Russia vs Georgia

[The Real Picard]

Should we defend Georiga? Will we if Russia continues to invade? Is Russia trying to expand its borders?

 

Your thoughts?

[Aceflyer]

The U.S. is clearly reluctant to get militarily involved - especially if it would be acting unilaterally - so unless Russia really crosses the line, the U.S. won't intervene militarily. And Russia probably isn't seeking a conflict with the U.S. at this time.

[Aileron]

Its sad what this forum has come to. All the liberal nuts in one topic and all the moderates in another. We can't even discuss this type of thing together.

 

The truth of the matter is that Russia probably thinks they can get away with hostile takeover because the US' leadership is too preoccupied with political fallout, and the sad truth of the matter is that they are probably right.

 

Currently, we need to prioritize. The odds of Al Queda taking over the United States are too high for comfort. The odds of Islamofascism taking over part of Europe is nearly certain if we don't do something about it. Overall, Russia isn't much of a threat and Georgia isn't much of a priority.

 

Should we defend Georgia? No

Will we if Russia continues to invade? No

Is Russia trying to expand its borders? Yes

 

Also, if I had any authority I'd advise citizens of Latvia and Estonia to migrate west now, because they are probably next.

[FMBI]

All of us poor liberal nuts who actually talk to people in Russia, get both sides of the story from international news (including, but not limited to, Russia), and read Georgian history.

 

Yeah, it's a shame that Russia intervened when the Georgians were only invading to bring economic development and prosperity to South Ossetia. It's not like Georgia had serious plans to kill large parts of the population, after all.

 

 

Look, you !@#$%^&*ers. Of course Russia is trying to expand its influence, what do you expect. But the South Ossetians also want broader connections with Russia, because, in case you hadn't heard, North Ossetia and South Ossetia prefer ties with each other to ties with an expansionist Georgia.

 

 

I'd advise you to read up on some of Georgia's post-WW1 history, and see exactly who the expansionist is here.

 

 

Edit - Aileron, I have almost never laughed as hard as when you called yourself a moderate. "Al-Qaeda taking over the US" is a possibility? Yeah, a few thousand guys with rapidly lessening support at home due to long-term social trends, whose only claim to fame is that a tiny number of their fighters are still taking on the US in Iraq are going to somehow take us over. Makes sense to me.

 

As far as the "ISLAMOFASCISM TAKING OVER EUROPE" thing.. It's not true in the sense that it's usually used in. Everyone cries about European demographics, but the birth rates have been rising in most of the countries of late. Within a decade, the native (ie, white) populations could easily equalize b/d rate. And the only way Europe will actually go fascist is if more governments like Berlusconi's use the dual "time-bomb threat" of the Roma / !@#$%^&*orted small groups and the Islamic extremists to destroy the rights of their own people.

 

Edit #2 - Did I mention that Russia offered a ceasefire much earlier than Georgia's which was refused, because the Georgian government realized it wouldn't be able to milk this for publicity if it accepted? Georgia's killing South Ossetian civilians and destroying their homes while playing for time, so it can paint Russia as the evil empire. Wonderful.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Aceflyer]

South Ossetia wants independence from Georgia and closer ties to Russia. Given that South Ossetia has already been de facto independent from Georgia since the early '90's during the Georgian-Ossetian conflict, Georgia should have left South Ossetia alone.

 

The odds of Al Queda taking over the United States are too high for comfort.

 

I know this is a bit off-topic, and I'm sorry, but that claim is laughable, frankly. Exactly how would al-Qaeda manage to take over the U.S.?

Edited August 11, 2008 by Aceflyer

[SeVeR]

Its sad what this forum has come to. All the liberal nuts in one topic and all the moderates in another.

Is that what you call yourself?

[»D1st0rt]

I know this is a bit off-topic, and I'm sorry, but that claim is laughable, frankly. Exactly how would al-Qaeda manage to take over the U.S.?

Well they've already succeeded in !@#$%^&*ing up our way of life, albeit indirectly.

[Aceflyer]

I know this is a bit off-topic, and I'm sorry, but that claim is laughable, frankly. Exactly how would al-Qaeda manage to take over the U.S.?

Well they've already succeeded in !@#$%^&*ing up our way of life, albeit indirectly.

 

I would agree that the stringent security rules and screening measures implemented at U.S. airports by the DHS are unpleasant, but I wouldn't really agree that they have '!@#$%^&*ed up' our way of life. And the airport security stuff - along with the Afghan War, but that hasn't really affected our 'way of life' significantly - is really the only thing al-Qaeda has caused. The other stuff (Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc.) was caused by the current Administration and not by al-Qaeda.

Edited August 11, 2008 by Aceflyer

[Aileron]

They could win by cultural takeover. There are plenty in the United States seem to hate our own culture and love everyone else's.

 

Couple that with the fact that our generation is one that loves to have others tell us how to think. We've been brought up in the lap of luxury with parents running our every move to keep us safe.

 

Freedom always comes with some discomfort. The difference between a dog and a wolf is that the wolf is free and the dog isn't. The catch is that the wolf needs to hunt food on his own and seek shelter on his own facing the very real possibility of death if it isn't strong enough to provide for itself, while the dog does not know of the cold of winter nor the pain of starvation because the dog has a master which provides.

 

 

Our generation is so caught up avoiding discomfort that we are practically holding applications as to who is going to be our new master, whether its college professors, activists, lawyers, or the government. When one of them fails to protect us from scraping our knee, we turn to another. Radical Islam is one of the contenders.

[SeVeR]

Our generation is so caught up avoiding discomfort that we are practically holding applications as to who is going to be our new master, whether its college professors, activists, lawyers, or the government. When one of them fails to protect us from scraping our knee, we turn to another. Radical Islam is one of the contenders.

Typical conservative drivvel...

 

You create or exaggerate a foe in order to justify being aggressive towards it.

 

Couple that with the fact that our generation is one that loves to have others tell us how to think.

The definition of a Christian conservative government, and lets be clear that conservatives couldn't get into power without being Christian, is a government that tells people how to think. It wouldn't say "have whatever religion you want" and it wouldn't say "welcome to our country Mr Mohammed Iqbal Mustapha".... no, it would say "radical islam is about to bomb our country and take over our government, we must batter their horribly oil-saturated countries with tomahawk missiles and give them the democracy that we, i mean they, deserve.

[»D1st0rt]

the airport security stuff - along with the Afghan War, but that hasn't really affected our 'way of life' significantly - is really the only thing al-Qaeda has caused. The other stuff (Patriot Act, Iraq War, etc.) was caused by the current Administration and not by al-Qaeda.

Perhaps I didn't emphasize indirectly enough. They sparked a fundamental shift in the mentality of the government and the nation. "Give me liberty or give me death" is a thing of the past. They haven't done anything directly since 2001 because they haven't had to; we've taken care of it for them. Genius.

 

The definition of a Christian conservative government, and lets be clear that conservatives couldn't get into power without being Christian, is a government that tells people how to think. It wouldn't say "have whatever religion you want" and it wouldn't say "welcome to our country Mr Mohammed Iqbal Mustapha".... no, it would say "radical islam is about to bomb our country and take over our government, we must batter their horribly oil-saturated countries with tomahawk missiles and give them the democracy that we, i mean they, deserve.

Portraying Christians like this is akin to saying all Muslims are terrorists. I'm also interested as to where you got that definition. Not that I support fundamentalist whackjobs, by any means.

[rootbear75]

I would agree that the stringent security rules and screening measures implemented at U.S. airports by the DHS are unpleasant,

ha, thats because you have to go thru it. I can get to my plane w/o going thru security.

And if i ever do feel like going thru it. Less than 5 minutes anywhere i go.

[The Real Picard]

I would agree that the stringent security rules and screening measures implemented at U.S. airports by the DHS are unpleasant,

ha, thats because you have to go thru it. I can get to my plane w/o going thru security.

And if i ever do feel like going thru it. Less than 5 minutes anywhere i go.

 

Bull!@#$%^&*.

[»doc flabby]

I often get the feeling for the people at the top this (usa,russia,china etc) is all just like a big chess game to them.

 

Deaths are just number on a piece of paper to them.

 

Lest we forget Usa,Russia and China still have intercontinental nuclear missiles ready to launch in 10 minutes at this very moment in time...

Edited August 12, 2008 by doc flabby

[Aceflyer]

I often get the feeling for the people at the top this (usa,russia,china etc) is all just like a big chess game to them.

 

Deaths are just number on a piece of paper to them.

 

Lest we forget Usa,Russia and China still have intercontinental nuclear missiles ready to launch in 10 minutes at this very moment in time...

 

Probably so, doc. This at!@#$%^&*ude is apparent in this particular conflict especially in the arrangement whereby the U.S. military flew Georgian forces from Iraq back to Georgia. The U.S. let Russia know of these flights in advance, and Russian forces in and around Georgia left the U.S. planes alone, thus allowing the U.S. to technically remain out of the conflict, which is something both the U.S. and Russia wanted. A tidy gentleman's agreement.

[FMBI]

Another article about Russia's potential geopolitical aims. It does a good job of looking at the situation in a balanced way, but it only brushes on one element - the fact that Russia needs neutral borders to survive, especially when McCain's determined to go to war with Russia if he gets elected and survives for a second term.

 

In the past, Russia accomplished this by forcing the peripheral states into an empire, but today it can't do that for various reasons, so it's just making smart moves that will allow it to enhance its own security without destroying its economy or annexing hostile nations.

 

In other words, all the paranoia about "39 / 56 / 68" and "LATVIA, GET READY TO RUMBLE!" is !@#$%^&*. I (and apparently, the author of this article and other analysts) see no need to panic about Russia installing puppet regimes in neighboring states. It doesn't need to worry about "democratic regimes threatening its political order" either, because more than half of the former states of the USSR - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine - are nowhere near true democratic status. That, and the fact that most Russians don't really give a !@#$%^&* about Putin's authoritarianism - they're pissed off at him, but they aren't really being affected.

Edited August 13, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Aceflyer]

I think it was a very good article. However, even had the U.S. not been tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would probably not have intervened directly; the most I could see it doing would be deploying 'peacekeeping' forces to Tbilisi to ensure the safety of the Georgian leadership and ensure that Moscow not install a puppet regime in Georgia. There was no way the U.S. would have directly engaged Russia unless really forced to do so. Edited August 13, 2008 by Aceflyer

[»doc flabby]

I think it was a very good article. However, even had the U.S. not been tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would probably not have intervened directly; the most I could see it doing would be deploying 'peacekeeping' forces to Tbilisi to ensure the safety of the Georgian leadership and ensure that Moscow not install a puppet regime in Georgia. There was no way the U.S. would have directly engaged Russia unless really forced to do so.

The USA would never have got involved even if it wasn't at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The area is far far more important to European interests than it is to the USA.

3 or 4 very large oil and gas pipelines to Europe go though Georgia, their main function is to reduce its dependence on Russian Oil and gas.

Cut theses off and alot of mainland Europe is at Russias whim pretty much. The strategic importance of the area is why so many nations are getting nervous about it.

 

It will be interesting how this turns out.

 

Hopefully its not the precursor to WW3

[FMBI]

Hopefully its not the precursor to WW3

 

I think Putin and the Europeans too smart for that. I'm not so sure about the next US president - whether it's Obama or McCain, they're going to be under a lot of pressure to "look tough" in international relations, after Bush made us a laughingstock by threatening several countries, almost going to war, and then backing down at the last second. I'm especially worried about McCain's reaction, because he would, at the very least, force Georgia into NATO and give huge amounts of military aid.

[Aceflyer]

The USA would never have got involved even if it wasn't at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

The area is far far more important to European interests than it is to the USA.

3 or 4 very large oil and gas pipelines to Europe go though Georgia, their main function is to reduce its dependence on Russian Oil and gas.

Cut theses off and alot of mainland Europe is at Russias whim pretty much. The strategic importance of the area is why so many nations are getting nervous about it.

 

It will be interesting how this turns out.

 

Hopefully its not the precursor to WW3

 

Agreed doc. Although as far as WW3 goes, nah, Russia wouldn't go quite far enough for that to happen. WW3 isn't in any major power's (including Russia's) best interests, really.

[darkhosis]

south ossetia should already be part of Russia anyway, since that's what the majority of ppl there want. havent we already gone over this same thing with Kosovo (wonder how long til they hook up with albania anyways).

 

double standards?

[AstroProdigy]

Russia versus Georgia worries European countries from an economic standpoint, but there is a much bigger issue here. The split in support for Kosovo independence shows the countries that are really in trouble if this "ethnic determinism" becomes the norm. A rush of nationalist wars of independence would not only threaten to cause major genocide (Africa is one horribly messed up colonially drawn up continent), but also threatens the heart of Europe.

 

That's why no one wants to let Serbs in Kosovo and the same thing for a small minority of Albanians not in Kosovo, but adjacent to it in Serbia not join Kosovo. It's perfectly logical they be allowed to join their respective states since the argument that Albanians can't live in a Serbian state applies to contiguous Albanian dominated areas and likewise Serbs should not be forced to live in an Albanian state. However, the problem is Kosovo had pre defined non ethnically contiguous borders as did every other Yugoslav Republic other than Slovenia. Instead of letting groups join with their ethnic brethren we supported the pre defined Yugoslav borders and let the ethnic cleansing ensue for the sake of not disturbing the order of things.

 

As for Georgia versus Russia, the Georgian president called for a ceasefire, then launched a surprise attack to demolish the South Ossetian capital and make sure Ossetians were too afraid to return to South Ossetia and then started a massive propaganda campaign amongst westerners because he knew Russia wouldn't let it stand. It did work as Russia has now been pained as the aggressor by western media even though Georgia started it and now are pressuring Russia to give up any and all gains while Georgia has the gain of scaring off thousands of South Ossetians who will probably never return home and thus the slow ethnic cleansing game continues. The only way for Georgia not to win this one is for Russia to completely take over South Ossetia and Abkhazia which would hurt its standing in the west that never trusted it anyway.

 

If you look at a map of the Caucasus with all its ethnic groups drawn you'll see we really should not be messing with that a big, mountainous mess considering we can't even handle a much smaller diversity in its flat area.

[Aceflyer]

Georgia began the conflict by invading South Ossetia. This is a fact that is beyond dispute at this point.

 

However, there is supposedly reliable intelligence that Russia lured Georgia into invading South Ossetia by getting South Ossetian paramilitaries to perform certain attacks that would make Georgia angry enough to invade South Ossetia. That Russia would do something like this is believable; Russia is hardly a saint by any definition. It is hardly a secret that Russia resents the fact that Georgia is firmly aligned with the U.S. and not Russia.

 

Of course, this doesn't excuse Georgia's responsibility for actually starting the conflict. From what I can see, the U.S. and the E.U. have reacted appropriately to this situation. Georgia has been shown that neither the U.S. nor the E.U. will back Georgia up militarily if Georgia acts rashly or irresponsibly (as it did in invading South Ossetia). Georgia has learned that it has to take full responsibility for, and accept the consequences of, its own actions. At the same time, Russia has been shown that neither the U.S. nor the E.U. will simply stand by and allow Russia to take advantage of the situation (which it may have helped instigate) and take over a sovereign democratic nation. Basically, the U.S. and the E.U. have demonstrated that they are willing to let Russia teach Georgia a lesson which Georgia frankly deserved, but that they are not going to let Russia take advantage of the situation to the point of actually taking over Georgia or installing a puppet regime there.

Edited August 14, 2008 by Aceflyer

[Hoch]

Georgia began the conflict by invading South Ossetia. This is a fact that is beyond dispute at this point.

Firstly, it is not fact, and secondly, that makes it disputable.

 

South Ossetia is a region in Georgia, albeit one that has sought

independence since the creation of the state of Georgia. It is in-

correct to suggest that Georgia invaded South Ossetia because

it did no such thing. A state cannot invade itself. Rather, as is the

case here, President Saakashvili sent in the Georgian military to

quell the separatists in the region.

 

When President Saakashvili came to power he pledged to unite

all of Georgians, especially those that sought independence. In

what can only be described as a gross miscalculation, he decided

to send in the Georgian army to bring these peoples back in. Yet

as the world would bear witness Russia had its own agenda. On

the premise that it was protecting its own people, which is so flaw-

ed as to be considered absurd, Russia defended the Georgian sep-

aratists, crushed the inferior Georgian army and pushed further

south and beyond the borders of the region.

 

President Saakashvili was well within his rights to send Georgian

forces to South Ossetia. However, he should have known, as

most outside observers did, that Russia was not going to sit on

the sidelines and do nothing. Yet, this does not justify Russia's

actions. Russia deliberately and with full knowledge invaded a

sovereign nation. This is without excuse.

 

The second mistake President Saakashvili made was counting

on Western/US support. Given that Russia is now an economic

powerhouse, supplying Europe with natural gas and the US with

crude oil, the economic ramifications for intervening are simply

too high. At best, Georgia can expect is the muted overtures

that the Bush Administration is making.

 

President Saakashvili underestimated a Russian response. Yet

it is unfortunate that Russia will not be held to task for invading

a sovereign nation, without provocation or justification, simply

on the grounds that she is protecting her 'citizens'. Russia may

have a sphere of influence but it should be careful just how far

it extends itself.

 

The future for Georgia is unclear. Whatever hopes of joining NATO

are now certainly dashed, let alone the lofty aspiration of EU mem-

bership.

 

This situation also highlights two further issues: the failure of US

foreign policy and underscoring who really is in charge of Russia.

Much as the Bush Admininstration has ignored affairs in South

America, so too has it allowed false hopes to be built with a stark

reality. Fortunately, Russia will be seen as the villain with its dispro-

portionate use of force thus sparing the Administration a humiliating

blunder in a region where it has significant presence and influence.

 

-Hoch

[X`terrania]

Basically, Georgia attacked South Ossetia to claim its ownership back,

and then Russia retaliated and has gone too far.

Don't forget the oil pipelines in Georgia,

if Russia has those they can certainly control the oil flow in that region.

And as far as it looks, Russia doesn't really want to risk having a war with the US right now,

so this'll most likely end soon.

 

God !@#$%^&*it.