Your realize that has nothing to do with the question I posed.
Oy! Are you really that ignorant of the topic you’ve been reading about for three days? In the three days I’ve been reading about it I’ve learned:
- The South Ossetians were trying to secede from Georgia
- The Georgians attacked right after signing a peace treaty
- This conflict has been going back and forth for a thousand years.
Please. Innocent victims my ass.
Read this palliative:
South Ossetia: The War of my Dreams
Do a little research on the Caucasus before you get all misty eyed about the poor indigenous peoples of South Ossetia. Remember, Stalin was from Gori.
Are you responsible for invading Iraq?
ETA: Do you deserve to die for it?
What does deserve have to do with it? When has deserve ever governed anything related to suffering or dying?
You yourself said “Innocent victims my ass.”
I was saying that yes, they were innocent insofar as the individuals being killed were innocent. The government? There’s plenty of blame to go around. If at any time it sounded like I was absolving Georgia as a nation, I apologize. I didn’t mean to imply that Georgia was blameless. It’s just that I don’t fear Georgia trying to exert control over that all of Eastern Europe. They’ve been spanked and spanked hard, and are in no need of further punishment.
Russia, on the other hand, has not been spanked. I believe them to be at least as much to blame for this as Georgia, possibly more, and they are far more dangerous to the rest of the world. We need a way of saying “you can’t do this” to them, and as RTF and others have pointed out, we have unfortunately squandered our means unless Russia is vulnerable to diplomatic/economic pressure. What I don’t believe we should do is give up without looking for some way of doing that, and pile on blaming Georgia without recognizing and acknowledging Russia’s responsibility here.
Everyone recognizes Russia’s responsibility here. The thing you seem to fail to realize is that we can’t do a damn thing about it. At least nothing that will help Georgia in the short term. Maybe we’ll accelerate NATO membership for other Baltic states, but that’s not going to help Georgia in the here and now.
It’s the day that Russia invaded Georgia, and demanded that Belarus switch to the Ruble.
Also, important to understand is the Turkmen oil deal that I linked before but I think bears repeating.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JG30Ag01.html
Russia is clearly making moves to control the EurAsian oil supply. This is highly significant, and a lot of this is coming down all at once. It’s no mistake that the more suggestive portions of this plan were put into effect when the world was watching the Beijing Olympics. If you want to see what you’ll all be talking about on this board in five years. Here is it right in plain view. We’re watching the rise of a resurgent Russia making a few huge plays to bolster it’s hand for the long-term.
Sorry I was gone so long. I’m afraid I can only take a couple of minutes now, too.
An alliance of the wealthiest per capita countries in the world, and there’s absolutely nothing we can do to make Russia feel the least bit bad? I don’t care if it’s to sing Rachmaninoff off key to him six times a day for a month, as long as:
- it really irritates Putin
- we make it very clear why we’re doing it
- we make it clear that it’s not grounds for retaliation because it’s not violent
- we make it very clear that if they do it to anyone else, we’ll do it again, only worse.
Of course, if we introduce the Annoyance Option, we’ll have to only elect presidents who are unflappable themselves. This should guarantee an Obama victory, as McCain is known for his short temper.
But seriously, you’re telling me that there’s absolutely nothing that Europe and America can do to get the message home to Russia in a way that will mean something to them that we seriously do not like this? I find it very hard to believe that we all (NATO) have nothing they want more than they have something we want (if that makes any sense).
That makes it clear that there is a pattern. Thanks for clearing up my ignorance on that subject.
I think you mean the natural gas supply, but the point is well taken. Natural gas is easier to monopolize regionally, since natural gas a lot harder than oil to ship across oceans: it’s got to be liquefied, and shipped in special tankers. There’s a limit to how much natural gas you can receive if you’re not on the receiving end of a pipeline.
I wouldn’t bet on it. Russia’s economic resurgence seems to be almost entirely a matter of the increased value of fossil fuels, which rarely translates into a generally vibrant economy. Its military isn’t the feared fighting machine of the Cold War era (it wasn’t as potent as was feared even back then, for that matter). It’s got a declining population, a serious brain drain, and a thuggish, kleptocratic leadership. Such factors tend to be self-limiting.
Not that we don’t have to watch them and all, but ‘resurgent’ isn’t going to be the word anyone’s going to apply to Russia in five years.
Some more background.
Natural gas is currently 23% of the primary energy used in the EU.
Russia’s desire to use its control of natural gas resources as a means of controlling Europe is not news. This from a year ago.
The EU needs to lead here. (True 'nuff, the US has little moral authority right now in this regard.) They need to use Russia’s current actions as a means to convince Hungary to sign on with Nabucco, not Blue Stream. They need to decrease natural gas expansion and move even more aggressively into alternative sources. No Pickenoid NG vehicles for that market. They need to be able to walk away from Russian natural gas if they need to, with alternative suplliers and decreasing reliance (which would undercut its price and Russia’s power) and until then they need to practice strong diplomacy.
If it’s true that Georgia needed to be spanked then someone had to do the spanking. That someone was Russia.
Separately, RTFirefly’s response to Magiver bears repeating: those currently pushing a military alliance with a weak state prone to military adventurism like Georgia are writing a recipe for either weakness and treaty-breaking or war. The National Review and wingers such as Scheunemann fall in this camp.
Realists such as Kennan and Kissinger belong to another.
Props to Gregory Djerejian for the links and analysis.
We wouldn’t be committing ground troops to help Georgia even if we had them to spare, even if we weren’t fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s too close to Russian sovereign soil, and we aren’t about to go there…yet.
War by proxy is still the order of the day. The invasion of Georgia, which now appears over, would never in a million years been directly defended by NATO or US troops. It’s way too politically risky, and way too risky that it could devolve into a real war between Russia and the West (or just the US).
Not happening.
Right
I’m not talking about economic resurgence. That’s the ends of all this. Their military needn’t be the ‘most’ feared, it merely needs to be feared enough to enforce the deals that it pens. Modern warfare isn’t about swinging a maul around anymore. Modern warfare is about precision strikes quickly and decisively, which is what happened in Georgia. No one in the world other than the US or China can threaten the Russian military. This puts any deals like the one in Turkmenistan and hypothetical deals of the same type in Kazakhstan within a certain safety zone.
We’re looking at the ground floor stuff here. You’re right though, internal corruption hobbles them. However, in terms of ‘resurgence’, I don’t mean that they have to be at Soviet level proportions. We have this really terrible habit ingrained in our minds where the only level of success we can imagine is vying for the top slot. Russia is one of the top dog regional hegemons with probably the single most important geostrategic location in the world. They straddle from the Atlantic to the Pacific across Eurasia, so their regiona hegemony impacts everyone in the entire world. They need not be the Soviet Union for that to be significant. This is going to really realign how Europe gets it’s oil. That pipeline is quite important. As I understand it, it’s the only one not under either Russian or Muslim control feeding Europe. If they start to dominate natural gas from the Central Asian Stans and dominate that pipeline they’ll have a powerful bargaining chip that puts Germany in their pocket.
http://www.eurasianet.org/departments/insight/articles/eav110707a.shtml
The bear is coming out of hibernation.
No, Russia has grabbed a stick and beaten them into the hospital. Not quite the same thing.
I’m not as up on this stuff as you folks are. But I have been following this very closely on PBS. They’ve had a number of diplomats and diplomatic analysts, including Richard Holbrook, that well-known tool of the right wing (having served under Clinton :rolleyes: ) Here’s that interview. In it, even Holbrook thinks that the lion’s share of blame lies predominantly with Russia, not with Georgia, and the secondary argument is not how much is due to Saakashvili, but rather to the US. They are concerned about further implications. The Russian ambassador also appeared on the News Hours, and made no bones about the fact that their goal in Georgia was regime change; they want Saakashvili out of office.
Then there’s Rachel Maddow, of Air America, who is a frequent guest on Keith Olbermann’s Countdown and other MSNBC’s other programming. She’s a serious left winger, but she never sounds like someone reading a talking points memo. In this segment, at about the 2:57 point, she begins talking. She (and Olbermann) seriously trash John McCain, but she in no way tries to downplay the idea that Russia is by far the more bad guy in this, or that Russia is a serious threat to all of Eastern Europe at the very least, or that NATO needs to come together to find a way of bringing pressure to bear on Russia.
The data you’ve been introducing vis a vis other satellite republics and their oil merely makes the necessity to find a way to control or at least limit Russia to some extent more urgent. The most aggressive move I’ve suggested is to allow Georgia to join NATO, and possibly to then back that up with a military presence in Georgia, most likely made up predominantly of Euro troops (although possibly some US materiel), at least until we’re mostly clear from Iraq. But that’s the kind of decision I can’t make from the info I have available. I need the CIA and the NSA, and analysts and meetings with other NATO leaders and a cadre of Really Smart People[sup]TM[/sup] to make that kind of call.
Certainly to win Russia over, we’ll have to slap Georgia on the wrists; they may have to cede sovereignty of the two breakaway provinces that supposedly Russia was saving. But they’ve had the crap beaten out of them for the better part of a weak (most of which time they’ve been trying to get a Cease Fire), and I seriously doubt they have any plans to voluntarily flex their military might any time in the near or even medium term future. It’s going to be a lot more difficult to figure out how to get the Russians to regret it.
Oy! I think you seriously misunderstand European will in this situation. Part of the point of this whole excercise is to control Europe’s access to energy. That will seriously affect the amount of will that Europe has for this sort of thing. Germany these days, as much as it is cliche to say so, is a bunch of lilly livered pansies. Russia can turn the gas off for Germany, and that’s a reality. Remember the reason that Georgia isn’t a member of NATO already is because Germany has kept them out.
I think you’re discounting what was a very real possibility. Georgia was being strongly considered for NATO membership. If that had happened last year and the situation were the same, we’d be at war with Russia right now. That’s what NATO’s all about - if anyone attacks any NATO member, all of the other NATO members go to war.
I was making this point in another thread. Too many people seem to beleive that NATO membership is a purely symbolic act and are ignoring the possible consequences.
mswas: Well I expect India and China to remain regional hegemons as well.
And the US is a huge market so their economic hegemony impacts everyone in the entire world. Ditto for the EU.
I expect Russia to suffer from a nasty resource curse over the next 10 years or so. And methinks China is far more worthy of our focus, though nobody is saying that Russia can be ignored.
On preview: trust me Oy!, I don’t know what the hell I’m talking about on this issue. And common sense says we should scramble our diplomatic staffs.
Breaking news: Georgia and Russia agree to truce. Russia drops 6th point, regarding the eventual status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Saakashvili intones: “The territorial integrity and belonging of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to Georgia can never be put under doubt.”
Frankly, it sounds to me like the Russians are playing ball. Skilled hegemons quit when they’re ahead. Russia has little interest in occupying a hostile Georgia and every interest in keeping them out of NATO. And like our home-grown conservatives they like sending “messages”: you take Kosovo and we’ll snatch someplace else. Nations that are small and saavy don’t invade territories occupied by great powers.
Absolutely, and Russia’s current plans seem to be dependent upon China and Europe. They want to play the two against each other to leverage their energy wealth. That’s why the Turkmenistan Nat Gas deal is so important. They paid Turkmenistan above today’s normal rates but with a long contractual obligation. If you think that you can drive the price of a resource up sometimes it’s worth it to pay above the going rate to crush the competition. It’s great if you can do it. I do it in Eve-Online all the time. If they can get similar deals with others of the Central Asian Stans, they’ll have a very good positioning. Continuing to work with China on the deal they’ll be able impact Europe and get Germany to be their shill in the EU and NATO due to their ability to cripple Germany. “Why should we sell you this gas? China is ravenous.”
Well, to be honest, watching the Olympics it is pretty clear that China is about to be top dog. They Dragon is rising. I’ve been arguing this whole time that it wasn’t silly of Bush to stay in Beijing while this went down. It was the perfect place for him to be. China ultimately is more important than Russia or Georgia. As for the ‘Resource Curse’, it seems to me that Russia is leveraging power more than profit. So it will remain to be seen how they operate with their acquisitions. It’ll be interesting if Belarus switches to the Ruble.
Yeah, most of the stuff I’ve got on this issue was learned in the last four or five days as I’ve been reading up in depth on this subject. This is why I recommended that Asia Times forum article. The poster over there fjd just broke it down spectacularly and really pointed to the right info coming from many sources I just never would have found on my own. Also looking at the pipeline map that I posted earlier was very useful, and I’ve been looking up cities in Google Maps. I didn’t even know where Ossetia was until this went down.
Heh, Saakashvili hasn’t much of a leg to stand on.
Yeah, this is all Great Game brinksmanship, and is on a certain level rather exhilirating. The War on Terror had gotten rather dull. (I know I know, war involves death and it’s not for my entertainment. I’m just sayin…) This is the sort of event that really makes you feel connected to history though. This is the real stuff that shows you how ancient these threads are.
I’ve long wished for the US to lose it’s position as sole superpower, and this is how I get my wish apparently. I was quite dismayed at how Bush squandered our power at it’s height.
The World Order as it is shaking out for the next 15 years I would say is in order of power you have, The United States, China, Europe, Russia, India, and Brazil.
Also, for those that don’t know, Russia just bounced some American companies from Venezuela and moved Russian companies into their place in preparation for the emergence of the energy cartel they are seeking to form.
I imagine a President Obama may be a bit more successful with the Germans that GWB has been - knock on wood. Hell, he may be better at dealing with Russia that GWB, because I truly think, when push comes to shove, that Obama is tougher than Bush. He won’t have the bureaucratic in-fighting or the constant leaks that Bush has had. He’ll have a meritocracy, rather than loyalty tests and cronyism. Don’t get me wrong; he’ll have some trusted friends in high places, because he’ll trust their abilities and their mutual goals. But there won’t be any "Heckuva job, Brownie"s or stacking Justice’s deck. Putin probably had W’s number from the first time they met, amd knew he could play him for a sucker any time he wanted.
Still don’t know if the cease-fire has actually taken hold. Holbrook said tonight on the News Hour that it was the 32nd cease-fire that finally actually took hold.
Gotta go to bed. Goodnight!