Georgia/Russia Conflict

[LvivLovers 39]

Apparently it was us (the USA) that started it:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080828/pl_nm/...ssetia_putin_dc

Why the hell is it always our fault?! lol

[1HappyGuy 45]

I saw that this morning too. But of course it was America. Anything we can do to provoke the Russians into getting their troops to overwhelm a smaller country is in our best interest.

You know, when the truth doesn't suit you, invent something. If you tell it enough times it must be the truth.

What's really sad now, is Georgia has lost a significant part of their country and they never really worked on a solution that could have been beneficial for all. From what I've read, a good portion of each of these regions is populated by Georgians, not Russians. So, what about these people, are they the silent majority?

[Brad and Vika 129]

Russia didn't get the support it wanted for pretty clear reasons. China and the others didn't want to support a position that allows separatists to claim independence. Each of those countries have problem areas with ethnic minorities wanting to rule themselves. If they supported Russia's position it was opening the door for all the various regions in each country to declare their independence.

Russia views it differently because they believe the separatist movement in South Ossetia and Abkhazia will align themselves with Russia. But, what if these two regions want to be independent from Russia too? Does anyone believe Russia will go along with that position.

Georgia's difficulties began with a change in political affiliation from pro-Russian to pro-western. This translates into who can Russia control and who they can't. It's really pretty simple. Does anyone understand why there is an oil pipeline that travels through Georgia to Turkey and out to the Med. Sea? Pretty simple again, to avoid Russian controls.

It's still about control. If it was about business then the positions would be completely different? That would involve competition, which is a new concept to Russia.

I don't see any way the break away regions could ever be independent of Russian control. Why would they? As soon as the Russian army leaves - guess who will come back to visit?

[slim 1,533]

Why should we go to war for Ukraine? or Georgia? To play who can p*ss the farthest with Russia? I'll put my nukes in Poland and you put your nukes in Cuba then we'll see who is the real king of the world.

NATO is a dinosaur that should have been torn down with the Berlin Wall. It's only purpose is to tease Russia with military threats. If some stupid little president of some stupid little NATO country decides to poke The Bear with a stick, then all of the NATO members have to blow up Europe to save face.

How brilliant.

You can say all day "it should be like this" or "it should be like that" but that doesn't change what it is. And NATO is an alliance. If someone in that alliance is attacked then the rest of the alliance is bound to lend a hand. Blow up Europe to save face? No. Blow up Europe to comply with our treaties? Yes.

So, what about these people, are they the silent majority?

Opinions don't really matter much in a war. Blowing stuff up seems to get noticed.

As soon as the Russian army leaves - guess who will come back to visit?

A "silent majority" has no choice but to be occupied by someone; in this case the lesser of two evils or the more powerful of the two evils depending on which side your sympathies lie.

========================================================

Did you guys catch the final Generation Kill on HBO? There was a good line one of the Marines said, "those who cannont kill will always be subject to those that will." Applies in Iraq, applies in Georgia... could very well apply right here someday if we're not careful.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Why should we go to war for Ukraine? or Georgia? To play who can p*ss the farthest with Russia? I'll put my nukes in Poland and you put your nukes in Cuba then we'll see who is the real king of the world.

NATO is a dinosaur that should have been torn down with the Berlin Wall. It's only purpose is to tease Russia with military threats. If some stupid little president of some stupid little NATO country decides to poke The Bear with a stick, then all of the NATO members have to blow up Europe to save face.

How brilliant.

You can say all day "it should be like this" or "it should be like that" but that doesn't change what it is. And NATO is an alliance. If someone in that alliance is attacked then the rest of the alliance is bound to lend a hand. Blow up Europe to save face? No. Blow up Europe to comply with our treaties? Yes.

So, what about these people, are they the silent majority?

Opinions don't really matter much in a war. Blowing stuff up seems to get noticed.

As soon as the Russian army leaves - guess who will come back to visit?

A "silent majority" has no choice but to be occupied by someone; in this case the lesser of two evils or the more powerful of the two evils depending on which side your sympathies lie.

========================================================

Did you guys catch the final Generation Kill on HBO? There was a good line one of the Marines said, "those who cannont kill will always be subject to those that will." Applies in Iraq, applies in Georgia... could very well apply right here someday if we're not careful.

Saw the episode - enjoyed it. I disagree on one point Slim. If it is a silent but well armed majority.....

[Fedup 0]

I saw that this morning too. But of course it was America. Anything we can do to provoke the Russians into getting their troops to overwhelm a smaller country is in our best interest.

You know, when the truth doesn't suit you, invent something. If you tell it enough times it must be the truth.

What's really sad now, is Georgia has lost a significant part of their country and they never really worked on a solution that could have been beneficial for all. From what I've read, a good portion of each of these regions is populated by Georgians, not Russians. So, what about these people, are they the silent majority?

Somehow you, as well as US media, forget to mention people who live in these "Georgian" regions.. They are NOT georgians or russians. There must be a reason why these regions are called Abhazia and Ossetia. Did it occur to anyone that these are actually nations, live people, with their own languages, history, culture???

It takes at least some knowledge of basic facts to make a more or less reasonable opinion. Of course unless you are ####### or Condi or a retard.

This conflict is about 700 years old. Abhazians and Ossetians just do not want to be a part of Georgia, not 700 years ago, not after wars of 1992, and especially not after Georgians bombed Tsginval at night, with all civilian population in it.

I know that US schools are not the best in the world in history or geography, so we probably just have to be glad average american does not think Russians are in Atlanta.

But hey, who cares anyway? After Iraq and Afghanistan and ones before them, anyone can bomb anyone, as long as they have a will and means.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Based on what I am reading, I would guess that the BIG showdown is still years away. America (probably through NATO) and Russia will continue to antagonize each other, but don't want to actually fight. The political commentators all seem to agree that NATO is completely impotent in limiting Russian intervention in its FSU sphere of influence. Russia is equally impotent in stopping the expansion of NATO in that sphere - in fact accelerates it with each threat and military action that it takes unilaterally in the FSU.

The big problem will come when a country like Ukraine actually becomes part of NATO, and Russia decides to ignore the alliance and occupy territory there. Continuing that line of thinking, Ukraine joins NATO, and Russia annexes Crimea, claiming that it was never really Ukrainian, and Russian citizens there must be protected. NATO is bound by treaty to take action against Russia in that case, and assuming Iraq is over, America now has resources to throw at the problem. That is when things really get interesting.

This is one hypothetical amongst many, and only an example. No need to tear it down - my point is that the next world crisis may be in the FSU. I am curious as to what other VJers think will happen when NATO gets closer to Russia than it is now.

OK - here is some material that suggests my scenario above is a distinct possibility.

BBC

[slim 1,533]

I disagree on one point Slim. If it is a silent but well armed majority.....

A well armed majority is not silent. They can speak even without uttering a word.

[1HappyGuy 45]

I didn't mean to infer that South Ossetia or Abkhazia have no other ethnic populations. I got this chart and I hope it shows correctly the breakdown of population in South Ossetia. Of course there are other ethnicities in these regions. But, self rule is not something any have known for hundreds of years.

1926 census 1939 census 1959 census 1970 census 1979 census 1989 census

Ossetians 60,351 (69.1%) 72,266 (68.1%) 63,698 (65.8%) 66,073 (66.5%) 65,077 (66.4%) 65,200 (66.2%)

Georgians 23,538 (26.9%) 27,525 (25.9%) 26,584 (27.5%) 28,125 (28.3%) 28,187 (28.8%) 28,700 (29.0%)

Russians 157 (0.2%) 2,111 (2.0%) 2,380 (2.5%) 1,574 (1.6%) 2,046 (2.1%) 2 128 (2,1%)

Armenians 1,374 (1.6%) 1,537 (1.4%) 1,555 (1.6%) 1,254 (1.3%) 953 (1.0% 871 (1,21%)

Jews 1,739 (2.0%) 1,979 (1.9%) 1,723 (1.8%) 1,485 (1.5%) 654 (0.7%) 648 (0,9%)

Others 216 (0.2%) 700 (0.7%) 867 (0.9%) 910 (0.9%) 1,071 (1.1%) 5,100 (4.8%)

Total 87,375 106,118 96,807 99,421 97,988 99,000

Sorry, the chart isn't great, but it is informational. Just couldn't get it to separate right.

[Brad and Vika 129]

I saw that this morning too. But of course it was America. Anything we can do to provoke the Russians into getting their troops to overwhelm a smaller country is in our best interest.

You know, when the truth doesn't suit you, invent something. If you tell it enough times it must be the truth.

What's really sad now, is Georgia has lost a significant part of their country and they never really worked on a solution that could have been beneficial for all. From what I've read, a good portion of each of these regions is populated by Georgians, not Russians. So, what about these people, are they the silent majority?

Somehow you, as well as US media, forget to mention people who live in these "Georgian" regions.. They are NOT georgians or russians. There must be a reason why these regions are called Abhazia and Ossetia. Did it occur to anyone that these are actually nations, live people, with their own languages, history, culture???

It takes at least some knowledge of basic facts to make a more or less reasonable opinion. Of course unless you are ####### or Condi or a retard.

This conflict is about 700 years old. Abhazians and Ossetians just do not want to be a part of Georgia, not 700 years ago, not after wars of 1992, and especially not after Georgians bombed Tsginval at night, with all civilian population in it.

I know that US schools are not the best in the world in history or geography, so we probably just have to be glad average american does not think Russians are in Atlanta.

But hey, who cares anyway? After Iraq and Afghanistan and ones before them, anyone can bomb anyone, as long as they have a will and means.

As I have said before, the world is full of ethnic/cultural groups that do not feel that they are a part of the countries where they reside. No group can claim LEGITIMATE independence by virtue of their dissatisfaction OR by virtue of recognition by one major power and its satellites. Only widespread international support will do, and that is how stability is maintained, and borders are kept constant. So some of the S. Ossetians feel like they are not happy as Georgians, and DEFINITELY eventually want to be part of Russia - SO WHAT? When the Chechens believed they should NOT be part of Russia, was that OK? Of course not. Chechnya is a part of Russia, and NO one country can reset the border unilaterally. Why should Georgia and the international community tolerate unilateral independence of Chechnya if Russia itself doesn't? And please save the "in the anals of history" and "do more research" ####### arguments. Russia should probably be hundreds of separate republics and autonomous regions based on that kind of history and research. Internationally recognized borders must be respected unless there is a UN recognised cause to discuss altering them. This is true in Georgia, Iraq, and everywhere else.

I noticed that posters who advocated Russian action in Georgia as a purely defensive course that will be over in a few days got very quiet lately. Now there is open talk of annexation of Crimea. What will be the rationalization for this?

[Brad and Vika 129]

Internationally recognized borders must be respected unless there is a UN recognised cause to discuss altering them. This is true in Georgia, Iraq, and everywhere else.

I agree with you in the general case Brad, but the problem you often get is that the people who live within these borders could give a flying you-know-what what the UN or anyone else thinks. They identify very strongly with a certain ethnic or social group, and they feel very strongly about it. Try to enforce a border that cuts them off from this identity, and you have a problem. That's one of the reasons Iraq is such a mess. Artificial borders are forcing two completely different ethnic groups to co-exist in a political environment that is satisfactory to neither. You might as well try to force red ants and black ants into the same ant hill.

The de facto situation as it stood before July seemed to be working before Saakashvili decided it was time for a change. Hopefully we can see things go back to that, at least in the near term. I don't know what the long term solution is in South Ossetia though. Clearly, forcing these people to be Georgian is not going to work, and clearly ceding South Ossetia over to Russia isn't going to work either. There needs to be some leadership from the West to help reach a settlement before it sets off a very big and very bad domino effect, which is why I'm really hoping the situation sort of simmers until after January when a new administration takes office. And by new administration, I mean a new Democratic administration because there's everything to suggest that McCain will be Bush years 9-12. I shudder to think about Russian relations under a McCain presidency. Things could get very VERY bad, very VERY quickly. Which is not to say that I've heard anything from the Obama camp to suggest he understands the situation in its entirety either, but unlike McCain, at least Obama's first inclination won't be to piss them off mightily.

I hear you brau, but again, SO WHAT? If every group that felt disenfranchised was able to change borders or be independent at will, what nation would ever be secure? The problem in Georgia had apparently little to do with their national identity. After all, they are not asking to be independent, the minority are asking to be Russian. Except for those villages that were torched, I mean. Russia does not understand diplomacy unless it comes from strength. That is why Georgian diplomacy never got any traction, the country wasn't strong enough. Don't talk to the bear, that is useless. Kick the bear (not poke the bear) is the ticket. Obama-esque dialogue will NEVER be taken seriously by Russia. They respect only strength. They threaten to point nukes at Warsaw? We will point nukes at Moscow. Aim missiles at Prague? Good, we were looking for a reason to aim at Novgorod. They won't like it, but they will listen after that.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Kick the bear (not poke the bear) is the ticket. Obama-esque dialogue will NEVER be taken seriously by Russia. They respect only strength. They threaten to point nukes at Warsaw? We will point nukes at Moscow. Aim missiles at Prague? Good, we were looking for a reason to aim at Novgorod. They won't like it, but they will listen after that.

History doesn't back you up on this. Ronald Reagan is given a lot of credit for taking down the Soviet Union, but the strongest words he ever used with them was his "take down this wall" speech. But that was after 2 very historic summits wherein Reagan and Gorbechev simply sat down and talked to each other. Granted the USSR was headed towards collapse anyway, but those 2 summits did more for world peace than just about anything else.

Russia really doesn't want war, but they're not about to allow NATO to completely surround them. And honestly, can you blame them? The US has been acting like a colonial power for the last 8 years. If I were Russian, I would not trust the US or NATO at all. So it's only natural that they're going to posture. The trick for the US then is going to be to convince the Russians that we really are their friends, and that can only be done through dialogue.

For this group, it shouldn't be hard to understand this. When you need something from your Russian girl, what works best...a direct confrontation, or something a little more subtle? The Russian character responds much better to subtlety.

Funny stuff dude! Even Russian internal politics back me up. The only thing Russian diplomats ever recognized was the stick behind the carrot. Andropov never listened to diplomatic niceties, any more than crazy Kim does in North Korea today. They took what they could by threat of force. Putin gets his popularity from his perceived strength. Talk is cheap, and Russia gets that. Willingness to talk before action is seen as weakness too. What they know also is that NATO absent the US has no will to engage them over tiny Georgia. So they do as they will. The situation will continue until Russia perceives that another major power is willing to piont a gun back at them over something. Then they will listen. Not agree...but listen.

[Brad and Vika 129]

Funny stuff dude! Even Russian internal politics back me up. The only thing Russian diplomats ever recognized was the stick behind the carrot. Andropov never listened to diplomatic niceties, any more than crazy Kim does in North Korea today. They took what they could by threat of force. Putin gets his popularity from his perceived strength. Talk is cheap, and Russia gets that. Willingness to talk before action is seen as weakness too. What they know also is that NATO absent the US has no will to engage them over tiny Georgia. So they do as they will. The situation will continue until Russia perceives that another major power is willing to piont a gun back at them over something. Then they will listen. Not agree...but listen.

I didn't say to argue from weakness. You make a point of the stick behind the carrot, but what I'm saying is to lead with the carrot. It works a lot better.

No doubt. And the US is a colonial power, without the stones to name colonies. That is the strength I am talking about. So let's bring Ukraine into NATO, and point the stick - er, gun back. Then our diplomatic overtures will be taken seriously.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Brad and Vika

[Fedup 0]

So let's bring Ukraine into NATO, and point the stick - er, gun back. Then our diplomatic overtures will be taken seriously.

Lol, you are funny.. that is the part of the problem, the US way of thinking, this side of the ocean. Without having a clue what the European reality is.

Do you really think that Norway or Greece would really risk Athens or Oslo for Kiev ?

The NATO reasoning for existence is gone long time ago, show of NATO strength in Afghanistan does not look convincing either. And just about any phrase from US that starts with "let's... " is not being met with overwhelming enthusiasm in the rest of the world in the last 10 years or so.

Russia will do as it pleases in it's backyards, and nobody will have a will or strength to do anything about it, at least in the next 20 years. Condi's barking is nothing but barking.

[Brad and Vika 129]

/relNo doubt. And the US is a colonial power, without the stones to name colonies. That is the strength I am talking about. So let's bring Ukraine into NATO, and point the stick - er, gun back. Then our diplomatic overtures will be taken seriously.

I don't know if you're old enough to have gone through the cold war, but I have no desire to go back to those days. What you're talking about leads straight down that hole, and worse, because Russia will not back down to a show of strength. You're talking about playing a game of chicken where nobody is going to swerve.

And colonialism has proven disasterous time and time again. Colonialism and Democracy make a terrible, terrible combination.

I agree about colonianism, but let's call a spade a spade here. I also agree that Russia won't back down to a show of strength any more than America will. We are not talking about getting any one to back down (at least I'm not). We are talking about the ability to voice a position that will be taken seriously. Russia knows that no one will send troops to defend Georgia, and no country has agreed to do so - so there is no threat, and whining about sanctions or failure to abide by agreements is ignored. The Russian government doesn't even argue the point, they just dismiss it. On the other hand, they get pretty wound up about missile defense in Poland, primarily because Russian protests and threats about it are ignored.

No one wants another cold war, but we may have to use that threat to get everyone to the table.