Talking military options in Russia’s backyard is just Tom Clancy fantasy unless you want to start a real war. And Stone’s suggestions don’t even come up to that.
Maneuvers with what precisely? Does NATO keep a handy ‘poised to go on maneuvers army’ in its back pocket, just in case?
And on what border? Staged from where? Supplied by what? It takes months to arrange this sort of thing, even in the wildly unlikely case that the eastern europeans wanted to take a stick to the bear.
At most we could move the Mediterranean fleet into the Black Sea and face off with the Russian Black Sea Fleet. But what would that achieve? The Russians know full well we aren’t going to start WW3 about one bunch of ethnic savages ragging on another.
What it would achieve would be a nuclear Iran for one thing as Russia is our main hope of stopping that.
Stone’s post is just his usual belligerent, wishful-thinking, other people’s chest-thumping ranting which doesn’t merit taking seriously.
It’s like bluffing on 4 aces when 2 are on the table in front of other players.
We’re tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have no cards to bluff with. The Russians know it, we know it.
The Georgians broke a ceasefire - stupidly playing into Russian hands and allowing themselves to be provoked by all the shit Russia has been pulling shooting down recon drones etc.
In the end this is just another consequence of the unfreezing of unresolved ethnic conflicts following the collapse of the USSR. Like with the Bosnian War and the break-up of Yugoslavia and I doubt it will be the last.
In the end the West doesn’t give a shit about lines on an old map, all we rightly care about is stopping Russia getting a stranglehold on energy. And that long term political goal is not served by stoking a military confrontation we can’t win.
In the end I don’t give a flying frack whether Georgia holds onto a bunch of people who patently don’t want to be part of that state. Good riddance to them. All I’m interested in is a viable and secure democratic Georgia and that interest is clearly not served by some futile military posturing at this time.
From what I understand, the amount of troops and the geography involved makes it pretty clear that this has been planned in great detail for quite some time. Georgia may not be completely innocent, but it’s also wrong to say that Russia was simply reacting to an unprovoked attack (and really, if Russia kept their troops out of other people’s borders, do you think they woudl have attacked?) This conflict is about something much, much bigger than Ossetia.
I agree that there is no good answer. It’s kind of a bummer that the message is going to be “if you ally with the west and you get invaded because of it, don’t think that anyone is going to help you.”
At no point have I said it was responding to an unprovoked attack. The Russians have been provoking the shit out of them for a long time as part of their geo-political strategy to get control of the Caucasus and no doubt the Georgians have been doing the same. Shelling civilians is never going to cut it as civilised behaviour anyway so I’ve no sympathy for them.
This conflict is all about geo-politics and energy. Russia uses energy as a political tool and the west wants to keep Georgia outside of their sphere so we can run a pipeline through it.
All the more reason not to make any stupid moves just because the Georgia leadership (with both the Presidential and parliamentary elections not being considered as having met international standards) started a fight it couldn’t finish.
Well either SO is part of Georgia or it is not. And if they claim it is they can’t turn around and cry foul when the Russians take the war to their assets outside the immediate conflict zone.
If I could wave my magic geo-political wand I’d get all Georgian forces out of the contested areas and return them to Autonomous status pending some face-saving ‘independence’ referendum.
That is probably the best deal that can be struck. I don’t care what belonged to what 200 years ago and like with Kosovo it is facts on the ground. The break-up of the USSR left a lot of ethnic conflicts still unresolved by the various early 90’s civil wars.
This is one of them and in practical terms it is game-over for Georgian hegemony over people who don’t want to be part of them. There is nothing the West can do at this time. Doing something stupid is worse than doing nothing. The question is what do we do to secure our long-term strategic interests?
Are we going to put ground troops there? Fuck, no - we don’t have any to spare. We told you so. We told you that stretching our volunteer army beyond its reasonable capabilities in Iraq would leave us nothing for the rest of the world. And here we are.
Similarly, Iraq and the Middle East has been the main thing on our national security policymakers’ minds, to the detriment of other emerging problems. We told you so about this, too. So our idiot President looked into Putin’s soul and decided God said Putin was A-OK. Happy now? And our worthless Secretary of State, who supposedly is a Russia expert - what’s she been doing to head off this moment before it got here? She’s been cooing over the ‘birth pangs of a new Middle East.’ Sweet, huh? Maybe she can be McCain’s veep candidate.
This is the day that the neocons have made; let us rejoice and be glad in it. :rolleyes:
This is what the lefties call Green Lantern foreign policy: it’s all about *will *and resolve and the like. You know what? Sometimes it’s about what’s possible.
Maybe we should make sure we continue to have the capability of protecting our formal allies. This does NOT include Georgia or Ukraine yet.
I dunno about Poland and the Czech Republic, but the Russians wouldn’t take it lightly if we armed Ukraine in a serious way. If we send advanced weaponry to Ukraine, and Russia bombs the military bases where the weapons go, what’s our next move?
This is comic-book shit, just like the original ‘axis of evil.’ Neither Russia nor China wants the other to get too powerful. They weren’t even that crazy about each other when they shared the common ideology of Communism.
You first. Go over there, stand in front of a Russian tank, and give them what for.
Didn’t we hear this yawp in the fall and winter of 2002-03? Everything’s appeasement for you guys.
What I’m going to learn from history - very recent history - is the lesson about not biting off more than you can chew, not writing a check with your mouth that your face can’t cash, and things like that.
It would be nice if the United States of America were omnipotent and could get rid of All Bad Things by 2011. But we’re not.
And if they keep coming? What then? We don’t have a whole lot left in Germany - we’ve already got everybody we think we can spare from anywhere else in Iraq. If Russia runs our tripwire, what then?
I just had the most interesting experience with my neurologist, who looks Chinese, but is actually from somewhere to the north and east of the Caucasus and has an accent like Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle. I say something about Georgia and Russia, and suddenly she grabs a pen and starts sketching like mad on the paper that rolls out on the bed thing in the exam room.
“Thees ees Caspian Sea. Thees ees Bleck Sea. Here ees Azerbaijan. They hev lots of oil. They are Muslims. Here ees Georgia. This ees Abkhazia (which, btw, Russia is now demanding.) Thees ees Sout Ussetia - thayrtee tousand pipple. Saakashvili ees stupid. He thinks to inwade small country. He forgets that bigger country ees wehting. End you know who suffers? Here (drawing a triangle between and below Azerbaijan and Georgia): Armenia. They’re very weird there.”
Suddenly she turns on me (I’m there for chronic headaches): “What are you doing worrying about Russia and Georgia? You are American girl (rhymes with Natasha’s squirrel – Mind you, at 52, I’m probably 10 years older than she is.) Stop worrying! You Americans! Even my own kids - worried about war over there!”
Then she goes back to lecturing me about the area. We’re both cracking up like crazy, as she’s saying that Kiev is such a perfect jewel of a Russian city that Russia won’t be able to let it go, but it won’t matter, because the Ukraine doesn’t have anything except land for agriculture and tourism anyway, and she’s dismissing this area as too full of mountains to be of any value, that area as useless because there are no resources, and numerous small republics as all identical “except for the language,” meaning they’ve all been at each others’ throats for a thousand years or better over religion, culture, and ethnicity until the USSR came along and forced artificial peace on them almost 100 years ago. She says her area, just to the east of the Caucasus, wasn’t usually attacked, but had served forever as a refuge for all of these other places innumerable conflicts. It was funny and sad and educational all at the same time.
Sam, I do see your point, and I agree some NATO military preparedness is in order here.
But I would suggest to you that while everyone needs allies, you need the right allies. Loyalty to alliances has destroyed empires and caused unnecessary wars. I’m a firm believer in NATO, but it’s funny and appropriate that we’re also having a thread over whether NATO is expanding too fast because this is precisely the situation that speaks against expanding NATO too fast.
If you want to claim someone is your “ally” - either vaguely, or as with NATO, formally - you really have no choice but to back that up or else your promises are just dust in the wind. And if you’re going to commit to an alliance in the face of a nuclear-armed military power you’d best be sure you’re certain of who you’re willing to die for. Imagine is Georgia had been admitted into NATO this past New Year’s Day; what the hell do we do if Russia decided to test NATO’s strength and invade Georgia anyway? At that point, we’re boned. Either we go to war with Russia, possibly starting a nuclear war, or we leave them to their own devices, which would hopelessly kill the NATO brand. In the former case all hell breaks loose, and in the latter case you’re now encouraging Russia to maybe try some shit with a country we DO want to defend. For all we know, Russia did this when they did it in part because Georgia is on the road to NATO membership, and figured they’d strike while they had the chance.
Don’t get me wrong; I’m not defending Russia by any means. But tough talk is just bullshit, dude, unless you’ve got a specific plan for how you’re going to back it up and what you’re going to be tough about. The nice thing about NATO was that it was an alliance of Western-style democracies, and there was a comfort level in democracies guaranteeing the security of other democracies. Georgia as a democracy is on flimsy ground at best, and the fact is, as RTFirefly and others have pointed out, that there aren’t many options for defending it even if you think it’s worth it.
If we’re going to be serious about the defense of the West, we need to get serious about what it is we’re trying to defend. I think that should be a reasonably exclusive list. I’m not denying that the Georgians are getting fucked in this brouhaha or that we should get serious about it - and you’re right in that Bush has embarassed himself here - but this problem was started YEARS ago, not last week, by the ridiculous overexpansion of NATO from what it was supposed to defend to trying to defend who the hell knows what. I’d much rather drop the “North Atlantic” part and get countries like Japan, Australia et al. to join than bring in quasi-democracies like Georgia. Who’d you rather die for?
I should point out that Georgia and Ukraine are hardly peas in the same pod. Georgia has ~5 million residents, and is about the size of West Virginia. Ukraine has ~45 million residents (nearly twice as many people as Iraq), and is about the size of Texas.
And the gospel according to my neurologist is that Ukraine has nothing of value to lose and Georgia has oil, but it’s mostly very inaccessible in the mountains. As a Russian (although I have a sneaking feeling she may in fact be from Kazakhstan, and just finds it easier to say Russia to Americans), she has a very interesting viewpoint wrt affairs in that part of the world.
I don’t have anything to say about the rest of your post, but let me ask this…
Assuming we weren’t “tied up” in Afghanistan and Iraq, would you be getting ready to use those troops in Georgia?
I wouldn’t. I don’t think Russia would allow it. But that’s just my assumption, especially if this is a bid by Russia to take control of, or install a puppet regime in, Georgia.
If using troops is not an option, then “I told you so”-ing BushCo about not having them doesn’t seem to be in order, here. YMMV. Heh.
I think we agree up to this point. The question is: what would be the stupid move?
South Ossetia? Gone. No problem. Georgia allowed itself to be goaded into exactly the action that Russia wanted - Georgia deserves to lose that little cesspool for that stupidity.
But “Russia uses energy as a political tool” Do you you really think that the EU should just look the other way as Russia grabs control of one of the only means for gas and oil to reach Europe that Russia does not already control? If Russia’s extant control of those resources already has you by the short hairs, is it wise to just consent to Russia grabbing you by the balls as well? Or is that the stupid move?
If Russia successfully controls Georgia then Europe has become Russia’s bitch. In a long term relationship.
No, I am not advocating military confrontation. But there is a lot more to do than to state that we’ll get Europe’s leaders to talk about it next week sometime.
Pull ambassadors as a group and request that the US do the same. Make it known that as a unit the EU will support Ukraine in its refusal to allow Russian ships to redock there. If possible get China on board as well as they also have every reason to be fearful of Russian empire building.
And if you are unwilling to that then start practicing touching your toes, cause your remaining option is only asking Russia how far to bend over.
Yeah, basically, this is not our problem in the US. You folks in Europe are the ones who are dependent on Russia for oil and gas. The stakes here are much higher for you. Of course, the risks are much higher as well. But again, no one in this thread has suggested that we initiate military action. What we have suggested is concerted diplomatic and economic action, because otherwise I suspect you can kiss the independence of any non-NATO nation in Europe goodbye. Certainly we won’t have given them any reason to believe otherwise.
And I have always find it strange that USA have gotten away with creating military bases in the Caucasus - a few years after these nation was a part of Soviet union. USA and Sov. where enemies less than two decades ago
If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, but everything else was still the same, no. Throwing our military from one exhausting, debilitating mission to another isn’t the way to further our interests in the long run.
If we’d never gone into Iraq in the first place, and I were the guy who had to make the decision, I’d be leaning toward it: I think DSeid’s arguments are pretty good ones. But committing troops overseas isn’t the sort of thing a President or a Congress should do lightly (or let themselves get buffaloed into). If I were the President, I’d obviously have access to advisors who could fill me in on the risks of action and inaction in a lot greater detail than we’re getting in this thread.
But on the basis of what we know here, yes, I think I might pull that trigger.
And if we decided to garrison 20,000 combat troops outside Tbilisi, with air cover to keep Russian bombers away, how would they stop us?
In the end run, when dealing with a nuclear power like Russia, if you are not willing to go to nuclear war, you should not be offering any sort of guarantees to countries likely to be on Russia’s hit list. The reason that NATO had any value at all was that we were able to convince Russia that we were ready, willing and able to defend an attack against ANY NATO member with nuclear conflict if necessary. Once you have Russia convinced of that, Russia has to leave those countries so protected alone, unless IT is willing to engage in mutually assured destruction over the target in question.
Suppose we do try to put Russia’s toes to the fire by way of the back burner? What difference will it make? Russia can thumb its nose at us, and there’s not a hell of a lot we can do. If Europe gets uppity, come the winter, Europe may well be without heating oil and gas. As for us, what sanctions can we impose that really would make Russia back down relatively soon?
This is the problem. I don’t know. Initially I was thinking that if all of this was happening to prevent Georgia from joining NATO, the answer was to take Georgia into NATO and present Russia with a fete accompli, so Russia would back off because it would be too late. I should have realized that this was too simple, but I’m an optimist.
Well, LadyFoxFyr straightened me out on that earlier in the thread, and made me realize that I flat out don’t know enough about Russia’s motivation here to judge. So RTF is right. People like presidents are in a position to have big staffs doing research with great resources to know all about this stuff, but frankly, I don’t know jack shit about it. I know what I’d like to see, but I don’t know what the risks are or what our options are either. Can anyone point me to resources that could better inform me without utterly confusing me?
