The Case for Georgia
by Gun-Totin-Wacko
All day today I’ve been monitoring the internet, reading articles and comments, especially at Ace of Spades, about the war in Georgia. The vast majority of what I see is from people who argue that we can’t help, that Georgia is historically part of Russia, or that Georgia isn’t really crucial to the US and it’s allies.
This is a load of hooey. Not one of these arguments stands up to scrutiny. So I intend to put a nail in each of them. And I’ll even make a suggestion or two on how to help.
[NOTE: At no point am I absolving the Georgians of any guilt for crimes they might have committed. If they are, as rumored, guilty of mass murder or ethnic cleansing, then the people involved need to be punished.]
First let’s look at the “historical” argument. Yes, Georgia has historically been part of Russia. As many readers will know, Stalin himself was a Georgian. Fine. Point made.
However, this is meaningless. The Ukraine, Poland, the whole of Central Asia, etc can be called “historically part of Russia”. What of it? All this aside, the issue is quite clear: Georgia is an independent country with a democratically elected government. Both the independence and the government are recognized by the international community as legitimate. How is it that a large country can simply invade and overwhelm a smaller neighbor, just by calling up arguments from the past?
A moment ago I mentioned Poland. For most of the past 250 years, Poland has been divided by its two neighbors, Germany and Russia. Except for the brief 20 years or so between the two World Wars, it was a conquered territory from the latter part of the 18th century until the 1980s. Does this unfortunate fact mean that Russia would have had a legal claim to invade in 1984 and re-conquer it? Or that Germany and Russia had the moral right to divide it in 1939? Or course not. So what is different now?
- - - - - - - - -
As to the claim that it’s too difficult to aid the Georgians, I grant the premise. It is awfully hard, especially since the Russian forces have invaded and cut the country in half. However, the world community needs to find some way to help. Going back to my previous example of Poland, the same basic argument holds true. Why did Britain and France not give active help in September 1939? Because Poland was too far too isolated, and not really vital to their interests (Though they did at least declare war. They then sat back until after Poland was dismembered).
Remember too that the same argument held sway the year before at Munich. Alliance be damned, the French and Brits felt that they could not help, and that the Sudetenland was not worth going to war over. Perhaps they were correct, but the long term proves otherwise.
So should the entire world now sit on their hands and watch Georgia get overwhelmed because it would be too hard to do otherwise? Nonsense! With the application of willpower and effort, Russia could easily be put in its place. Economic boycotts, aid to peripheral countries, etc. But the West is too morally weak (witness the people in Europe who are openly supporting Russia, or at the very least not denouncing the invasion), and the rest of the world is either accustomed to bullying by neighbors, or hoping for a precedent they can use.
As to the claim that Georgia isn’t important enough to our interests, again I strongly disagree. Georgia is an ally of the West, and as I pointed out before, it’s a sovereign country. For those reasons, it becomes a moral imperative to help. The nations around Russia’s periphery are all terrified tonight, seeing the resurgence of what is essentially the Soviet Union. The weakness of the international response doesn’t help. Seeing your neighbor get beaten up by a thug while the police do nothing teaches the weak a strong lesson in human survival.
Of course, Europe is worried about their energy supplies. With good reason. Putin has never shown any hesitance to use whatever weapons he has available. But is it better to do nothing, hoping not to offend him, or to resist now, and hopefully end the crisis before winter?
Finally a couple of suggestions for how the civilized world can help. First off, the International Olympic Committee should take an emergency vote and announce the expulsion of the Russian Olympic Team from the Beijing Games. It’s not much, but it’s a start. It would demonstrate a bit of will, and be a nice first step. No conflict, just a move to tell them “the international community won’t allow you to play if you don’t play by the rules”.
I also maintain that there’s a way to throw a wrench into the Russian invasion. The main route of supply from Russia into South Ossetia (and on to Georgia proper) runs through the Roki Tunnel. Russia’s initial move was to race through the Tunnel, and into the fighting zone, to ensure that the Georgians didn’t close it off. Therefore, we can safely view this tunnel as a choke point for the Russian Army. The tunnel needs to be closed off, in order to prevent any more reinforcements, and also to interrupt needed supplies for their forces. Perhaps a nice unmanned drone — a Predator or two with attached missiles — could be launched, and bomb the southern end. Blow up the tunnel, and the Russians have to find another way to resupply their forces. Not to mention that, after the fighting ends, the tunnel would have to be repaired, which would be an added expense for Putin. If that doesn’t stop them, then look at other locations. At this point, we should focus on doing logistical damage to the Russian forces, rather than engaging them in combat. Stop them with a quick blow to the rear, and perhaps their calculus changes.
I hope that these thoughts are helpful to someone. I haven’t been doing too many deep thoughts here. It’s just a bit of ruminating on this crisis. The moral imperative is to assist somehow. If we do nothing, then the entire world takes a step back from where we believed ourselves to be. In the end, it comes down to a simple question: Should we do the easy thing, or the right thing?
78 comments:
I had thought GoV would be immune to it. I imagined it would continue with counter-jihad agenda. No, no way. No liberal has any immunity against claims that a little proud people is attacked by terrrrible totalitarian power. Its probably kind of liberal underconscious nightmare. Though in this complicated conflict, I believe Georgia is 2/3 right and Russia is about 1/3 right, the behavior of media and everyone else pushes me to the Russian side, which seems much more decent in this conflict.
I just wonder, if there were no Russia, what all those paperback freedom - fighters would be busy with? For example, how would baltic states, which got independence from Russia for free without any fight, would write their national history. Every proud little nothing needs a heroic tale, especially those which did not struggle for a second but only received budget donations from USSR. And some Europeans from the countries - allies of Germany in WWII suddenly started to love freedom so much, when freedom means destroying Serbia or Russia.
I am not a fan of Russian power, but this liberal attack is really disgusting.
Something needs to be done regarding Georgia. Frankly, I don't know what, but we should not count on the following to do anything:
1. Europe (and in turn, NATO)- As the writer of the essay pointed out, Europe isn't all too eager to condemn Russia.
2. The UN- It isn't well known for being pro-Western, and Russia is far too entrenched with their veto power.
3. The IOC- I doubt they will do anything at all. I have never known them to do so in the past.
4. The State Dept.- Since we're talking about diplomatic bureaucrats here, I personally don't think I need to say more.
5. Congress- With Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid running the houses, don't expect anything big.
Unless I've forgotten somebody, only the President can do something if anything, but I don't know how far he can go with Putin. So far, it looks real bleak.
"Though in this complicated conflict, I believe Georgia is 2/3 right and Russia is about 1/3 right, the behavior of media and everyone else pushes me to the Russian side, which seems much more decent in this conflict."
Georgia is 2/3 right in this conflict in your opinion, ypp, and yet because of the media coverage, you decide to support Russia. Can you explain the logic behind the statement?
"Every proud little nothing needs a heroic tale, especially those which did not struggle for a second but only received budget donations from USSR."
Are you sure that was all those proud little nothings got from the USSR?
There are a few things that can be done unilaterally.
1- Stop Aeroflot (the Russian airline) from flying to the USA. The Russians will retaliate by stopping flights from U.S airlines, but so what?
2- Get the E.U. (the Europeans) to do the same thing. Isolate Russia.
3- Cancel ALL visas issued to Russians, other than official diplomatic visas, and limit those to a prescribed distance around New York and/or Washington. Let the Russian Oligarchs stay home, and see how they like it. Have the E.U. do the same thing. This should pressure Putin from the "inside". Money does you no good if there's nothing to buy.
Tell Russia that when they get out of Georgia these restrictions go away. See how long it takes for Russia to go back to the former borders.
It's very disappointing to read such ignorant drivel on Gates of Vienna.
And who or what exactly is supposed to bomb the Roki Tunnel and thereby engage in an act of aggression against a nuclear-armed military superpower?
Considering America's war crimes in Bosnia and Serbia, and considering the fact that the US ambassador to the UN is a Sunni Muslim Afghan citizen who is contemplating replacing Karzai as Afghan president, I'll tentatively side with Russia in the matter of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. At least I'd remain neutral between Russia and Georgia.
+ + +
UN Charter 1.1:
"The Purposes of the United Nations are: ... (2) To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples."
Self-determination.
I personally couldn't care less what the UN says or does, but since Georgia's a signatory of the Charter, I'd expect it to honour the text it signed.
The South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast, upon the newly independent Soviet Republic of Georgia's annulment of Alani civil and linguistic rights and autonomous status, immediately announced their goal of independence. Then they fought for it, and have been de facto independent for 16 years. In other words they have never been a part of the Republic of Georgia.
The same is true of the former Soviet Republic of Abkhazia.
Ossetians and Abkhazis are not liked by Georgians and have no interest in being Georgian. They've been de facto independent for almost 2 decades.
The Georgians broke the Moscow agreements that they signed, and committed acts of aggression against the people they claim as citizens and against a military force that astronomically outclasses and outnumbers them, in the cynical and misguided (i.e. stupid) expectation that Nebraska farmboys would be sent to die for Georgia.
Russia and Georgia are UN members. If Russia wants to be the guarantor of two of its neighbors' national self-determination, why is that anyone else's business?
If Abkhazia and South Ossetia are independent, or Georgian territory, or Russian territory, what difference does that make to Western Europe or NATO or the USA? None at all. Nobody in the West has any business getting directly involved in this dispute at this point in time.
If Georgians are mind-numbingly stupid enough to go to war with what it claims are its own citizens when those people are being protected by one of the world's greatest military forces (and a veto-wielding UN security-council member), why should anyone but Georgians pay the price?
+ + +
Abkhazi and Alani are linguistically, ethnically and nationally distinct from Georgians and from each other and have a will to be free of rule from Tbilisi. They also have legal and political grounds to assert their independence.
+ + +
Georgia brought this situation on its own head. Georgia is a UN member, and according to the UN charter, nations have the right to self-determination. Both Abkhazis and Ossetians were legally recognized nations with the USSR, and both broke all ties with Georgia as soon as the USSR split up. Georgia's reaction to the fall of the USSR was to immediately assault the autonomy that Abkhazi Republic and the South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast had enjoyed within Soviet Georgia.
Tbilsi has been intransigent in negotiations with both territories. And Georgia should be expected to understand Russia and predict its actions better than any Westerner would. Therefore, Georgia has acted belligerently and stupidly. If they end up just losing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, they should consider themselves lucky. And if they have any sense they'll get rid of that idiot Saakashvili, with or without Russian motivation to do so.
If they have brains they'll offer Saakashvili's head to the Russians, and immediate recognition of Abkhaz and Osseti independence, in exchange for a Russian withdrawal.
US military action in Georgia would inevitably involve NATO. NATO is the US, Canada, Turkey, Germany, the UK, etc. etc. etc. Turkey wants the Turkic Muslim southwest region of Georgia, whose independence movement was crushed by the Georgian military. Wat possible reason could the UK the US or anyone have to take action against Russia?
France had a treaty with Poland, so your analogy with WWII makes no sense, since Georgia is in no sense an "ally" of the West. There are no treaties or formal alliances or mutual defense pacts between Georgia and any Western nation.
The NATO and US are in no position to criticize Russia after its shameful aggression in the Balkans, which, you might have noticed, do not border the US.
There are connections between Russian and Russian citizens on one hand and Abhazia and South Ossetia and Abkhazis and Alanis on the other. There are more Alani in Russia than there are in Georgia. There are thousands of Abkhazi in Russia. The Russian language is widely used in both Abkazia and South Ossetia. And Russians, Abkazi and Alani were all in the same country less than 20 years ago. Therefore, it's not so strange that residents of both regions would be entitled to, or given, Russian citizenship.
All Northern Irish residents with family in the province going back to 1921 are equally entitled to citizenship in the United Kingdom and in the Republic of Ireland. The fate of that province will be determined by the democratic will of the populace. Neither the Irish or British governments has ever objected to either side giving citizenship to Ulstermen. For that matter, the Republic of Ireland immediately upon it's formation granted citizenship to millions of English citizens. And neither side has ever taken military action to thwart the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland, as Georgia has done in South Ossetia and Abkazia.
And the role of Khalilizad is relevant, especially considering his roles in Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
Who is the US ambassador to the UN? Who supported the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and Al-Qaeda in Bosnia, and terrorists in Iraq, and the KLA in Kosovo, and Saakashvili in Georgia? Who is it who fancies himself as the American supported Caliph from Turkmenistan to Albania?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/03/25/world/26zal.600.jpg
QUOTE
The New York Times:
Zalmay Khalilzad is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. He has also served in two other crucial posts during the Bush administration: as ambassador to Afghanistan — where he was known as “the viceroy” — and ambassador to Iraq.
There have been recent reports that Mr. Khalilzad, the
highest-ranking Muslim (a Sunni) in the Bush administration, is a possible candidate to be president of Afghanistan."
...
March 25, 2007:
The senior American envoy in Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks last year with men he believed represented major insurgent groups.
Mr. Khalilzad flew to Jordan for some of the talks, which included self-identified representatives of the Islamic Army of Iraq and the 1920 Revolution Brigades, two leading nationalist factions.
Mr. Khalilzad’s willingness even to approach rebel groups seemed at odds with the public position of some Bush administration officials that the United States does not negotiate with insurgents. It was not clear whether he had to seek permission from Washington before engaging in these talks.
Mr. Khalilzad’s efforts to woo the Sunni Arabs have infuriated many politicians in the ruling Shiite bloc, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Malaki. Shiite leaders increasingly see the Americans as trying to check the power of the majority Shiites. That could push them closer to Iran, which is ruled by Shiite Persians.
After the Samarra bombing of February 2006, Mr. Khalilzad began saying that killings largely attributed to Shiite militias were more destabilizing than violence by
Sunni insurgents. Displeased with the hard-line Shiite attitude of Ibrahim al-Jaafari, then the prime minister, Mr. Khalilzad helped engineer Mr. Jaafari’s ouster, only to see Mr. Jaafari replaced by a party deputy, Mr. Maliki, who is beholden to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
Some Shiite leaders began calling Mr. Khalilzad by the Sunni nickname of “Abu Omar.”
Critics of Mr. Khalilzad to say that he never brokered any lasting solutions to this country’s sectarian squabbles.
“Khalilzad’s policy is based on compromise,” Mr. Sineid said. “He’s like an Arab sheik — he wants to make different groups sit down and compromise. That usually means putting off the hard decisions until the future.”
. . .
June 6, 2007:
One by one, the ambassadors at an unusually jolly diplomatic dinner last month rose to pay tribute to the new American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad.
He was a needed “breath of fresh air,” said one.
Mr. Khalilzad, “I have discovered from your comments that the best thing I have done was to choose my predecessor.”
Mr. Khalilzad, the former American ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, has been welcomed effusively since his arrival six weeks ago, and one frequently mentioned reason is that he strikes people as so different from John Bolton, the combative former American ambassador.
Facing him now is the far more fraught Kosovo issue, where Russia has been hinting broadly that it may veto a plan before the Security Council that would give the breakaway Serbian province independence. “What Churkin has said publicly, and what the discussion between him and me has been, I don’t want to signal an agreement,” he said. “But I also don’t want you to assume that there is no chance of an agreement, that we won’t reach an understanding.” "
...
Jan. 30, 2008
White House officials expressed anger on Tuesday about an appearance in which the United States ambassador to the UN, Zalmay Khalilzad, sat beside the Iranian foreign minister at a panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and the Bush administration has limited its official high-level dealings with Iran to discussions about Iraq, primarily in Baghdad. Administration officials said that Mr. Khalilzad’s appearance beside Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki in Davos at a panel on Iranian foreign policy surprised senior Bush administration officials, who became aware that Mr. Khalilzad had appeared with Mr. Mottaki only when a video of the discussion appeared on YouTube on Tuesday.
END QUOTES
+ + +
If any US player had any role in this fiasco, it was surely Khalilzad and the other fools at State. If you read the comments above about the US's Sunni Ambassador at the UN, you'll see that he has a history of arrogance, narcissism and free-lancing.
Either that or Georgian arrogance and stupidity knows no bounds.
One can only hope they they alone will suffer the consequences of their arrogance and stupidity without dragging anyone else into their bloody-minded schemes.
I doubt that the US would have "okayed" this foolishness, especially since a Georgian defeat could have been predicted by a two-year old, and is not in American interests.
Re: "I haven't been doing too many deep thoughts here.":
Truer words were never spoken.
Brianakira and Ypp --
I strive to provide a mix of voices and opinions here at GoV, as you must have noticed by now. GTW has opinions, which sometimes differ from mine. I offered him a chance to express himself here at length.
His writing is no more "drivel" than what any other commenter here contributes. And Ypp, you have benefited in the past from our policy of letting commenters contribute guest posts.
I like to celebrate diversity -- of opinion, that is.
Brianakira -- your comment is too long. I'll let it stand, but next time truncate your quotes and shorten your own text. Brevity is preferable.
If you can't bear to do that, Blogger allows you to set up your own blog for free, and I encourage you to post at length in your own forum and then leave hotlinks here and invite others to go over and read what you have to say.
Well if Georgia has the right to self determination then why doesn't South Ossetia?
Why is Russia seen as over reacting here?
I mean when the Americans responded to the Kuwait invasion in 1991 they didn't just clear Kuwait of Iraqi troops they marched to the outskirts of Bagdad.
We need to respect Russia's sphere of influence or we risk being embroiled in a war in much the same way that World War One started. Nobody wanted it, it just spun out of control. That's why sphere's of influence exist, so that this sort of thing doesn't become something it shouldn't.
YPP and the other --
This is about Jihad and oil. Russia is Iran's ally, has made threatening statements (Putin's "story" to Natan Sharansky)* about nuclear jihad aided by Russia, and the invasion is there to get rid of the Georgian regime and the pipeline to Central Asia outside Russian control.
Fundamentally, Iran, Saudi, and Russia, along with Venezuela cannot operate in a world with cheap oil. Their thug network is so thick and patronage requirements of the leaders for this thug network so large that oil MUST be over $145 a barrel for them to survive.
The West and China needs oil cheaper to survive economically. Which makes Russia an economic ally of Jihad, particularly Iran whom they have armed and assisted in their nuclear endeavors. Note this includes China which had ANOTHER large terror attack in XianXing province today by Muslim jihad separatists.
This conflict is fundamental, and separate from ethnic, Orthodox-Catholic-Protestant, national, and other divisions that plague the West.
*In a "story" that he related with relish, Putin told Sharansky about a "man" who un-noticed, quietly stores a device in a locker in Tel Aviv. Then quietly makes his way to another country. Ordinary, unknown. Until a nuclear explosion levels Tel Aviv. Or perhaps it was Paris, or Berlin, or London. This story coming from a man who's domestic critics end up with fatal Polonium 210 tea, or shot in an elevator, or falling out windows, and so on, was a clear threat and Natan Sharansky reported it as the same.
Georgia plays up the military and violence gap. Even weak, relatively unorganized Russia, being the only real military in Europe, can easily crush neighboring states at will. Ukraine and Moldova and Belorussia and the Baltics and Poland and the Balkans will follow. Perhaps even Germany. Since no one in Europe has either arms or will. Putin has the will to kill people and the arms to do it.
Lesson: always be well armed, ready, and make that known to deter attack and keep peace.
"The West" has no business in this fight. If we are supposed to line up against Russia in order to "protect" the West, what is it that we are protecting? There is barely any West still left to fight for -- our traitorous "leaders" have made sure of that. Now they expect us to fall in line obediantly against the one European-majority nation that isn't making war on its own people. Why should we obediantely follow these "leaders" such as Bush and Brown who make war on their own people via mass immigration and draconian "hate speech" legislation that persecutes us if we even protest our own destruction? Let us resist this attempt to pull us into opposition against Russia and demonstrate to our "leaders" that if they do not show loyalty to us, we do not show loyalty to them. Simple as that. You can't suddenly turn on and appeal for defenses of borders and nations after spending 20-30 years deliberately tearing them down.
NATO is a sick joke. Less than half of members answered' GWB's invocation of Article 5, viz 9-11. And Turkey held 20% of US ordenance planned for use in the liberation of Iraq, in its ports, by denying US off-load rights. Bastards. As for the Georgians, they aided Chechen terrorists, in order to bog down anti-jihadis.
While I find it interesting that people still support the Clinton "Intervene early, intervene often" approach to foreign policy, I can't support it, not even half-heartedly.
First, we're deep into the Russian sphere of interest here, like it or not. What NATO has been doing over the recent years is percieved as encroachment in Moscow, and I see in the forceful response in Georgia also a concrete comment to the West: Stop Taunting the bear!
I believe US, and by extension EU, policy towards Russia has been a bit too paranoid, still mired in a Cold War mindset, where we'd expect the Russians to gain back what used to be the Soviet Empire, confrontational beyond meaning - it would have been better to be on friendlier terms with Russia and more assertive against the threat from the Middle East.
Further, Europe is not in a good position to stand up against Russia. The energy supply problem is what really irks us, and Putin has shown, discreetly as usual, that he just might consider using it in case of a major conflict with the West. To be able to stand with a small country like Georgia, we need not only to be morally right, but also to have the power and independence to do so.
Abusing the IOC for the purpose would merely be an annoying way to insult the bear. I think it'd be worse than useless.
Russia, for all its flaws, is doing 'Foreign Policy Classic', where there are clear spheres of interest, a rapid and forceful reaction to a challenge, and a brutal honesty that we in the West, habituated into meaningless and expensive 'dialogue' and 'compromise', could learn a bit from.
NATO is a sick joke.
While I wouldn't put it exactly that way, it certainly has some trouble that is not being addressed. I'll point out some that I noticed during my visit to their headquarters last October:
One is 'mission creep', where just about any venture that can be thought of as 'peace-promoting' can fall under the NATO umbrella. While the individual projects might be completely sensible and worthwhile, putting it under the auspices of NATO is rubbish. NATO should represent unconditional Western military assertiveness, not appeasement.
Inviting Albania to be a member of NATO signals deep confusion about the purpose of the organization and is a clear indication that we fear naming the real enemy. NATO is a consensus organization, and giving the Albanian government veto right over NATO initiatives will severely hamper our options towards other Muslim-majority countries.
I noted also that in each major photo in the NATO HQ, you'd find an Islamic veil somewhere, probably to indicate 'tolerance' and to show that NATO should not be percieved as a threat. Now, how's that for a military alliance...?
Please, do not take these trolls seriously. They are part of a propaganda operation directed at various blogs and discussion forums to promote pro Kremlin line.
GoV is not the only site that has witnessed the same phenomenon.
Vasarahammer, are you counting me as a pro-Russian troll in this?
Helen at the Brugese Group Blog (also at EU Referendum) is running a series of posts on this war.
These two posts by Charles Crawford also provide recent historical context and outline a much more plausible reason for the invasion than the one mooted here and elsewhere.
The Russians are invading the whole of Georgia now, not merely one small disputed territory. Any argument over whether the Ossietans had a right, or the russians, or whomever, is moot. The Russians are conquering a sovereign nation, not liberating people. They are invading a country that was attempting to retain its territorial integrity, as the Serbians said they were trying to do.
Sauce for the goose seems to be a popular phrase at the moment.
The Russians are invading the whole of Georgia now.
According to Associated Press, they are not. They restrict themselves to the two contested areas, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
But the Russians are demanding that Georgian president Saakashvili steps down, which is inappropriate.
George W. Bush:
Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.
Bullshit. We did likewise to Serbia for 15+ years, which Putin and the Russians are acutely aware of. Hypocritical Bush-ism. As others have noted, the breakaway of Kosovo (and of Montenegro, too) is a violation of the principles from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. We have little moral high ground in this matter, unfortunately :(
Travis B --
Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.
----------------------
Travis B said...
+ + +
Travis,
Perhaps you had the Highway of Death in mind?
Bush: "Russia's actions are DISPROPORTIONATE."
"Disproportionate"?
Now where have I heard that before?
link
=====================
That's exactly what I had in mind. I am a fan of disproportionate responses as they tend to put a damper on what your enemy is willing to do in the future.
War is not pretty and I do feel sympathy for those caught in the middle through no fault of their own. That said I have no problem with the American attack in 1991, nor the Russian attack in 2008.
Brianakira --
Please don't paste long URLs into the comments; they make the post page too wide and mess up the appearance of the permalink page.
Use link tags; the instructions are at the top of the full post's comment section.
----------------------
brianakira said...
Well, if this isn't drivel, then I don't know what is:
"Georgia is an ally of the West [how? since when?], and as I pointed out before, it’s a sovereign country [so is Serbia]. For those reasons, it becomes a moral imperative to help [huh?]. The nations around Russia’s periphery are all terrified tonight, seeing the resurgence of what is essentially the Soviet Union. [again, "huh?"]"
+ + +
Travis,
Perhaps you had the Highway of Death in mind?
Bush: "Russia's actions are DISPROPORTIONATE."
"Disproportionate"?
Now where have I heard that before?
link.
"Vasarahammer, are you counting me as a pro-Russian troll in this?"
No,
See this article on EU Referendum.
Miffed is what I am
In the comment thread you can see some incoherent postings that look like being directly translated from Russian.
This whole discussion is symptomatic of how far the west has fallen. Here we are discussing how 'right' the Russians/Georgians are. That's completely beside the point.
The Georgians are a western ally. They were the nation that supplied the greatest number of troops (per capita) for Iraq after the US and the UK. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the US & co in that war. And now it doesn't even occur to people here that we owe them to show them the same loyalty that they showed us.
What happens to US credibility when the world sees it will not do squat to help a small nation that stuck its neck out to fight for them? Who will side with the US/west in the future when we show the world that we have no concept of mutual loyalty?
Honour and self-interest both demand that the west do something to help the Georgians. We certainly have something to learn form the Russians here. -They are not trying to see the conflict from both sides but are looking out for their own interests. We should do the same instead of bowing to this PC logic that demands we see the issue from every side.
We may have been wrong in going to war against Serbia. But that is no reason to allow others to run roughshod over our interests any more than past colonization is a reason to allow the muslim takeover of Europe.
As for NATO being a joke it's worth noting that the only reason so few responded after 911 is that Bush told his allies to go play in traffic while he put together a coalition outside NATO.
Thanks, Vasarahammer.
I don't think the pro-Russian trolling has been anything out of the ordinary, and Baron reacted appropriately to that excessively long comment by brianakiri - which, BTW, was very informative would form a nice counter-post to the current story.
Yes, the current strength of the West is low, even though Bush pretends it to be otherwise. Debt and energy dependency are real sore spots, where Russia, China and other countries lie low, work and cash in. When challenged, Russia, China and other well-manged countries are able and willing to respond in kind, ending any conflicts like this in a couple of days. That's peacekeeping!
I'm starting to ponder that a worsening economical crisis could eventually bring down the federal government system of the US, with the political and economical costs of the Iraq war being the back-breaking event. The latest approval ratings I've seen for the Congress is struggling to stay in the double digits! Compare that to Putin, who on a bad day hardly dips below 75 %.
Re: "The Georgians are a western ally."
Since when?
What alliance or treaty has Georgia entered in to with any Western power?
In fact, Georgia was just officially rejected as a Western ally.
Re: "They were the nation that supplied the greatest number of troops (per capita) for Iraq after the US and the UK. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the US & co in that war. And now it doesn't even occur to people here that we owe them to show them the same loyalty that they showed us."
Georgia didn't go to Iraq to selflessly help America.
Saakashvili said as much. Georgians are officially there to assist the Iraqi government.
The real reason they are there is to get battle training and US know how, to match the Chechen-war hardened Russian troops based in North Alania. And a fat lot of good that did them...
As for aiding Georgia, what do you think the millions in foreign aid, and the military supplies, and the military training that Georgia received was?
And as for loyalty, clearly the Georgians have stabbed the Americans in the back by weakening themselves as they have just done; and by guaranteeing they will not be admitted into NATO in this generation, if ever; and thereby proving themselves useless in the furtherance of US and NATO strategic goals in the Caucasus.
Not only that, but they cynically and stupidly tried to get the US embroiled in a war that it has neither the will nor the means to engage in.
This tread is a perfect demonstration of what Lenin said about the "Useful Idiots".
While the presidents of the ex-captive nations presented a joint declaration condemning the neo-Soviet imperialism supported by many who had lived under the yoke of the barbarian Russian oppression including myself, in the West it is all 1968 again.
We do know the Evil Empire never changes because we had lived in it.
Eastern Europe's gulags were full to the brim yet the Western "intellectuals" raucously supported the butcher USSR like many on this forum today.
I could never understand what did these supposedly educated people found so attractive in the Russian history, political-economical system that compel them to offer their full support to the KGB.
What's so great in Russia of yesterday or today?
What lends itself to be emulated by us?
These questions are perennial enigma for which not even Solzhenitsyn got answers. Ever.
What's so great in Russia of yesterday or today?
Well, I like the country a lot. It'd probably drive me nuts in case I was to live there permanently, but that's beside the point.
What lends itself to be emulated by us?
I expect that what they do here to work very well preventing future conflicts. They know who their friends are, and they stand up for them. Brutally effective, not easily duped or manipulated by others.
Actually, the Russians are doing exactaly what I wanted that we did back in 2003: Instead of being the aggressor, they wait for their opponent to make a fatal mistake. Then beat them up with 'disproportionate' force, fast and effective. No building of fragile alliances, no expensive promises of 'building democracy', just getting the job done.
The Georgians are a western ally.
No, they're not. The government tried, but didn't have enough to offer, in particular in light of its somewhat .. sensitive geographical position.
Getting out there with our soldiers, just south of Russia proper, in that tinderbox that is Caucasus (we have Iran close, too), isn't what we need a supposedly 'defensive' alliance for. We've been overstepping several limits since the end of the Cold War, and need to know our limitations.
henrik raeder
Q:What's so great in Russia of yesterday or today?
A:
Well, I like the country a lot. It'd probably drive me nuts in case I was to live there permanently, but that's beside the point.
So let's subjugate every nation because somebody "likes" it, yet no coherent reason was offered as to WHY. It speaks for itself.
There were many Commies like him in the Camps who thought that Stalin did not know anything about the Gulag, he was a misled good man, the father of the people.
Interesting to see how many people supporting Putin's neo-fascist state. This surprises me.
This is the same man who has been poisoning critics and political leaders in neighboring countries.
The reason to oppose Russia is that it is merely seeking to reimpose it's totalitarian rule on peoples who have fought their way free.
Anyone who would suggest that Russia is in the right in taking over Georgia apparently has no problem with totalitarianism. How pathetic.
Russia, like the USSR before it, is essentially a criminal enterprise. I'm sure The Godfather had "historic sphere of influence" too.
The best thing for everyone is to see the criminal enterprise broken. I thought at the time the cold war ended that Russia was not broken up enough. Recent events prove that.
Anyone who would suggest that Russia is in the right in taking over Georgia apparently has no problem with totalitarianism.
Well, well...
First a nice strawman. Noone here, as far as I have seen, has expressed support for Russia taking over Georgia. If I missed any statement to that effect, please correct me.
apparently has no problem with totalitarianism.
Rude, uninformed and flawed, in one sentence :(
First, 'rude', for it implies that anyone arguing for the Russian point of view is just fine with tolitarian rule. Which is quite an insult that I'm certainly not going to take lying down. I want to be free to argue that Rusland has a good case without being charged with being 'fine with totalitarianism'.
Second, 'uninformed', (at least what concerns me) for anyone who's read some of my comments and/or articles will know that I'm very much against totalitarianism. I *hate* state interference in our lives, which is also a very good reason to be critical of the European Union. 'Fine with totalitarianism'? Bullocks!
Third, 'flawed', for the current Russian regime certainly isn't 'totaltarian'. The Soviet system was, but after it broke down, so did all the rules regulations and the bureaucracy that decided minute details of citizens' lives. It's quite the opposite these days, where one can get away with pretty much anything, given money, audacity, connections and some brutality.
You might have meant 'authoritarian', not 'totalitarian'? That makes more sense in context.
BTW, I notice the US government seems to be in active support of Georgia. Putin condemned the US for flying 800 soldiers in from Iraq.
No worry, we're just 'advisors' to Georgia :)
Baron
I respect your fair policy. Please disregard my complaints. I was shocked by the level of sudden hatred against Russia for which I could not at first find the reason. But its fine, now I have an explanation. Russia is becoming, strangely, a new international Jew. It is non-liberal and did not completely drop national agenda, and that is its largest fault (besides some real ones).
Whiskey
Russia is an ally of Iran and must be blamed for that. However, US also allied itself with Afghan jihadis against USSR. And Russia had made some attempts (though weak) to support its national integrity. It is not that simple. You can find some good and some bad in any country. What I meant, is that sudden paroxysm of hatred was not justified.
How many Germans didn't do the right thing in the WW's? It is a slippery slope and before you know, things will have gotten so out of control that whichever way people turn, it will surely mean death.
"For example, how would baltic states, which got independence from Russia for free without any fight, would write their national history." by YPP
Let's remember these baltic states paid the price before they became part of the U.S.S.R.; they didn't get their independence from Russia for free - it was long coming and the cost in lives was grave.
Let's ask ourselves this, "Would Russia be using military aggression towards Georgia if Russia thought their goal could not be accomplished because of military retaliation from the world?" Obviously, they believe no country, including the U.S., will stick its neck out to protect a sovereign country.
People talk about Russia being a country that has nukes, so now do we see why Iran must be stopped from developing nuclear arms. Iran will do exactly what it wants, to whomever it wants, if and when they possess nukes. This is why you do not want countries such as Russia, Pakistan and Iran to possess nukes.
Today, Russia's leverage is oil, but they always have their back-up plan: nuclear attack, and this seems to remain on everyone's mind, even if it has been in a quadrant of the brain collecting dust for a number of years.
zeke,
there are a growing number of people world wide, not only in the States who are rooting for Russia without being able to explain coherently as to why are they attracted to this country with a dark bloody past and present which only a few years ago enslaved half of Europe and just yesterday attacked a small country.
They like it for what it is, the way it behaves and then some.
I believe there is a subconscious disillusion with the liberal democracy which turned against itself, it became self-loathing chaotic, purposeless transnational un-nation, pursuing Utopian abstract and dogmatic ideologies while denying empirical realities on the ground.
A nation where assorted sexual freaks, radical demagogues have absolute power over the country destiny, prohibiting to drill for the benefit of the populace, where the self hatred consumes the society, flag burning is the cool thing is condemned to oblivion.
In sharp contrast Russians are proud of their putrid country, they are resolute to advance it's interest no matter what, having a leader who is not sucking up to forces hostile to his Proud Nation.
Russia's manhood is admired, respected instinctively while the Western leaders act like a can of emasculated worm and deserve to get spitted in their drooling face.
The next world will be again for Fascism, national pride, and the self haters, the PC freaks will get plutonium in their morning tea.
zeke,
there are a growing number of people world wide, not only in the States who are rooting for Russia without being able to explain coherently as to why are they attracted to this country with a dark bloody past and present which only a few years ago enslaved half of Europe and just yesterday attacked a small country.
They like it for what it is, the way it behaves and then some.
I believe there is a subconscious disillusion with the liberal democracy which turned against itself, it became self-loathing chaotic, purposeless transnational un-nation, pursuing Utopian abstract and dogmatic ideologies while denying empirical realities on the ground.
A nation where assorted sexual freaks, radical demagogues have absolute power over the country destiny, prohibiting to drill for the benefit of the populace, where the self hatred consumes the society, flag burning is the cool thing is condemned to oblivion.
In sharp contrast Russians are proud of their putrid country, they are resolute to advance it's interest no matter what, having a leader who is not sucking up to forces hostile to his Proud Nation.
Russia's manhood is admired, respected instinctively while the Western leaders act like a can of emasculated worm and deserve to get spitted in their drooling face.
The next world will be again for Fascism, national pride, and the self haters, the PC freaks will get plutonium in their morning tea.
Russia is an ally of Iran.
I think this is somewhat of an exaggeration. 'Part-time business partner' is, AFAIK, more like it. Or did I miss some signing of an alliance treaty somewhere?
>I believe there is a subconscious disillusion with the liberal democracy which turned against itself, it became self-loathing chaotic, purposeless transnational un-nation, pursuing Utopian abstract and dogmatic ideologies while denying empirical realities on the ground."
Umm, it's not so "subconscious." It's fully conscious. A government that makes war on someone else is preferable to a goverment that makes war on it's own people, as nearly all Western countries do today. Old-timers like me can trace back the time when the gloves came off and the Western governments started attacking their own people: it started, really started, when the wall fell in 1989. The Western governments realized it was safe to terrorize their own people because they didn't have to worry about us switching to "the other side." There was no other side. Now there is another side again. It can only be good for the Western governments to fear the Russian bear. Their absurd open borders project will come to a screeching halt once the Russian bear starts to growl at Europe. Then they'll realize that they actually have to provide us Westerners with something to fight for, because right now, we don't have anything to fight for. The West is dying. Who fights to defend a dying man?
Fight all oppressors? How about fighting the Saudi tyranny for its banning of practise of faiths other than Muhammad's fraud. Bomb Riyadh in response to the Sauds financing of terror. The phonies refuse to address Bush support for some of the worst pig-pens on earth. He and his supporters can drop dead.
I think Queen is right.
Who are we? Simple question. We don’t have an answer anymore. Are we Atheist, or Christian? Muslim or Secular? White or black? Capitalist or Socialist? Feminist or not? Egalitarian or individualist? Pacifist or moral crusaders? Where do we get the foundations of justice in a multi-cultural society? What is freedom? Is it to be found in an individual sense, or a communal sense? Citizens of the West are left with a shattered confidence in our gods, our worldview, and ourselves.
We have created a generation who detest, and hate the very societies into which they are born. Osama bin Laden said something very interesting once... "When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature, they will like the strong horse." People don't like to see themselves as 'born losers' and too often in the west that is exactly what our citizens are being told they are, born losers. Putin is kicking ass and taking names, and since Russia is in many ways not seen as 'Western', people can root for him in a way that they have been conditioned not to for the west.
This may in fact be the reason why so many elites and citizens have such sympathy for any anti-western group or ideology that comes along. If we cannot be part of something great and noble, at least we can be there to watch it burn!
Hatred, hatred... That is modern Western people. So sad. West invented communism, then exported it to Russia and blamed on Russians. Evil empire. But there is still much more of communism in the West than in Russia. It is much easier when the evil is personified by someone else. But actually, that fear of russian bear is an underconscious fear of every materialist of his own suppressed feelings.
Ypp said...
"Hatred, hatred... That is modern Western people. So sad. West invented communism, then exported it to Russia and blamed on Russians. Evil empire. But there is still much more of communism in the West than in Russia. It is much easier when the evil is personified by someone else. But actually, that fear of russian bear is an underconscious fear of every materialist of his own suppressed feelings."
Unfortunately you are correct. We in the west embrace the ideals of Communism more than modern Russia does. Russia in my opinion should be seen as an ally of the west if we are to have any chance of surviving the Muslim onslaught.
The grave diggers of Europe are the French the Germans and the Brits: with their multiculturalism inundated Europe with culturally alien and hostile Muslim masses that will never get integrated and remain the source of inveterate social tension with periodic outburst of pent-up rage.
These people are threat to social peace from within, all the more so because of the French oil on the fire from the Mediterranean Arabization Project.
On the outside, their craven acquiescent and appeasement towards Russia (Schroeder) emboldened Putin to rebuild the USSR following the Fascist model**this time, not the old Communist one.
If Putin shuts down the gas furnaces in Berlin, Germany freezes to death thus must follow the Russian play book no matter what or else.
There is no way out from this predicament and you will see the impending self made chaos that will descend upon Europe and soon.
Sorry for the coming suffering of the innocents, for whom the Bell tolls...C'est une fait accompli.
As for the US the path to perdition still THEORETICALLY reversible but today the State Dept. followed the British example and Islamic Terrorism shall not be said again ever, for terrorism is NO LONGER ISLAMIC.
The West is dead.
I am truly stunned by the ignorance of some commenters on Russia. It's like cheering on a serial killer who's just bought his way out of prison and is on a new rampage. This isn't some horror movie with which you titillate yourself where the killer achieves some kind of warped hero status.
Firstly, under the make-up bought with oil money, Russia is the sick man of Europe in countless ways. Life expectancy has dropped like a stone into the 50's for men due to the ravages of alcoholism and AIDS. The birth rate is irrecoverably low as Mark Steyn has documented. Those of you who imagine Russia as some bastion of whites are dreaming as their Muslim and other non-white population is rising even faster than the white birth rate is plummeting.
Russia is a sick and dying man with a gun (nuclear weapons) and is at its most dangerous distracting itself from its own plight by staggering around endangering others.
Why the great admiration for the Russian people over your own, Americans? They have always had a masochistic craving for the boot on the neck to feel secure, with the tsars, then the mass murderer Stalin and others whom among them killed 60 million within living memory with a lot of help from ordinary Russians (See the Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois). What is there to admire in a people who let this happen and look back on the rivers of blood and gulags as the "good old days", trying to recreate their power under Stalin-light, Putin?
I would very much like to consign the Russia lovers to living there even now. My family members involuntarily lived or should I say died and suffered otherwise under Russian mis-rule and your breezy inanities about their suffering are as offensive as telling Jews that Germans and Germany were and are admirable. Actually, modern Germans have apologized, paid reparations, and made a complete about face into the most pacific from most warlike Europeans. Russians have never admitted their crimes against humanity.
There is literally no difference in your praise for one of the two genocidal regimes except the Russians managed to kill ten times the number of people and in addition oppress tens of millions for 80 years.
You say Putin has a 75% approval rating like that's a good thing. That's what the Russian people are made of, admiring a thug, a murderer who ordered extra-territorial killing of his opposition, a law-breaker, an oligarch enriching himself and his KGB coterie at the expense of his country and playing toy soldiers with real weapons. Calling Russia and China "well-managed" while denying admiration of totalitarianism is intellectual incoherence.
I am heartsick at seeing the beginning of an evil history replayed, complete with a new cast of useful idiots acting as Russian apologists.
Laine, my comments seem to be somewhat distressing to you...
There's a lot of things to right in Russia, and though your causalty count of Soviet Communism is exaggerated (30-40 million is probably right), it does count as one of the great disasters of the 20th century. I still hold the intentional genocidal regime of Nazi Germany to be worse, even though their causalty count was lower, for their intention to kill was more direct.
Somehow, that doesn't matter much today. When I call Russia 'well-managed', I'm hinting at economy, not civil liberties. Russia has - in contrast with certain other big nations - paid off its debts and is in a strong position to do what it wants.
Part of that is countering what Russia percieves as NATO encroachment, and this mini-war has some semblence to how Soviet Russia sent advisors to an island state immediately south of the USA - to which Kennedy reacted with vigor.
I do not want to be quoted as 'praising the Putin regime'. Far from it, for it is authoriatian (hardly 'totalitarian' - that is something else), and has effectively suspended democracy. However, since the Russians like the way things are developing, the regime has a solid public foundation and isn't likely to go away anytime soon. Looking for that is a fallacy.
I quote a 75 % approval rating for Putin because it is relevant. The items you hold against the Putin regime could just as well be held against Bush, and more could be added against him, if I wanted. And Bush, combined with an inept Congress, is plunging the federal government into ever-deeper debt, which will severely limit what future US governments can do.
Regarding the Islam situation in Russia, word is that some 2 million Muslims have converted to Orthodox Christianity. That is a useful way to make up for the severe demographic problems.
Finally, I think your confidence in government control is excessive. A country is much more than its government, but in these statist day that can be very hard to recall.
I am a regular reader of this blog and can hardly be called a kremlin supporter. what putin and co did to my country is despicable. still, I feel responsible to comment on the russia/georgia war. firsly, it is pretty clear that both sides lie without any hesitation. this is a media war after all, and so far georgia is winning, mostly by lies.
secondly, many posters here don't have a basic knowledge about history of Caucasus and peoples who live there. people there are very tribal and take "eye for an eye" literally. many georgians have every right to hate ossetians, the same applies in reverse. simply because if a family member is killed by a neighbour, this is declaration of war. generations will remember about this and forge vendetta. these things escalate, brew and get stronger with time. this is the specific to the Caucasus. sometimes governments calm these things down, but the memories never vanish completely. I have to say that georgians and ossetians are not the worst. take chechens for instance. when the government's grip easens, they start kill each other again.
adding to all this, Putin and Saakashvili hate each other's guts. they are both complete psychos.
this is all very sad. I hope that casualties are much smaller that declared, and that russians, ossetins, abkhaz and georgians will be in peace.
All this talk about the whether Russia is admirable or detestable; Communist, Fascist, Christian, Muslim, Imperialistic, Nationalistic...; and comments about the nature of Putin and the Kremlin's leadership --
All of that has not much bearing on the matter at hand.
The questions are:
- Are South Ossetia and Abkhazia Georgian?
- Are they independent?
- Should they be recognized as independent?
- Should Russia's self-appointed role as defender of Abkazi and Alani and Adjari interests be respected?
- Is Georgia an ally of "The West"?
- Is Georgia (or, specifically, is Saakashvili) a US asset or millstone in the Caucasus?
- Is Georgia at fault?
- Is Russia at fault?
- Does Russia have genuine concerns regarding NATO expansionism?
- Are NATO goals in the Caucasus productive or counter-productive?
- Does the US or any other NATO member have any credibility when they criticize Russia, especially after their actions in the Balkans?
And so on.
These questions require objectivity, and knowledge about the historical, geographic and ethnic contexts.
I will post more on the reaction of russian population. I heard that the support for military action against Georgia has brought putin's clique even more popularity. of course I don't like that at all. especially knowing that russian mass media is controlled by kremlin to a large extent. they can manipulate the mass opinion the way they like, and this is disgusting and frightening. I have to say, though, that the "democratic" Saakashvili also shut down a critical TV station in Georgia and dealt forcefully with the local opposition. any freedom lover and true democrat should think twice before supporting current georgian government. I am not saying that it makes russian government any better, but one should not see just one side of the coin.
I think there should be an international tribunal, with both putin and saakashvili facing charges of mass civilian destruction.
you can have my opinion, brianakira.
> Are South Ossetia and Abkhazia Georgian?
formally, yes, and russia recognise[s|d] that. factually, no. see next.
> Are they independent?
formally - no, factually - yes to a large extent. here's a bit of history. in the beginning of 90s, when the USSR collapsed, Georgia declared independence. immediately within Georgia itself, SO and Abkhazia declared independence from Georgia. there was a civil war then that never really stopped. they continued shelling each other, kidnapping each other, killing each other. there was a referendum where 98% of the population voted against Georgia. SO could potentially become a part of Georgia both legally and factually, only if Georgia gave them an autonomy. Georgia instead tried to subdue them by force. not very smart, especially in Caucasus.
Russia also played a part in this, by supporting the SO "government" and giving russian passports to ossetians, many of whom saw that as a guarantee of protection from Georgia.
> Should they be recognized as independent?
I think they should, but they have to decide that themselves, be that an autonomy within Russia/Georgia or complete independence. after the recent actions of Georgia I doubt they will agree to a georgian autonomy.
> Should Russia's self-appointed role as defender of Abkazi and Alani and Adjari interests be respected?
this is a hard one. I think if russians are better at defending the civilian population, why not? still, one should not forget that SO/Georgia could be seen as spare change in a larger [geo]political game. putin uses the situation to their advantage, McCain does the same.
> Is Georgia an ally of "The West"?
YES, but Saakashvili greatly over-estimated their support. I don't think a sane person would put his country in such position. Russia needed a reason to flex its muscles, and they got it. did he really expect Russia to just stand by and watch, be they right or wrong?
> Is Georgia (or, specifically, is Saakashvili) a US asset or millstone in the Caucasus?
yes, and a very stupid one. 8)
> Is Georgia at fault?
yes. for launching an offensive against SO and for stupid anti-russian rhetoric at every occasion. for revising history as well, as everyone knows that if there was no russian empire, Georgia would have been swallowed by the ottoman empire and the persians.
russians always had very good relationships with georgians.
> Is Russia at fault?
yes, for disproportional response and for treating this conflict as a WWIII. for brainwashing its own citizens and treating ordinary georgians in russia badly.
> Does Russia have genuine concerns regarding NATO expansionism?
the way they see the world, yes.
> Are NATO goals in the Caucasus productive or counter-productive?
counter-productive. I think NATO should try working with russia, not against it. russia is not iran.
> Does the US or any other NATO member have any credibility when they criticize Russia, especially after their actions in the Balkans?
a big fat NO. after the Balkan war and giving independence to Kosovo, they have no moral standing at all. in a way, kosovan independence contributed to the separatist movements of SO and Abkhazia.
hope this helps.
listening to reports from people in Georgia. despite the ceasefire, russian forces are still in "Georgia proper", with many cases of looting, especially by cossacks. many cities and villages are not controlled by the Georgian state, there is no law and order. it looks like all Saakashvili can do now is parade in the centre of Tbilisi, the only place he controls.
still, russian forces don't seem to be doing that russian government promised.
The Presidents of the 3 Baltic nations, Poland, Ukraine, the Czech Republics leaders of the ex-captive nations issued a joint declarations condemning the unjust Russian invasion. We Eastern Europeans suffered greatly under the Russian occupation that lasted over 60 years.
We DO KNOW the innate nature of the Russian death machine.
Your lame attempt to whitewash a brutal and barbaric country that unable to produce more than guns and vodka induced stupor, who enslaved half of Europe, eventually will give ascent to the reassessment of Hitler's role in the failed attempt at destroying Bolshevism along with Russia. There are publications already out there dealing with the subject. (Pat B.) The next victim will be the Ukraine which is the next logical steps to "protect the Russians"...
One poster's comment is a good indication of your moral stand and what to expect:
30-40 million of dead is OK.
"Somehow, that doesn't matter much today."
by henrik r clausen.
Bela, I believe you are willfully trying to misunderstand me. When I said "Somehow, that doesn't matter much today.", it was meant as wondering how this massive killing doesn't cause the guilt and/or outrage it would elsewhere, like in Germany.
I'm expressing wonder, not applauding crime.
OK?
Possibly the Russians of today are not neurotic enough to let agony of crimes two generations past deter them from dealing with all kinds of interesting intrigue today :)
I admit that I don't know Russia from own experience, but I don't understand why so many people seem to think that Russia is still essentially Bolshevist, even today, as if nothing really changed since Communist times. But even if the Russia of today really was the deadly predator as which some people see it, I do not see that the West is in a condition to fight and win a war against it over countries like Georgia, Ukraine or Belarus. If it came to a war, I believe that Russia is determined to make much bigger sacrifices in lives than us. Eventually we would give in sooner than they would. We have so much trouble at our "home front" that we are contented with a policy of containment, just like during the cold war. Let's fend off Russia from encroaching into the territory that we already saved, which even includes the Baltic states, which were part of the former Soviet Union, and let's leave it at that.
"We Eastern Europeans suffered greatly under the Russian occupation that lasted over 60 years.
We DO KNOW the innate nature of the Russian death machine.
Your lame attempt to whitewash a brutal and barbaric country that unable to produce more than guns and vodka induced stupor..."
Eastern Europeans suffered under the SOVIET occupation, led, among others, by the Georgian Stalin and Ukrainian Khruschev. What you wrote is pretty racist. Producing guns and sending a man in space requires more than being a barbarian in a vodka-induced stupor. From your eatrlier posts I thought that your position was that it was the Evil Jews who were behind communism. Now it seems you are saying it was the Evil Russians' fault. So who was the main villain among the two groups?
Sorry for picking on you Laine but:
"Firstly, under the make-up bought with oil money, Russia is the sick man of Europe in countless ways. Life expectancy has dropped like a stone into the 50's for men due to the ravages of alcoholism and AIDS. The birth rate is irrecoverably low as Mark Steyn has documented. Those of you who imagine Russia as some bastion of whites are dreaming as their Muslim and other non-white population is rising even faster than the white birth rate is plummeting."
Russians are coming to European Russia all the way from Kazakhistan, Far Eastern Russia and whole the ex-USSR.
Many Europeans are going to Russia to work and teach. Many rich Russians are coming to Western Europe and give (if they can and are not wanted by Putin) part of their richness to Russia.
Russians are not tolerants to "ethnics", don't care about them and the mix with them is an absolute low. It is deemed as immoral. Russians are more and more religeous and proud of Russia. Moscow is the greatest European citizen with more than 14 millions inhabitants and I doubt there is a city in the whole world with more Europeans, that is, an undeniable centre to European Civilisation. The West, in my eyes.
Russia is becoming more and more European but also with that Europeanity of the good old days. Russia and Russians realise that their NATION, RUSSIA, was high-jacked by the Communists and that RUSSIA did not existed from 1917 to 1991. It was a kind of Mongol domination once more.
Concerning the birth rates... you know, the New Russians are capable of having as many children as they wish. The high middle class men wants children. The middle and lower classes? Have you seen an under twenty eight years old Russian women? I doubt those things will not be mothers really really soon. And if it's needed, a bit of Russian Nationalism and National Pride will guide those women to make Russian babies fast.
Or do you think the Russian Ortodhox priest will say to her the same great part of out Catholic/Protestant priests say regarding women and children?
So yes, Russia is basically a bastion of Europe. Thanks to God all mighty!
"I would very much like to consign the Russia lovers to living there even now."
I would if they could understand me and vice versa and if I had money for it...
And Laine I am very sorry for your family but I think it was the Communists fault, not the Russians. Why not blame the Tajiks?
You see, the Cold War is over and there's a new beautifull EUROPEAN Russia rising. Remember Fjordman's essay "How the West lost the Cold War?" We're worst than them in that sense.
And please, don't be dishonest. I'll tell to any Jew that German is, and has always been a great Nation. The same can not be said of Israel or any other Jewish state, right? They didn't even managed to maintain their State...
As far as the morality and nature of the Russian government, I would suggest that people go over to Stratfor's website and sign up. They have long maintained that Russian history follows a certain pattern.
First there is a period of anarchy, followed by the appearance of a "strong man on a horse" who straightens out the problems. But to do this, he ushers in a period of authoritarianism. Which turns in to repression of the people, issues with neighbors, etc. Eventually, it all returns to anarchy, and the cycle repeats.
Russia has a problem. First, they have little in the way of "natural" borders. Just a lot of open space with enemies on the other side of a hill or river. And with all that empty space, and all the resources, people feel inclined to try and take it. So they are constantly invaded, and thus want buffers around Russia proper.
And with that problem, and others, we return to the problem of authoritarianism. I recall talking to friends about the time Gorbachov came along, bringing the beginnings of "democracy". One of the points I made from the start that Russians wouldn't know Democracy from potatoes. Why? Look at their history. Here is a nation which has existed for over a thousand years, and until the 1990s, had been "democratic" for less than one year (1917, between the revolutions).
Hard to have anything resembling democracy when you have to overcome that handicap. And it turns out that they couldn't overcome, and we're back to the strong man on his horse.
Oh, and Afonso and others: Regarding Russian birthrates, they are definitely low. As I recall, a few months ago, the Russian government actually had a "stay home from work and make babies" holiday. So they know the problem is real, and are willing to try anything to fix it.
And what of the under 28 year old women? Are you suggesting they are vain and don't want children? Because after all, I constantly get emails telling me of all the Russian women that want to marry me and have a family.
felicie,
You leftists accustomed to intimidate everybody who expressing dissenting voice by shouting loud: Nazi!, Fascist! Racist! Bushitler! - and get away with it because the idiots got scared to be exposed as un-cool.
It's over darling, nobody got scared of the leftist PC name calling: got it? As long as it legal to denounce the Russians for what they are you can shout any epithets you find in the books and nobody cares. Will you call racist the Baltic Presidents, Poland, Ukraine, Czech Rep. or only I do piss you off? - they say the same thing as I do because I was a Hell-dweller in the Russian inferno along with all of them.
__________________________________
Putin was a SOVIET KGB man and the KGB was and is part of the oppressive apparatus responsible for the deportation and extermination of millions. If he is absolved and admired, the natural response will be the emergence of WWII revisionism which is already under way: Hiroshima was a crime (leftist sources, Pat Buchanan: not Hitler but the Brits were at fault).
Please don't implicate the Jews in this thread: this is about the Soviet-Russian nationalistic imperialism, I am very clear about it.
____________________________________
While I admit that the dog named Laika in the space was a great achievement, but they were unable to manufacture anything of peaceful value: the Warsaw pact countries were ordered to deliver those goods: shoes, meat from Hungary, manufactured good form E.Germany, radios from Bulgaria and so on.
Care to name ONE Russian product on the world market today except for S-300 SAM and vodka? Support your case with new facts: name a Russian brand the world hankering for.
Yes mail order brides by the tons.
____________________________________
henrik r clausen
your choice of words, the diction you presented led to ambiguous interpretation: if that is the case then my earnest remorse.
GTW, I'll try to stay focused and out of polemics.
"First, they have little in the way of "natural" borders. Just a lot of open space with enemies on the other side of a hill or river. And with all that empty space, and all the resources, people feel inclined to try and take it. So they are constantly invaded, and thus want buffers around Russia proper."
Is it really? Let's look to Russian's fronteirs!
In the Nortwest it borders Finland and there are some Ugric and Asiatic peoples (non Russians) there. Few Russians live much to the North of Saint Petresburg. Russians respect the Finns. The Finns, though Historically "no-bodies" have made a great XX century and assured their right to Finland;
Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Three little countries that have rarely been independent. Historically they have been between Germanic and Russian domination. Russians have big minorities there that could be classified as "part of the Historical Russian Nation" (pHRN). The Balts want to be Swedes or else and have since the fall of the Soviet Union (USSR) behave badily towards Russia;
Then we have Belarus. Never been independent. They are also known as white Russians. They will soon be incorporoated in Russia. They have not getting too Westerner, pRHN, I recognize no right to their State, they are ethnically Russians as Andalusians are ethnic Spaniards.
Ukraine? Well, an Eastern Ukranian girl met a Western Ukranian girl. Before the second one talked to her, the Eastern one said, "ohhh... she's really Ukranian". Case close. Western Ukranians (Poles, maybe?) may be different from Russians but Kyev was the first Russian capital.
I have no more time.
In Kazakhistan, there are 30% Russians, mainly in the North. In th Caucasus, the Russians control the muslims, like the Chechens and are the best friends of the Christian European peoples there like the Ossetians and the Armenians.
The Georgians? They sold their soul to American Capitalism under Sakashvili, the Amrican clown there. Now they are getting the results. We here have a say:
"Quem semeia ventos, colhe tempestades" meaning more or less: "The ones who grow winds, will eat storms"
What a bloody storm!
Russia has lost 25 million Russians with the end of USSR and some 15-20 million close European peoples who have never been independent (Belarus and such). They, have an empire in which they control muslims in the Caucasus, Turks in Central Asia and Asians in the Far East. Why? They have resaurces and I prefer to see those resources under the Russians then under the Chinese, or under the muslim Tutks in Central Asia.
If the Caucasian muslims were not to be controled by Moscow, do yo think we would steel be talking about Georgians, Ossetians, Abekhazs and Armenians?
You can't be that naive, can you?
Sorry for the hurry and eventually bad English.
Ah! And also! I know the Russian birth rates (br) are low, but I also have seen that they are actually fighting it instead of calling "ethnics" and other things...
I don't understand what you say about Russian girls, I mean is that the few young Russians are having babies and want to, in the West... In other words, it will be reversed in 5 to 10 years. The West...
Anyone claiming a difference between Soviet and Imperial Russia is missing the point of how socialism works.
Sovialism is parasitic. It adapts to its host and uses its worst elements to fling itself to power. When entrenched it simply reverts back to the previous power structures with a new name, so in Russia we have the Tzars and the aristrocracy replaced with the Premier and the Party. Very little changed for the majority, and the Russian attitude, culture and outlook barely altered either. Look at China for the same sort of effect, where one set of old men living in luxury and privilege are replaced with another set of old men living in luxury and privilege - without anything much changing apart from the names they use for their positions.
To try and claim that the Soviet empire is somehow distinct from the Russian empire is being, at best, somewhat disingenuous. The Soviet Union was Imperial Russia with a new name and new faces, but fundamentally unaltered in its outlook and psuychology. The Russians have always been paranoid; the soviet union simply honed and sharpened that paranoia. The russians have always been somewhat bullying of their neighbours, soemthing that never changed under the soviets. Imperial Russia has always been jealous of the west's success; the Soviet Union likewise.
A rose by any other name and all that...
Are we in the west so rich in allies that we can afford to turn our back on Russia? What do you suppose will be the result of a renewed cold war? What would Islam be doing while we expended our efforts against Russia? I mean besides getting vast quantities of weapons, training, and wealth from Washington and the Kremlin to fight proxy wars.
Trying to restart the cold war by ringing Russia with NATO members will just be a way of committing elaborate suicide.
Bela,
replying to your stupid postings is certainly below me, so instead I will ask you a couple of questions.
how do you call Lithuanian villagers voluntarily hoarding, killing and burning thousands of Jews? all they needed from SS is permission to do so.
how do you call western-ukrainian nationalistic death-squads in eastern Poland, doing all the dirty work for fascists, including extermination of Jews and the mentally ill?
how do you call Hungarians voluntarily giving up their Jews to the germans to save their skin, as well as the fascist First Slovak Republic? France assuming the doggy position and relaxing the sphincter at the first request of germans. this list can go on and on. russian bolsheviks weren't the only evil in Europe then. every country from the "new europe" have lots of shameful history, but, surprise, surprise, they brushed it under the carpet. bravo, Bela. what a way to start a new life!
your knowledge of history and judgement could be laughed at, if, sadly, so many people did not share your ignorance and hatred.
muxx
If replying to my stupid post is below you then why the heck do you want address anything to me?
Why should I answer to you if so?
Keep you wisdom for your comrades at the next Party meeting.
Regards
travis b
May be you are completely unaware of the totally unimportant and incidental facts that Russians arming the Iranians with nukes, the Syrians, the Chavez people and anybody who is against the West.
Do you really believe if we acquiesce to the Russian imperialism and let them to gobble up any country she wishes then the Russians will pat on your back for doing a good job?
gun-totin-wacko: "Look at their history. Here is a nation which has existed for over a thousand years, and until the 1990s, had been "democratic" for less than one year (1917, between the revolutions)."
You are over-simplifying Russia's history. How well are you yourself familiar with it? Read about the Novgorod Council (Veche), for instance.
Graham Dawson: "To try and claim that the Soviet empire is somehow distinct from the Russian empire is being, at best, somewhat disingenuous. The Soviet Union was Imperial Russia with a new name and new faces, but fundamentally unaltered in its outlook and psuychology."
No, I think you are missing the point. Some people on this (and the other) thread are objecting to demonizing the Russians as an ethnicity. Doing so is irrational. Of course, there was bound to be some continuity between the Russian empire and the Soviet Union. But there were important differences as well. Minorties participated in the governing of the Soviet State on a significantly bigger scale than in the Tsarist government. Many of the leaders of the newly independent former Soviet states are ex-communists. Many of these states have never been independent before or haven't been independent for a long time. And when they were independent, they were not democratic. With the exception, perhaps, of the Baltic states, the other post-Soviet states fully share the non-democratic traditions and mentality of Russia. So I don't understand why they are portrayed as victims and Russia as the sole heir of the "communist disease."
@Bela
What do you propose us to do about Russia arming the West's enemies? What can we do about it? We simply don't have the power and determination to wrestle Russia about territories that we don't really care about. How many soldiers would the West be willing to lose in a war about Georgia? How many soldiers would Russia be willing to lose?
The only option left to us is to work with Russia instead of against her. Let's offer them to stop supporting Georgia, maybe then Russia will agree to stop supporting our enemies.
pasta,
The West is Dead. It's being torn apart by internal chaos and ideological confusion and unable to defend itself. It's over: as soon as the Muslims or any other group acquire nukes the West must satisfy their demands whatever it might be or else. If you are an intelligent person you should see the absolute confusion, cowardice, the pathetic blabbering and impotence of ALL the leaders of the Western World. No one dare to do anything because radical groups, assorted sexual freaks may wreck havoc: they act like chickens mesmerized by the eye of a snake.
Don't think if you suck up to Putin you get patted on your back for your good work. Even uneducated 3rd world scumbag can smell the sulfur and laugh like Hugo.
It's over, the West is Dead.
Do nothing, go to the beach.
Bela, I heard this news for the first time after coming directly from the beach. And you know what? I was thrilled by it. I was thrilled to know that the WEST is not dead. I was thrilled to know that that idiot, Saakashvili was to get out of office, I was thrilled to know that the partition of Serbia would not pass impune, thrilled to know thriled to know that the second Western power and the first European power was willing to restablish order in the world.
The West is not dead and apearearently, the West is Russia.
It's just sad that so many people have to die. Haven't you seen the images of the bombings of South Ossetia? The Russians have done nothing of the like. Actually, the RTP just made a live from Gori, Georgia and interviewd people in the hotel and around the hotel. I read the legends of what came out from a Georgian mouth in Russian: "No, no bombings, there have not been many shots here."
If you want I can provide you images about the bombings of South Ossetia, a urban and non defended territory that is. Do you want to see it?
I heard a Georgian today in Lisbon screaming in front of the Russian embassy: "We have not vallues of the Russians. We are Europeenians!"
Yeah, a European has to claim he's Europeans and to say that Russia is not European. And I consider Georgian European. Just not as European as Russia, or Ossetia for that matter. And Saakashvili? He sold his country to American Capitalism. I prefer Putin and apearently Medvedev also.
Hail Russia! Saviour of the West!
The United States, France, and Germany gave Iran its start in nuclear technology.
In the late 1970's, Pakistan acquired an entire uranium hexafluoride plant through the assistance of a West German firm.
Pakistan received more assistance from foreign firms, especially West German concerns, throughout the 1980's.
Now the Americans are pushing nuclear technology for Saudi Arabia.
"German customs police have uncovered in recent years 50 German companies that sold Iran equipment to finish building its nuclear reactor at Bushehr."
So China, Pakistan, and Russia supply tech to Iran while the west supplies tech to unstable Pakistan, and now Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.
Neither the Europeans, Americans nor the Russians are acting in their own long term best interests.
Why single out Russia when we are all acting like idiots?
I'll skip responding to Bela's bigoted comments...
For those upset about Russia still operating with 'Spheres of Influence', take this:
Bush has (according to Gorbatjov (Danish link)) declared the Caucausus to be within the US national Sphere of Influence!
Now, who's being more unreasonable here..?
Travis B, one more for your list:
France supplies nuclear technology to Libya.
Has something to do with getting some Bulgarian nurses back. Disproportionate like hell, of course. But what wouldn't Sarkozy do for a nice photo-op or two?
travis b
"Why single out Russia when we are all acting like idiots?"
Because this thread is about the Georgian situation and Russia and we cannot cover the whole world within this forum.
I stated many times earlier within this tread that entire Western world is intellectually bankrupt and dead so we don't have contentious issues in this regard.
Yes they are all idiot as you said.
Re: Accusations of racism.
This is, by definition, racist:
"...the innate nature of the Russian death machine."
"Innate" means inborn.
And as for Russian closeness to Venezuela, Iran, Syria etc: Western support for Georgian aggression is not likely to bring Russia closer to the West.
brianakira,
your insipid pontification is meaningless, we do no longer afraid of the Lefitst PC crowd epithets, and thought police, forget about it. The sentence:
"...the innate nature of the Russian death machine."
is protected speech according to the First Amend. racist or otherwise.
The leftist intimidations and spin stops here. You can go to pound sand an scare the un-cool idiots or call in the KGB.
Regards
brianakira
Care to specify the exact race of the a "death machine"?
Elucidate us as to how "death machine" born or "inborn"?
Please take you madication as prescribed and leave me alone.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.