Russo-Georgian War and Balance of Power
-
They destroyed some major oil pipelines in Georgia, which were delivering to Europe. Now Russia is basically the only supplier of natural gas and oil for Europe and they can abuse take advantage of that whenever they want.
blackjack2150 wrote:
They destroyed some major oil pipelines in Georgia, which were delivering to Europe
They did not. BP closed the pipeline crossing Georgia some days ago but plan to reopen it in the next days.
When they kick at your front door How you gonna come? With your hands on your head Or on the trigger of your gun?
-
The problem of having an opinion on this conflict is that for the moment we lack all the details about what happened 'underground'. For instance, Russian troops were clearly ready to counter-attack and were prepared, with all the logistics ready. Were they alerted before the invasion? Also, why did Georgia decide to attack, was there any external intervention to help Georgia to decide? Why was Georgia attack so ill planned, for instance why didn't it do everything to destroy the Roki Tunnel first? There were clear provocations from the Ossetian side, did Georgia fall into a trap? Or was Russia trapped, the consequences of its actions on the international scene are and will be huge? In the article it is said "It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions". Is that really true? Georgia could well have done this by itself, to force US to sustain it when the US could well have vetoed such a decision.... so many scenarios are possible. Maybe we'll be able to sort all that out in the next years, when info will begin to be available. Other comments on the article: - Russia has no right to decide if Ukraine and Georgia should apply or not to NATO. Ukraine and Georgia are independent states, with democratically elected governments. They are no vassals anymore, and looking at History, it is understandable they wish to join a defensive alliance to protect them against their big neighbor who invaded them before. - "The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed": after 1989 national borders in Europe changed a little bit! Sadly no one in Europe does understand that we have to give ourselves the means to be independent, energetically from Russia, militarily from the US, or else we will be used as pawns in the US-Russian game.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
KaЯl wrote:
The problem of having an opinion on this conflict is that for the moment we lack all the details about what happened 'underground'.
Totally agreed. But that does not mean that we should not even try to reveal things happening behind the scene.
KaЯl wrote:
so many scenarios are possible
Agreed. And as I said before, the article can be discussed. It shows just some of possible scenarios.
KaЯl wrote:
Ukraine and Georgia are independent states, with democratically elected governments.
I doubt they were democratically elected. Not more democratically than the Russian government. Frankly, I have not seen yet truly democratic elections somewhere in ex-USSR republics, except for Baltic countries maybe.
KaЯl wrote:
who invaded them before
What invasions do you mean?
Regards, Nikolay
-
The problem of having an opinion on this conflict is that for the moment we lack all the details about what happened 'underground'. For instance, Russian troops were clearly ready to counter-attack and were prepared, with all the logistics ready. Were they alerted before the invasion? Also, why did Georgia decide to attack, was there any external intervention to help Georgia to decide? Why was Georgia attack so ill planned, for instance why didn't it do everything to destroy the Roki Tunnel first? There were clear provocations from the Ossetian side, did Georgia fall into a trap? Or was Russia trapped, the consequences of its actions on the international scene are and will be huge? In the article it is said "It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions". Is that really true? Georgia could well have done this by itself, to force US to sustain it when the US could well have vetoed such a decision.... so many scenarios are possible. Maybe we'll be able to sort all that out in the next years, when info will begin to be available. Other comments on the article: - Russia has no right to decide if Ukraine and Georgia should apply or not to NATO. Ukraine and Georgia are independent states, with democratically elected governments. They are no vassals anymore, and looking at History, it is understandable they wish to join a defensive alliance to protect them against their big neighbor who invaded them before. - "The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed": after 1989 national borders in Europe changed a little bit! Sadly no one in Europe does understand that we have to give ourselves the means to be independent, energetically from Russia, militarily from the US, or else we will be used as pawns in the US-Russian game.
Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man. Syndicalism is the opposite. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Of course there's also the not completely unbelievable idea that the US were aware of both the Russian and the Georgian build ups and OK'd the attack/or not anyway knowing full well what would happen. It gives the US chance to look like the good guys again and gives the western media the chance to give the Russians a bad press. Of course though with everyone lying through their back teeth the chances are that we are only really going to know what happened/is happening with hindsight. The more obvious ones at the moment being Condi saying on the news that the Russians had entered the Georgian capital Russia saying they were withdrawing. And the Georgian president saying they did nothing to provoke the attack.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
-
Very interesting. Thanks.
John Carson
-
Of course there's also the not completely unbelievable idea that the US were aware of both the Russian and the Georgian build ups and OK'd the attack/or not anyway knowing full well what would happen. It gives the US chance to look like the good guys again and gives the western media the chance to give the Russians a bad press. Of course though with everyone lying through their back teeth the chances are that we are only really going to know what happened/is happening with hindsight. The more obvious ones at the moment being Condi saying on the news that the Russians had entered the Georgian capital Russia saying they were withdrawing. And the Georgian president saying they did nothing to provoke the attack.
pseudonym67 My Articles[^] Beginning KDevelop Programming[^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
It gives the US chance to look like the good guys again and gives the western media the chance to give the Russians a bad press.
It also pushed Poland to sign an agreement with the US for the antimissile shield today. Poland was heavily negotiating, but now they are not so hard to convince: Polish and U.S. negotiators reached an agreement Thursday to host parts of the U.S. global missile shield, including a battery of Patriot air defense missiles, in Poland after Washington improved the terms of the deal amid the Georgia crisis, capping more than one and a half years of tough bargaining. [^]
pseudonym67 wrote:
Condi saying on the news that the Russians had entered the Georgian capital Russia saying they were withdrawing. And the Georgian president saying they did nothing to provoke the attack.
One for sure: they all try to manipulate us.
Jouir et faire jouir sans faire de mal ni à toi ni à personne, voilà je crois le fondement de toute morale Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
KaЯl wrote:
The problem of having an opinion on this conflict is that for the moment we lack all the details about what happened 'underground'.
Totally agreed. But that does not mean that we should not even try to reveal things happening behind the scene.
KaЯl wrote:
so many scenarios are possible
Agreed. And as I said before, the article can be discussed. It shows just some of possible scenarios.
KaЯl wrote:
Ukraine and Georgia are independent states, with democratically elected governments.
I doubt they were democratically elected. Not more democratically than the Russian government. Frankly, I have not seen yet truly democratic elections somewhere in ex-USSR republics, except for Baltic countries maybe.
KaЯl wrote:
who invaded them before
What invasions do you mean?
Regards, Nikolay
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
But that does not mean that we should not even try to reveal things happening behind the scene.
It's probably why so many of us stick here, in the Soapbox: we love to talk about things we have no idea about :-D;)
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
the article can be discussed
And this is a very interesting article, thanks for the link.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
I doubt they were democratically elected.
Neither EU or OSCE observers called them frauds, contrary to the Russian election (Putin getting more of 99% of the votes in Chechnya? No kidding!). Each time observers said it was not perfect, but elections were not cheated.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
What invasions do you mean?
Ukraine: parts of Ukraine during the partitions of Poland, 1920 when independent Ukraine was absorbed by USSR. AFAIK after WW2 there were pro-independence Ukrainians who fought till 1954. Georgia: 1801, 1921. Poland: 1772, 1793, 1795, 1945. I think that all of Russia's neighbors are afraid of Russia, from the Baltic country to Japan - except Belarus, but being the last European dictatorship, I don't think it's something really significant.
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
-
It raises interesting questions and confirms some of the (worst) suspicions I had about Russia and the Caucasus. Please correct me if I'm wrong but what the article says is: 1) Russia's centuries old imperial dreams are back. We should expect a big rise in Russian nationalism. 2) The U.S. (not less imperial than Russia) is already too bogged in many wars to be able to face the new Russian challenge. And they even need the help of Russia in some issues (e.g.: Iran). 3) Western Europe is too addicted to Russian oil to be able to react. And they are not global empires any more. 4) Besides of a gangster, Putin is a master strategist. He knows very well how to evaluate the political landscape and draw ambitious plans on it. He used the Ossetians as bait. The fool Saakashvili took the bait. 5) The long history of tribal wars and genocides in the Caucasus, Balkans, Middle East and perhaps Central Asia will never end and will probably get worse. Several years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, George H.W. Bush (father) announced that the world would face a "New World Order", where the U.S. would be the only world power. This is the end of that New World Order. Ironically, his son is leading that end.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Russia's "great return to power" consists of bullying an ex-Soviet state with a bit of military force? :laugh: :rolleyes:
73Zeppelin wrote:
Russia's "great return to power" consists of bullying an ex-Soviet state with a bit of military force?
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it. You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Russia's "great return to power" consists of bullying an ex-Soviet state with a bit of military force?
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it. You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it.
NATO couldn't/wouldn't do anything if the aggression was against a member, not just a potential member. It is a moribund shell of what it once was.
Diego Moita wrote:
You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
I am amazed at the gonads being shown by the Ukraine and Poland under the circumstances.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
They destroyed some major oil pipelines in Georgia, which were delivering to Europe. Now Russia is basically the only supplier of natural gas and oil for Europe and they can abuse take advantage of that whenever they want.
It was closed before the war due to problems elsewhere. Russia tried to bomb it, but their smart bombs missed. :doh:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
Russia's "great return to power" consists of bullying an ex-Soviet state with a bit of military force?
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it. You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it. You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
The U.S. and Poland just signed a missile defense agreement despite threats from the Russians of pre-emptive nuclear attacks. Why do you think NATO can't/won't do anything about it? So far a member country has not been attacked and I think they've been taking the proper stance in dealing with this issue for the time being. I think Russia is ignoring the consequences that this will have for them. Threats of cutting off heating gas only go so far.
-
It raises interesting questions and confirms some of the (worst) suspicions I had about Russia and the Caucasus. Please correct me if I'm wrong but what the article says is: 1) Russia's centuries old imperial dreams are back. We should expect a big rise in Russian nationalism. 2) The U.S. (not less imperial than Russia) is already too bogged in many wars to be able to face the new Russian challenge. And they even need the help of Russia in some issues (e.g.: Iran). 3) Western Europe is too addicted to Russian oil to be able to react. And they are not global empires any more. 4) Besides of a gangster, Putin is a master strategist. He knows very well how to evaluate the political landscape and draw ambitious plans on it. He used the Ossetians as bait. The fool Saakashvili took the bait. 5) The long history of tribal wars and genocides in the Caucasus, Balkans, Middle East and perhaps Central Asia will never end and will probably get worse. Several years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, George H.W. Bush (father) announced that the world would face a "New World Order", where the U.S. would be the only world power. This is the end of that New World Order. Ironically, his son is leading that end.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong but what the article says is:
You are not wrong in any particular.
Diego Moita wrote:
Ironically, his son is leading that end.
His policies hastened, if they did not create the end. That may be what you mean by leading, in which case, I am simply agreeing with you. I wonder how long it will be before Germany is required to give Prussia back to the Cossacks.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
It raises interesting questions and confirms some of the (worst) suspicions I had about Russia and the Caucasus. Please correct me if I'm wrong but what the article says is: 1) Russia's centuries old imperial dreams are back. We should expect a big rise in Russian nationalism. 2) The U.S. (not less imperial than Russia) is already too bogged in many wars to be able to face the new Russian challenge. And they even need the help of Russia in some issues (e.g.: Iran). 3) Western Europe is too addicted to Russian oil to be able to react. And they are not global empires any more. 4) Besides of a gangster, Putin is a master strategist. He knows very well how to evaluate the political landscape and draw ambitious plans on it. He used the Ossetians as bait. The fool Saakashvili took the bait. 5) The long history of tribal wars and genocides in the Caucasus, Balkans, Middle East and perhaps Central Asia will never end and will probably get worse. Several years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, George H.W. Bush (father) announced that the world would face a "New World Order", where the U.S. would be the only world power. This is the end of that New World Order. Ironically, his son is leading that end.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
Diego Moita wrote:
Several years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, George H.W. Bush (father) announced that the world would face a "New World Order", where the U.S. would be the only world power. This is the end of that New World Order. Ironically, his son is leading that end.
Sadly, Reagan left no competent successors, and I agree GWB has lead to an at least temporary waning of the US' ability dominate on the world stage. The wild card here is China's ambitions. The Russians may find they have a more dangerous competitor on the world scene than the US.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it. You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
The U.S. and Poland just signed a missile defense agreement despite threats from the Russians of pre-emptive nuclear attacks. Why do you think NATO can't/won't do anything about it? So far a member country has not been attacked and I think they've been taking the proper stance in dealing with this issue for the time being. I think Russia is ignoring the consequences that this will have for them. Threats of cutting off heating gas only go so far.
73Zeppelin wrote:
I think Russia is ignoring the consequences that this will have for them.
Russia, under Putin, does not seem to worry much about consequences. Indeed the biggest consequence I see is that John McCain has been given a bump in the polls. They might have been smarter to wait until after January 2.
73Zeppelin wrote:
Why do you think NATO can't/won't do anything about it?
Why do you think they will? Nothing in the recent history of the organization or of Europe suggests that NATO will stand up to Russia. The U.S. is caught in a housing recession/manufacturing inflation cycle that is revealing our idiotic economic policies of the last twenty-five years for what they are, which means we haven't the resources to mount any serious opposition to Russia.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
modified on Wednesday, August 20, 2008 3:39 PM
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Several years ago, when the Soviet Union collapsed, George H.W. Bush (father) announced that the world would face a "New World Order", where the U.S. would be the only world power. This is the end of that New World Order. Ironically, his son is leading that end.
Sadly, Reagan left no competent successors, and I agree GWB has lead to an at least temporary waning of the US' ability dominate on the world stage. The wild card here is China's ambitions. The Russians may find they have a more dangerous competitor on the world scene than the US.
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it. You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
The U.S. and Poland just signed a missile defense agreement despite threats from the Russians of pre-emptive nuclear attacks. Why do you think NATO can't/won't do anything about it? So far a member country has not been attacked and I think they've been taking the proper stance in dealing with this issue for the time being. I think Russia is ignoring the consequences that this will have for them. Threats of cutting off heating gas only go so far.
I won't reply to your personal perceptions, it is useless. You read what you want. Let's wait and see if your conclusions are correct. But note this: the trend for NATO was expansion. I see that trend as blocked by Russia. I will consider my perception correct if Saakashvili falls and is substituted by a Russian friendly government and if Ukraine gives up on entering NATO.
Of all forms of sexual aberration, the most unnatural is abstinence.
-
Rob Graham wrote:
The Russians may find they have a more dangerous competitor on the world scene than the US.
If only China had enough energy resources.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
They have one heck of a lot of coal, are drilling off Cuba, and may be casting an eye on some of that Russian Petrol in the Russian east...Putin should be nervous.
-
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
But that does not mean that we should not even try to reveal things happening behind the scene.
It's probably why so many of us stick here, in the Soapbox: we love to talk about things we have no idea about :-D;)
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
the article can be discussed
And this is a very interesting article, thanks for the link.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
I doubt they were democratically elected.
Neither EU or OSCE observers called them frauds, contrary to the Russian election (Putin getting more of 99% of the votes in Chechnya? No kidding!). Each time observers said it was not perfect, but elections were not cheated.
Nikolay Denisov wrote:
What invasions do you mean?
Ukraine: parts of Ukraine during the partitions of Poland, 1920 when independent Ukraine was absorbed by USSR. AFAIK after WW2 there were pro-independence Ukrainians who fought till 1954. Georgia: 1801, 1921. Poland: 1772, 1793, 1795, 1945. I think that all of Russia's neighbors are afraid of Russia, from the Baltic country to Japan - except Belarus, but being the last European dictatorship, I don't think it's something really significant.
Military justice is to justice what military music is to music. Fold with us! ¤ flickr
Ka?l wrote:
we love to talk about things we have no idea about
Oh yeah! :)))
Ka?l wrote:
Neither EU or OSCE observers called them frauds, contrary to the Russian election (Putin getting more of 99% of the votes in Chechnya? No kidding!). Each time observers said it was not perfect, but elections were not cheated.
I remember how Boris Eltsin was re-elected in 1996. That was a real farce! Eltsin was surrounded by a dozen of American political strategists that had to help him to win the election. The TV, mostly controled by Eltsin, was brainwashing people 24 hours a day 7 days week trying to make them vote for Eltsin... But Eltsin has lost. Actually, he got less than 40% of votes. But officials announced him as the election winner. And no one from the West said that elections were cheated. Yes, I know about 99% of the votes in Chechnya. And yes, I have to confirm that elections here in Russia are not fair, to put it mildly. :(
Ka?l wrote:
Ukraine: parts of Ukraine during the partitions of Poland, 1920 when independent Ukraine was absorbed by USSR. AFAIK after WW2 there were pro-independence Ukrainians who fought till 1954. Georgia: 1801, 1921. Poland: 1772, 1793, 1795, 1945.
I've got your point. As far as Russia-Ukraine relations, they are so complicated that we will need a separate thread to discuss it. :)
Regards, Nikolay
-
Diego Moita wrote:
Exactly. And if it is not a "great return to power" please show me a strong reaction of the West against it. The issue here is not how they did it. Is the fact that NATO can't/won't do anything against it so they can and will continue doing it.
NATO couldn't/wouldn't do anything if the aggression was against a member, not just a potential member. It is a moribund shell of what it once was.
Diego Moita wrote:
You're ignoring all the consequences this will have on Ukraine, Belarus, Baltic States and even perhaps Kazakhstan.
I am amazed at the gonads being shown by the Ukraine and Poland under the circumstances.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
I am amazed at the gonads being shown by the Ukraine and Poland under the circumstances.
There are some subtle differences, such as the Ukrainian military being 200,000 strong rather than 20,000 and Poland being a (geographically defendable) member of NATO. The Ukraine's primary weakness is a divided and vitriolic politcal scene, I somehow doubt even the Russian speaking denizens of the east would much appreciate Russian tanks appearing across the border. Simply put: Georgia was easy, with limited scope for (short term) costs.
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh:
-
Oakman wrote:
I am amazed at the gonads being shown by the Ukraine and Poland under the circumstances.
There are some subtle differences, such as the Ukrainian military being 200,000 strong rather than 20,000 and Poland being a (geographically defendable) member of NATO. The Ukraine's primary weakness is a divided and vitriolic politcal scene, I somehow doubt even the Russian speaking denizens of the east would much appreciate Russian tanks appearing across the border. Simply put: Georgia was easy, with limited scope for (short term) costs.
I'm largely language agnostic
After a while they all bug me :doh: