

If we are going to continue to structure mankind around nation states, (hence around any form of respresentational government) we really have no choice, but to find limits for that class.

Otherwise, we will establish a period of neo-feudalism which I doubt any of us here (not even most die hard libertarians!) would sign onto if they knew what such a world really meantfor the rights of the individual.

While we might agree on what it SHOULD be, we can probably also agree, that is precisely what it will NEVER be.

Not to the absurd degree you apparently thought I mean, it. No, of course not.

The wealthier elemenets of society will always have influence, and to a great extent, as well they should.

 

[editec]

.

@ Editec
Beeing Cynic Rocks, at least thats what I try to keep telling to myself.

Not very stoic of you to delude yourself like that.

Maybe you are more furios about the media because you may have been raised with a "The Press is free" attitude.

I recall when the American press was not controlled by eight corporations, yes.

Having grown up in German Democratic Republic, my total distrust in the words of anyone coming from either the media and/or the politicial class started at the age of 5, and I never expected any media to be impartial.

I don't expect any press to be impartial, I just expect there to be more than 8 presses to read.

I do expect every head of state to do what is best for his people.

Now, who's being naive?

Most however, do what is best for whoever pays them.

Right...

But lets go back to the topic and look at Russias pov.

The situation:
Following the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia lost significant territories (among them territories which are populated by Russians and where Russian for a fairly long time, I am not talking about South Ossetia here), while it did offer the west a "new deal", the west did, in the Russian perception, used this to "mess up Russia as much as it could".
Russias currently gained Strength is a bit akin to the "No-more-Mao" effect that happened in China. Removing an incompetent gouverment (Jelzin was propably as disastrous as Mao in economical things) will always increase the well beeing of the nation.

With ya' so far. The transition from broken communism to corrupted capitalism was messy. Blame on the Americans.

When Russia "woke up" again, they found that their neighbouring countries were going to join Nato, that American backed "revolutions" began to remove their political influence and that America wishes to gain a nuclear edge upon Russia.

Absolutely

Russia also feels blatantly betrayed on at least two counts.
1: Following the German reunification, the reunified German army numbers were supposed to be the West German Army numbers (300K) minus the East German ones (ca 150K) according to the various agreements. While the NVA (East Germany army) got dissolved, the West German army was not reduced.

Remember when we comrades so loved Germany that we made two of them?

2: The US promised that no former Warsaw pact member (excluding East Germany) and no former Soviet Republic would ever become a part of Nato.

You know, I vaguely recall something about that particualr stipulation, but I am not sure what that agreement was? I treaty, a letter of understanding, what?

Of course, Gouverments lie all the time, especially to their own citizens, but lieing to another goverment is supposed to be rarer.

the outright breaking of diplomatic treaties is actually is rather rare. Quibbling over what the treaty areally meant is the standard technique for messing with the other nation.


While the fact that the US removed itself from several "no more arms race" agreements is more aimed at "Terrorists" according to the (western)media, Russia does not buy that someone needs "better tactical nukes" against a Terrorist opponent.

Nor do I, and have already stated that putting ABM technology in former soviety pact nations was baiting the bear.

They also do not buy the whole "missle defense" thing.
In that regard, I would ask you to note a misconception prevalent in the west: Russia does not care (not that much) about a bunch of additional rockets in poland or whereever, obviously they are not nice(and quite provocative), but they will not change MAD in a significant manner.

I did not know that. Has any informed George Bush?

They are not significantly closer than some other rockets in the area. Also, even if the missle defense system would work(which it does not), it could be easily avoided by launching nukes from submarines and/or launching them over the poles/bering strait.

Tesm sefences are easily overwhelmed. As Stalin is credited as having said:

Quantitity has a quality all its own​

A often forgotten detail is that the missle defense shield does encompass some highly nifty Radar things, which are supposed to reach nearly as far as Teheran.

If this Radar thing can reach Teheran, it can also reach Moscow.
That Russia is not amused by Washington beeing able to peek into its capital is quite obvious. They claim the rocket threat because people are usually more concerned about rockets than about Radars.

Kind of lost me there. But if your point is we're putting in these systems to spy on Russia? Well, I don't doubt that's a side benefit of having those ABM systems ringing Russia's borders.

So what can Russia, strategically speaking, do against the perceived "western aggression"?

Why don't more nations understand that living well is the best revenge?

Seriously, why should they have to do anything?

Assuming the do not fear the USA launchinga preemptive nuclear stike against them, I mean.


1: It can use its ressources to apply pressure on gouverments depending on these ressources, however it has to be carefull as to much shown force will make Europe rethink its dependencies in a faster way.

Can't afford it, I think.

2: It can create divergences for the USA. In the Russian point of view, the US has supported variuos "extremists" in countries like the Ukraine or Georgia. Obviously, Russia will lend economic and political support to countries beeing threatened by the US. While Russia is quite liberal with the political and econimic support they give to f.e. Iran, it is more restricted about Selling Weapons. Likely because they want the keep the "we will give Iran Air actual defenses!" threat as a something to keep the USA "in line".

Yup, cold war reduex

3: The US is beeing perceived as highly aggressive by many, especially non western, countries. Russia could try to play the role of "protector of everyone who is not in NATO" although they do not seem to be strong enough for that yet as they lack long range force projection capacitys at the moment. Given continued escalation, such attempts are likely to follow.

Convincing people that Russia is going to protect them is going to be a hard sell.

It can be seen as an interesting parallel to the Peloponese War in Old Greece, the "democratic" city state Athens (and its Delphian League) was highly aggressive (both towards neutrals and towards its own allies) while Sparta, while beeing an militocraty, was significantly less aggressive towards neutral powers. In the end, several unaligned states choose to ally with Sparta, because of that (and Athen attacking perceieved threats in really far away Sicily, another nice USA Irak comparision) Athens eventually lost the war.

Well..you know how those Greeks were...NAKED aggression was common. Hell, naked everything was pretty common with those guys.

History aside, we also have a disparity between the cards Russia and the USA are holding at the moment, the US does already attack Russia politically

Understood

and will soon attack it econimically (f.e. Removing Russian shareholders from "nationally important" enterprises etc. something Russia is doing too)

Don't know what you're talking about

it also (openly) supports forces hostile to Russia with arms and advisors. Short of starting a direct war,

Hey, we backed Russia in Chechnya, didn't we?

The US cannot become significantly more hostile to Russia than it already is (which means that McCain is shouting really loudly and has absolutly no stick), while Russia has several significant ways it can hurt/annoy America much more than it does now.

Yes, I think the USA is holding a rum hand, I agree.

In addition, the other Nato member states have a say in the amount of escalation the US can reach without political fallout. Both France and Germany are clearly opposed of escalating things. Russia on the other hand is making moves to increase the seperation between the Nato-factions, the Baltic See Pipeline is clearly a move in this direction.

Agreed

Incidently, the states which oppose an escalation-policy towards Russia are also the ones least threatened by it. Apart from beeing a slight prestige loss, it would not hurt Germany or France if the Ukraine or even Poland turn Pro-Russian.

Don't doubt it.

Note that there reasons to believe that beeing aggressive towards Ukraine/Poland Georgia etc. is not something that is inherent in Russian politics.

What?!

Russia has always been aggressive toward Ukraine, Poland and Georgia. Since the time of the Czar, Russia has been taking those nations over.

Finnland, which certainly has its own troubled history with Russia, did so far stick with the "We will never join Nato" deal they had with the Soviets.

When you share a bed with a giant, it's a good idea not to stick your cold feet on his back.

I am not aware of Putin cutting of Finlands Gas and or Oil.
Note that Finland and esp. the Ukraine are different keggles of fish, but the notion that "Russia aggresivly expands its influence into small neighbouring countries" does not seem to hold true in case where these countries dont think about joining NATO and/or demonize Russia.

Finland has a unique relatioship with Russia.

Onto Georgia:
So, what are the Russian interests here?
1: Russia likes monopolizing the Energy flowing into Europe. Getting Money and political power togehte obviously rocks.
Controlling Georgia politcally (without occupying it, occupying a nation with a different language against its will is very expensive) would be a fine way to achieve this.
2: S-Vilis rethoric (try translating some of his Georgian speeches into English, Babel fish may be wrong, but he sounds MUCH more nationalistic there and basically blames Russia for everything) puts him in line with what Chavez is for the USA, so removing him is seen as a good thing.
3: Russia likely does not want the independence of either Abkhazia or South Ossetia, Russia, and its ally China, have significantly more national minorities that could be exploited/encouraged to rebel than Nato does.
4: Russia would obviuosly prefer to have a Nato sporting less countries, although one could argue that Natos efficiency will decrease if it expands further.

This was the situation prior to the outbreak of hostilities.

Your analysis of the Russian POV seems sound to me. But I do NOT think Russia had ANY right to get invovled in Georgian internal politics.


When hostilities started, several things got added.
1: If Georgia would have won, Russia would have been seen as not standing up to its obligations.

To WHOM? Ossetia? That is and had been since LONG before Russia got there, GEORGIAN LAND.

Countries like Iran or Sudan may question Russias reliability as an "ally" if it would not even stand up against Georgia. Russia could have chosen to be perceived as "weak" or as "agressive". Completely in line with just about any theory about statecraft, they choose to be agressive.

Nopt my problem. Russia had no right, AFAIC, sending troops onto GEORGIAN soil.

2: Although Russia is not completely democratic, a gouverment that does not "avenge" its suprise-attacked peace keeping soldiers would likely face internal turmoil.

Sounds like propaganda to me, sport. Those soliders should NOT have been there to begin with.

3: S-Vili parading in Zhinvali would have likely been the political end of Medwedew.

4: Both Russia and its gouverment feel slighted by the west breaking its promises on orchestrating the whole Jugoslavia affair. Payback is sweet.

Lost me on those two.

My total bottom line on the affair:
Russia had the right to react due to having several legitimate and strong Casus Belli.

The right? What? In the legal sense? I don't think so.

How they reacted was in line with what could be expected, given their situation. If the Georgian informations are true (which I doubt) than they did exceed what can be labeled as appropriate force. If Russias Genocide information are true (I doubt that too, as a matter of fact I trust Putin as far as I can throw a T-80) than the force used was appropriate.
While Georgias invasion was not illegitimate (however it was a breach of the Sochi agreement, and it was sneaky) they have no grounds for whining about the evil russians and blaiming the EU/USA for not interfering in a stronger way.

This is all too much for me to speculate on given that I am highly dubious either of us has anything to go on but reports from two highly biased sources.

We do not know what is happening or what has happened in the ground right now.



I hereby propose a bet: The Russians will use the "security zone" as a brokering tool to entice Georgia to a more pro Russian gouverment.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, the only things I take for granted are:
-Georgia captured Zhinvali on day one (reported by both sides)
-Georgia failed in closing the Roki tunnel (that the Roki tunnel stayed in Russian Ossetian hands is reported by Russia and the reason why they easily won, If Georgia would have gotten it the war would have been completely different and such a success would have been broadcasted 24/7)
-Russia beating the shit out of Georgia later (also reported by both sides)


I have to make corrections regarding the Sochi agreement of 1993/94 between Georgia, Russia and the 2 seperatist republics.
According to
http://ecmi.de/emap/download/Abkhazia_Background.pdf
Abkhazia broke this agreement just 2 months after it was signed by retaking its capital. I found the link while trying to search for the actual text of it, so far not succesfull.
It is unclear for me wether this rendered the agreement between South Ossetia and Georgia void too.

According to that soource, there was a similiar "Sochi agreement" (bleh, same name same stuff in it and I am supposed to keep them apart -.-) in 2003 which was a fair bit more complicated but also implicited non violence clauses and joint "peace keeping" operations of Georgians, Seperatists and Russians.

It also seemed that Georgia prepared to apply to the UNO for a exchange of the Russian peace keeping troops for international ones. Russia immidiatly made clear that it would use its Veto against this proposal. They could have forced the Russian out by cancelling the agreement that allowed the Russian to be there.
As far as I got it, this agreement made a call to the UNO for a joint peacekeeping mandate which was granted, UNO consent is needed for changing the UNO mandate, however the UNO mandate would be void should the agreement be cancelled, UNO consensus is not needed for the cancellation as each (participating) side should be able to cancel the agreement on their own choice.
Did this awfully long sentence made any sense?
However cancelling non-use-of-force deals really makes you look like an aggressor and significantly reduce your suprise factor.

While the fact that Georgia tried to adress its issues with the Russian corps peacefully (via the UN) first does not change the legal side (having soldiers on a UNO mandate activly targeted and shot is a Casus Belli) however it does, in my eyes make Russias intervention "less moralic" and Georgias attack "less amoralic". Unfortunatly noone in Politics gives a damn about morals.


P.S. the point that Georgia activly participated with its own 500 man "peace keeping battalltion" in the "peace keeping process" implies that they considered whatever Sochi agreement applying to South Ossetia to be in place.

 

[editec]

Mighty Peon,

Your posts seem to indicate that you still think you have to prove to me that Russia might have a legitmate point of view.

You don't.

But what you are going to have a hell of a time convincing me of, is that Russia is the knight in shining armor here, coming to rescue those poor Ossitians.

I not more believe that than I believe that German was protecting Germans in Sudetenland.

 

[mightypeon]

Haha, i never supposed that anyone has a shining armor.
The armor of those who loose is covered in dirt and blood, the armour of those who win is covered in blood too. The only armour that "shines" is the one that never saw action.
The only point I tried to make is that uhhhm, Russias armour is a bit less dirty than the armour of Nato in Kosovo (in this particular case).
The only thing thats unique about Georgia (ethnical minorites get bitchslapped in a big amount of countries, I would even give the Georgians that they may not be as bad as lets say Sudan or Burma) that they tried to pull their stunt on someone under Russian protection.

 

[editec]

Haha, i never supposed that anyone has a shining armor.

Okay, we're on the same page, then.

The only point I tried to make is that uhhhm, Russias armour is a bit less dirty than the armour of Nato in Kosovo (in this particular case).
The only thing thats unique about Georgia (ethnical minorites get bitchslapped in a big amount of countries, I would even give the Georgians that they may not be as bad as lets say Sudan or Burma) that they tried to pull their stunt on someone under Russian protection.

You may be right. As to Georgians treating ossetians badly? I doubt it. they've been sharing that land for over 400 years now. Everything I read indicates that the integration of those two people was a done deal until recently when somebody realized if they could break away Ossetia, they could have the natural gas and oil and Georgians would get zip.

I'm going to have to wait until the smoke clears to get a more coherent picture of what happened.

Typical of an historian, isn't it?

I sort of want to wait until more facts are there for me to study before I finally decide I have a clue what happened and why.

Usually such information isn't available until long after the conflict is over.

right now all I have a very limited information and my instincts about how people and governments tend to operate.

I was just reading the BBC site and they were complaining that they can't get a clear picture of what's going on on the ground right now, either.

People keep killing or robbing their reporters.

So rushing to judgement based on reports we're getting right now is probably a mistake.

 

[mightypeon]

I agree that we have no validated information on whats happening right now.
Information about the happenings in the frist bout is available (I have posted the link earlier somewhere), and in general interethnic hostilities do not get better if there are many unresolved issues and if the issues have been brooding for decades.

Similiar to the first round of conflict, my guess would be that both sides commited atrocities. The Georgians and South Ossetians propably more than the Russians, as, all other things beeing equal, the odds for atrocities commited correlate with what is "at stake" for the individual trooper.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Hence all such wars to protect resources ceases making sense in an international-corporate run universe.

This is actually a good thing.




Presuming that I expect our, or any other (for that matter) ship of state will become the good-ship lollipop is presuming much about my position that you won't find supported in any of my posts, don't you think?

I define "for the welfare of this nation" to mean for the welfare of this nation, a nationm which includes the people in it, not merely very special elite who are nominally associated with the nation by dint of having chartered their corporations here, and bought and paid for our politicians.

There was a time, no so very long ago, either, when the needs of a nation's corporations weren't thought of as the ultimate wellspring from whence all national policy flowed

I think is necessary to limit this tyranny of the international merchant class.

If we are going to continue to structure mankind around nation states, (hence around any form of respresentational government) we really have no choice, but to find limits for that class.

Otherwise, we will establish a period of neo-feudalism which I doubt any of us here (not even most die hard libertarians!) would sign onto if they knew what such a world really meantfor the rights of the individual.




Not to the absurd degree you apparently thought I mean, it. No, of course not.

The wealthier elemenets of society will always have influence, and to a great extent, as well they should.

I fear at this point we're beginning to stray off-topic, but yes ok...I was being over the top. But, the bottom-line is that you are right, we are on the wrong course, whether I buy the absolute particulars of your explanation of the wherefores and hows of that of coursedness.

The pie in the sky part is about the hope that the nature of current government changing. While it is true that not long ago, it is true, that the good of the corporation was not the first consideration, I believe the place we find ourselves now is evolutionary not a sudden change of direction. We are seeing the logical conclusions of what has come before.

The change you seek will either take a long time (evolutionary in the other direction) or will require a sudden jerk in the opposite direction. My analysis is merely pragmatic in that I see an enormous vacuum of leadership capable of changing courses even in an evolutionary direction back to a closer equilibrium between people and corporations. I shouldn't have used the word NEVER. I violated one of my own rules. But, a change like this would require levels of fortitude, courage and leadership that we have not seen in many years in this country. I don't see it here and I don't see it anywhere in the world.

Which strangely leads us back to Russia. I wasn't sure if we were going to get there in this post. Haven't the Europeans set themselves up perfectly to be vassals of a resurgent Russia? They dare not oppose Russia or the Russians turn off the spigot. This is the contra opinion to that we discussed earlier which should have had the caveat, during normalized relations. For instance, we need oil BAD, but we don't buy it from Iran. We will buy it from Venezuela though. So draw the distinction there.

But what of the seller? Russia needs hard currency. So they will sell their oil to get the hard currency. But, let's imagine a slightly different situation. Russia obtains Georgia's pipelines to become the monopoly provider of oil and gas to Europe. Now Russia is in a position to literally break the economies of the Europeans.

How about this scenario for using this new found power... Russia wants something, let's just say its access to fishing in the areas around Denmark and Germany (I'm just trying to keep it reasonable, so roll with me). Those folks don't want the Russians to do that so they go to the EU and say we shouldn't have to do that. The EU says to Russia, "take a volksmarch." So, Russia dims the lights for a week or so. Maybe they reduce the flow or stop it all together. Not for so long that the EU can go elsewhere, but long enough to start running out and causing pain.

It really isn't so easy for the EU to look elsewhere for oil. The US is sucking up an ever growing amount. China is grabbing everything else and India is getting what's left. Don't forget a growing Indonesia with 270 million people. How many shocks would Europe deal with? Do they fight or cave in? I think Russia starts making monopoly profits from Europe. There is no testicular fortitude in Europe.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I agree that we have no validated information on whats happening right now.
Information about the happenings in the frist bout is available (I have posted the link earlier somewhere), and in general interethnic hostilities do not get better if there are many unresolved issues and if the issues have been brooding for decades.

Similiar to the first round of conflict, my guess would be that both sides commited atrocities. The Georgians and South Ossetians propably more than the Russians, as, all other things beeing equal, the odds for atrocities commited correlate with what is "at stake" for the individual trooper.

The atrocity finger pointing is just so much smoke screen. We should ignore most of it to determine who shot John and why. I disagree with who is more likely to do it. One thing is clear, both sides soldiers are ill-disciplined. I would therefore say that the side that has their ill-disciplined soldiers on the other side's soil longest, committed most of the atrocities. But again, this has nothing to do with how we got here.

Russia didn't have all those forces sitting on the border of South Ossetia and in a position to IMMEDIATELY conduct and extensive operation as this was because those troops were out for a stroll or because they are routinely stationed right there or because they are just such great and fantastic troops they can be called at a moment's notice and thrown right into action. BULLSHIT.

Those troops were ready to go and prepared for action. Anyone who says contrary is speaking from the depths of their ass and likely has no military experience to back it up. Just the logistics of the operation the Russians pulled off speak to that. So, why were the troops there and prepared?

Probably because they were baiting a trap for the Georgians. Way do I say that? Because the past 4 years, each August the Russian "peacekeepers" allowed (protected) the South Ossetians as they fired on Georgia. Whether in previous years the Russian T-72s and T-80s lurked on the other border we can't know. But, when it happened this year, they were there in force. The Russian peacekeepers for their part maintained they they could not control the S.O.s. The only surprising thing in this situation is that S'villi had not risen to the bait before this.

I listened to the UN Emergency Session yesterday. The in the face of all of the other security council members giving the laundry list of detailed misdeeds of the Russians over this issue, they basically responded that it was all lies and propaganda. That the Russians we merely ensuring and enforcing their peacekeeping mission. Sounds like the good old days to me.

 

[editec]

Looks like we're playing ColdWar v 2.0

If you like playing ColdWar v 1.x, if the thrill of world wide nuclear annihilation made you hearts go all a pidder-padder, just think of the thrills we'll all have playing Cold War v 2.0!

All the heart stopping thrills of the former version, but with the added bonus features of rogue nuclear states, Islamo-fascism, and suicide terrorism, too.

 

[mightypeon]

Well, you may note that Russia did deliver warnings about Georgian aggression earlier, in addition they do have a good number of troops in the area, most of the ground forces came iirc from the 58. Army which is stationed there (North Ossetia Tschetschenia etc.).
Air forces can be mobilised quickly. A single experienced army can be mobilised fairly quickly.

Anyone listening to S-Vilis esp. Georgian speeches as well as the changes in his parliament knew that he would strike in the near future, so a deterent troop build up is sensible.
Russia also had a deterrent troop build up prior to operation Barbarossa, having a build up prior to hostilities does not automatically mean that you are laying a trap.

 

[editec]

I fear at this point we're beginning to stray off-topic, but yes ok...I was being over the top. But, the bottom-line is that you are right, we are on the wrong course, whether I buy the absolute particulars of your explanation of the wherefores and hows of that of coursedness.

My hypotheses are just that. I'm not any more sure of the particulars than you are.

The pie in the sky part is about the hope that the nature of current government changing. While it is true that not long ago, it is true, that the good of the corporation was not the first consideration, I believe the place we find ourselves now is evolutionary not a sudden change of direction. We are seeing the logical conclusions of what has come before.

Are you suggesting that the end of nations states is an historic inevitability? (Shades of Karl Marx!!)

The change you seek will either take a long time (evolutionary in the other direction) or will require a sudden jerk in the opposite direction.

Most of the changes I seek take little more than a fews the stroke of a pen. Meaningful Campiagn finance reform being the first stroke, but there are others, as well. Changing the laws concerning media control another.

They may not happen, given how effectively this Republic has been perverted into a shamocracy, but what needs be done is fairly obvious.

My analysis is merely pragmatic in that I see an enormous vacuum of leadership capable of changing courses even in an evolutionary direction back to a closer equilibrium between people and corporations.

There's no lack of talent in America who can identify the problems and the solutions, too. But the fix is in to kill that talent early and marginalize that which came of age, and frankly that vetting system is working quite well for the elite so I do not expect that to change anytime.

I shouldn't have used the word NEVER.

(That's why I never use it)

I violated one of my own rules. But, a change like this would require levels of fortitude, courage and leadership that we have not seen in many years in this country. I don't see it here and I don't see it anywhere in the world.

Plenty of courage. Plenty of finks to stab the couragous in the back, too.

Which strangely leads us back to Russia. I wasn't sure if we were going to get there in this post. Haven't the Europeans set themselves up perfectly to be vassals of a resurgent Russia?

They dare not oppose Russia or the Russians turn off the spigot. This is the contra opinion to that we discussed earlier which should have had the caveat, during normalized relations. For instance, we need oil BAD, but we don't buy it from Iran. We will buy it from Venezuela though. So draw the distinction there.

Well their lack of oil does that rather effectively for them, I think, but it doesn't necessarily make Russia their masters

If they didn't buy it from Russia then they'd be beholden to somebody else, no less than any other nation without enough oil, FWTW.

But what of the seller? Russia needs hard currency. So they will sell their oil to get the hard currency. But, let's imagine a slightly different situation. Russia obtains Georgia's pipelines to become the monopoly provider of oil and gas to Europe. Now Russia is in a position to literally break the economies of the Europeans.

And so Russia will blow it's own foot off at the same time?

I get your point, of course, but I doubt Russia elite want to derail the gravy train that is making them so PERSONALLY wealthy, and revitalizing Russia at the same time, too.

there are limits (rather tight ones) as to how much embargo power any oil producing nation has I think...especially if they have need for hard cash to keep their society going.

How about this scenario for using this new found power... Russia wants something, let's just say its access to fishing in the areas around Denmark and Germany (I'm just trying to keep it reasonable, so roll with me). Those folks don't want the Russians to do that so they go to the EU and say we shouldn't have to do that. The EU says to Russia, "take a volksmarch." So, Russia dims the lights for a week or so. Maybe they reduce the flow or stop it all together. Not for so long that the EU can go elsewhere, but long enough to start running out and causing pain.

Yeah, that's a believable plot. They have power, they will use...but only to extent they can afford to use it.

It really isn't so easy for the EU to look elsewhere for oil. The US is sucking up an ever growing amount.

Europe buys it on the open market just like everyone else in the world. today from Russia tomorrow from whomever.

If oil from Russia didn't flow directly to Europe,Russian oil would flow to it from another market.. and that WOULD increase the world's supply. Sounds like a bit of a wash to me, personally. An inconvenient one, but a wash none the less.

There is no way, that the SOURCE of oil makes all that much difference just so long as the world markets remain truly open to purchase from the highest bidder.

China is grabbing everything else and India is getting what's left. Don't forget a growing Indonesia with 270 million people. How many shocks would Europe deal with? Do they fight or cave in? I think Russia starts making monopoly profits from Europe. There is no testicular fortitude in Europe.

I get your point, but again, the WORLD MARKET for energy is just that..a world market.

If any nation elects NOT to sell to any other, unless it simply decides NOT TO SELL IT AT ALL, it really does not dramatically effect that other nation as long as that other nation has access to the world market.

Europe is no more or less subject to the whims of the WORLD MARKET than you or I are.

The whole damned world is held capitive by the market. The whole damned world is also liberated by the world market.

Again the economics as a balloon analogy.

Squeeze the ballon on one side and the other side bulges.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Well, you may note that Russia did deliver warnings about Georgian aggression earlier, in addition they do have a good number of troops in the area, most of the ground forces came iirc from the 58. Army which is stationed there (North Ossetia Tschetschenia etc.).
Air forces can be mobilised quickly. A single experienced army can be mobilised fairly quickly.

Anyone listening to S-Vilis esp. Georgian speeches as well as the changes in his parliament knew that he would strike in the near future, so a deterent troop build up is sensible.
Russia also had a deterrent troop build up prior to operation Barbarossa, having a build up prior to hostilities does not automatically mean that you are laying a trap.

You know an awful lot about the Russian Order of Battle. How is that?

Considering the Georgian army is only 35,000 troops (2k were in Iraq), it does seem odd doesn't it that S'vili would attack into a stronger force than his entire army. I mean the decimated Russian army only consists of 1.1 million troops. If you say they had an Army on the border that would be minimally 2 corps. A corps is minimally 2 divisions. So, minimally you are saying 8 divisions of troops. At ....let's see Russian divisions are a little lighter than American Divisions Say 8-12k per division with integrated tactical air support. So roughly 80,000 Russian troops. And of course, the Americans wouldn't have told Georgia of the troop concentration on the border. So why wouldn't the Georgians just stroll in thinking that as they killed the Russian "peacekeepers" the 80k troops would just sit still and wait for them to be done.

I mean, my math is rusty and maybe I'm just not adding things up right, but that would have to mean that S'vili is just a plain mental patient that wandered away from the asylum. Since I have no other evidence that supports that contention, I'm forced to reject it and look elsewhere for answers.

Maybe the oft contended, "S-vili thought the US would ride to his aid and pull his chestnuts out of the fire." I'm assuming here that even in Georgia they have maps. I'm also taking the GREAT leap of faith that S'vili can find his country on a map. And, since he study in the US, he might also be able to figure out where that is on a map. Looking at these two point he might notice that the whole fucking rest of the world is between those points. He may also have heard, on the media (which I again assume they have in Georgia) that the US is a trifle busy, militarily speaking, right now. Further, he may have heard it blasted alllllll over the world that the US military is stretched to the breaking point right now. Since it has been reported by everyone ad nauseum for the last two years. Nope, I have to believe that based on his thorough review of all those facts, he thought the US was going to fly in a bunch of troops to fight a land war against, minimally speaking 80,000 Russians with a 12,000 mile supply line for American troops, that would mean he's a mental patient.

So, what's a real explanation? One that doesn't result in S'vili having to be the dumbest moron on the face of the planet now or ever.

 

[editec]

You know an awful lot about the Russian Order of Battle. How is that?

Considering the Georgian army is only 35,000 troops (2k were in Iraq), it does seem odd doesn't it that S'vili would attack into a stronger force than his entire army. I mean the decimated Russian army only consists of 1.1 million troops. If you say they had an Army on the border that would be minimally 2 corps. A corps is minimally 2 divisions. So, minimally you are saying 8 divisions of troops. At ....let's see Russian divisions are a little lighter than American Divisions Say 8-12k per division with integrated tactical air support. So roughly 80,000 Russian troops. And of course, the Americans wouldn't have told Georgia of the troop concentration on the border. So why wouldn't the Georgians just stroll in thinking that as they killed the Russian "peacekeepers" the 80k troops would just sit still and wait for them to be done.

I mean, my math is rusty and maybe I'm just not adding things up right, but that would have to mean that S'vili is just a plain mental patient that wandered away from the asylum. Since I have no other evidence that supports that contention, I'm forced to reject it and look elsewhere for answers.

Maybe the oft contended, "S-vili thought the US would ride to his aid and pull his chestnuts out of the fire." I'm assuming here that even in Georgia they have maps. I'm also taking the GREAT leap of faith that S'vili can find his country on a map. And, since he study in the US, he might also be able to figure out where that is on a map. Looking at these two point he might notice that the whole fucking rest of the world is between those points. He may also have heard, on the media (which I again assume they have in Georgia) that the US is a trifle busy, militarily speaking, right now. Further, he may have heard it blasted alllllll over the world that the US military is stretched to the breaking point right now. Since it has been reported by everyone ad nauseum for the last two years. Nope, I have to believe that based on his thorough review of all those facts, he thought the US was going to fly in a bunch of troops to fight a land war against, minimally speaking 80,000 Russians with a 12,000 mile supply line for American troops, that would mean he's a mental patient.

So, what's a real explanation? One that doesn't result in S'vili having to be the dumbest moron on the face of the planet now or ever.

Yeah, isn't that so often the problem we armchair foreign policy fans always face?

So OFTEN neither offical story makes sense in light of what we CAN know.

We can know, for example that Russian troops were on the border. We can know that they kicked Gerogian troops asses.

We can assume that people aren't completely nuts. We can assume they had a plan?

What we can't know is the true motives of either player, or how, for example Georgia's leadership could have missed the warning signs that the bear was awake and grumpy.

What the hell went on behind the scenes to make Georgia think they could deal with this by force?

Per usual, I watch the events unfolding and know perfectly well I don't have 1% of the REAL story.

This is why I like history.

Give this issue eighty or one humndred years and we might actually have a clue how something this seemingly dumb, actually happened.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Are you suggesting that the end of nations states is an historic inevitability? (Shades of Karl Marx!!)

Not at all. All I'm saying is that we have adopted a course and it is evolving in a given direction. Without someone acting on it to forcibly change it, it will continue generally in the same direction. After all we've been through changes in party and government and we did not change course. So, that would indicate that more serious commitment is needed.

Most of the changes I seek take little more than a fews the stroke of a pen. Meaningful Campiagn finance reform being the first stroke, but there are others, as well. Changing the laws concerning media control another.

I'd like to hear more about what you mean by "media control" I'll assume for now that it is benign. Campaign finance reform is an opiate. It is meaningless and toothless and the SCOTUS will ensure it remains so, probably appropriately. The problem that reveals itself in the "need for campaign finance reform" is structural. We perverted the electoral system and this is the result. The answer is to be found in the Constitution. What would change the paradigm is not finance reform it is not having democracy limited artificially by architecture.

At the turn of the century we decided that we would move from an apportionment of representative based on population and fix the number of representatives at 435. At that time, those representatives each represented 250,000 people. Now they represent over 600,000 people and growing. The answer is to weaken the need for outside money. Otherwise they will always find a loophole to get the money they need. If we went back to representatives representing 250,000 per congressional district, their need for money drops considerably. Only in the urban areas would the need be great and even there, a representative could probably shake hands with all 250,000 people they represent in a campaign. (and half wouldn't want to shake their hand anyway). Challengers might actually have a chance. Anyway, this is for another thread. I'm way off-topic.

There's no lack of talent in America who can identify the problems and the solutions, too. But the fix is in to kill that talent early and marginalize that which came of age, and frankly that vetting system is working quite well for the elite so I do not expect that to change anytime.

I'm thinking that's a restatement of my point or amplification of it.

(That's why I never use it)

LMAO!!!

Well their lack of oil does that rather effectively for them, I think, but it doesn't necessarily make Russia their masters

If they didn't buy it from Russia then they'd be beholden to somebody else, no less than any other nation without enough oil, FWTW.

Almost but not exactly. If they bought "all" or some enormous share of their oil from that someone else then yes. It isn't that their oil is not their own or even how much of it isn't theirs, the problem is they single sourced it (or will if Russia takes Georgia).

And so Russia will blow it's own foot off at the same time?

I get your point, of course, but I doubt Russia elite want to derail the gravy train that is making them so PERSONALLY wealthy, and revitalizing Russia at the same time, too.

there are limits (rather tight ones) as to how much embargo power any oil producing nation has I think...especially if they have need for hard cash to keep their society going.

I think it a manageable risk. If Russia turns around and offers oil again after a substantial disruption, how long will the Europeans hold out against the offer? It won't be measured in more than weeks. Their fear that someone else will start buying that oil would be too great.

Yeah, that's a believable plot. They have power, they will use...but only to extent they can afford to use it.

Besides, as a long term plan, what if Russia built a pipeline to China too (or for that matter maybe they are doing just that), so turning off the Europeans just means more sales to China. Then Russia doesn't get hurt.

Europe buys it on the open market just like everyone else in the world. today from Russia tomorrow from whomever.

If oil from Russia didn't flow directly to Europe,Russian oil would flow to it from another market.. and that WOULD increase the world's supply. Sounds like a bit of a wash to me, personally. An inconvenient one, but a wash none the less.

There is no way, that the SOURCE of oil makes all that much difference just so long as the world markets remain truly open to purchase from the highest bidder.

Don't give sourcing too short a shrift. Securing sources of a rare commodity isn't always that easy. Yes, the world market sets prices, but you still have to find a source that has it available to sell. For instance, OPEC sets production targets for its members. They look very dimly on member states that over produce their targets. So, if Russia stops supplying 55 million bbl per day or whatever to Europe. Now they need to get it from someplace else. Well most of the oil in OPEC would be spoken for already. To get them to produce more to cover Europe would probably require a meeting to increase production and then their would be a lag until that happened. You see the difficulty.

I get your point, but again, the WORLD MARKET for energy is just that..a world market.

If any nation elects NOT to sell to any other, unless it simply decides NOT TO SELL IT AT ALL, it really does not dramatically effect that other nation as long as that other nation has access to the world market.

Europe is no more or less subject to the whims of the WORLD MARKET than you or I are.

The whole damned world is held capitive by the market. The whole damned world is also liberated by the world market.

Again the economics as a balloon analogy.

Squeeze the ballon on one side and the other side bulges.

Still, there is a transition from one source to another (assuming Russia starts selling the oil to someone else and therefore some suppliers are looking for buyers and there is no net increased world demand that would reduce supplies) if either of these were not true then Europe would be SOL. Transition could take a month or more to make, by which time the Russians may decide to resume sales.