I won’t disagree with either of these points, but frankly I would be amazed if it turned out that Saakashvili would be stupid and/or suicidal enough to attack South Ossetia without some kind of U.S. assurance that they would back him up with something more useful than a strongly worded protest.
I would have killed to be a fly on the wall when he was talking to Condi, or any other U.S. officials who may have spoken to him about South Ossetia.
If I were more fond of conspiracy theories, I’d hypothesize that the U.S. is using this mess as a back door to insert mililtary forces into a geopolitically sensitive area - one that has an oil pipeline.
Well, I suppose they could have bungled it that way, but I suspect they bungled it more subtly, by implying but not outright saying that we’d support them. I imagine some of them had rolling around in the very idea you’re suggesting in the back of what passes for their minds. But I doubt it was full-fledged policy.
Well, there was a united Georgian Kingdom from the 10th century to the 15th (which contained what’s now South Ossetia), whereupon it split into a few rival kingdoms, including the Kingdom of Kartli (which contained what’s now South Ossetia). Then, in the 18th century, the Georgian kingdoms all became part of Russia, which set up the Province of Georgia (such province included South Osettia).
Then during the Russian Revolution, the whole area became the Transcaucasus Federation for about a year, until that fell apart, and the Democratic Republic of Georgia (which included South Ossetia) was founded.
Then, in 1921, it was invaded and annexed by the Soviet Union and became the Georgian SSR. Except for a short period where the Caucasian republics were combined into a Transcaucasus Soviet Federal Republic, it stayed the Georgian SSR until the breakup of the Soviet Union.
Settle this down? Look at the broader picture. Iran has completely ignored international demands to stop it’s nuclear program. The only diplomatic solution would be additional sanctions, which can be vetoed by Russia. Care to guess the outcome of a vote by a nation who is BUILDING Iran’s nuclear reactor? The same Russia who is waging war against a country with the only other pipeline in the region and who uses energy as a political weapon.
If Putin gains political control of Georgia’s pipeline it will be a consolidation of power over Europe. He will be able to starve countries of energy or extort large sums of money. Russia will then be in a position to buy up Europe on discount as their economy falters.
Before you get too excited about Senator Obama consider that he hasn’t been Senator for much more than half a term and a substantial amount of that time has been consumed by a bid for the presidency. His previous resume lacks any national/international/military experience.
Uh hello, Russia already controls much of Europe’s natural gas. See table 2
If I were fond of conspiracy theories I’d look at Georgia as a way of controlling a major energy pipeline in an effort to use it for political purposes.
So what you’re saying is that, from the 15th century on, South Ossetians haven’t usually been under the governance of Georgians: either they’ve been in various fragments of what currently is Georgia, or they’ve been under the rule of the Tsars, or of Moscow with Georgia SSR acting as an administrative unit, or (just recently) as an independent enclave within Georgia. Georgia has governed South Ossetia for a few years after WWI, and for a year after the breakup of the USSR.
That’s not a lot from which to impute South Ossetia’s belonging to Georgia, or having consented to its governance.
Ah. So you would suggest what? Going in immediately with troops? That seems to be McCain’s inclination. So far Obama’s suggestions have lined up point for point with the rest of those of the world’s leaders. McCain’s have been rather out there. So which one looks like the one with zero experience? Just how much experience leading a country does McCain have, anyway?
I absolutely agree that we do not want to allow Russia to succeed in making a raw power grab. But I think a military option is our last resort, not our first, if only because, in case you haven’t noticed, the past eight years have slightly exhausted our military resources. If there’s going to be a military response here, it’s going to be the rest of NATO and eastern Europe that’s going to be doing most of the heavy lifting. And their exposure is a LOT bigger than ours. So let’s not just go racing in there balls a-waggin’ ready to shit fire and save matches, especially when our first action is going to have to be to say “You go first” to our allies. Let’s see if we can bring other kinds of pressure to bear first.
Iran pretty much always was a bust. I don’t think Russia wasn’t ever going to help us there.
Uh hello, I know that, and I think you’re missing my point.
Uh, that was exactly my point. I even wrote papers about it while in grad school completing an M.A. in Russian & East European Studies, focusing on ethnic issues in the Caucasus.
You’re going to have to back up that statement with a cite showing Obama’s intentions and how they line up with the leaders of Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. And for the love of God, don’t come back with a Neville Chamberlainesk soundbite.
Nowhere have I suggested a course of action. So far I’ve tried to post the situation as a general FYI for debate. I agree with premise that NATO acts as a group. This affects Europe to a great degree and Europe should step up the plate with our assistance. To the extent that Albright has suggested bringing Georgia into NATO only underscores the seriousness of what is going on. This is a huge world altering event that, IMO, is at least on-par with the Cuban missile crisis.
Russia is in a position to sell veto votes in exchange for puppet control of Georgia. Do we want a nuclear Iran, or does Europe want higher natural gas prices. Since Israel has already practiced for a strike against Iran I would expect a lot of history to unfold in the next 6 months.
I’m trying on the Obama quote. The problem is, he’s on vacation, and this was a couple of days ago. My comparison, btw, was with the western European leaders, not the eastern - sorry about that. I am working on finding his quotes - I saw it on TV, rather than on the Interweb.
No, I’m saying that South Ossetia has been geographically part of Georgia for quite a long time, and that even when Georgia was under foreign rule, South Ossetia has been part of Georgia. It’s part of Georgia, and if the South Ossetians don’t want to be part of Georgia, that’s not relevant. Rebellions can get put down. That this one hasn’t has just been because the Russians have been inciting and protecting the South Ossetians for the past 16 years.
OK, Magiver, I’m going to have to back off my statement, because it’s based on several days ago, and the situation has changed. Russia has hardened up, and Obama has hardened up (although not as far as McCain) in response.
As I understood it, this is what the western European leaders were calling for initially as well, but frankly I am not going to spend another half an hour or so trying to run that down too, because by now, it’s probably also changed.
Not only has Russia been meddling in South Ossetia for the past 16 years, but even in Soviet days (and before, in some instances), central government policies encouraged the resettlement of ethnic Russians in non-Russian areas. I haven’t found any stats specific to South Ossetia yet, but witness the Baltics: by the time Latvia declared independence in 1991, the number of ethnic Latvians living there was barely half the population.
Can you expound on that? Are they deliberately trying to infuse Russo-centric people in other countries in order to flip them politically? Are they sending in soldiers in sheep’s clothing?
[/Emily Litella]