Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[CJvR]

No but getting rid of the territorial conflict with Russia is a huge first step, as long as it remains getting into NATO will be impossible - a state that suits Moscow fine so denying them that is vital.

[CJvR]

A danger true.
But is it less dangerous to have a permanent Russian occupation of those areas that prevents you from getting protection from NATO?

Naturally the Russians don't realy want to annex those areas, the only use they have of them is to cripple Georgia's foreign politics and the Georgian Prez have more or less handed Moscow his own head on a silver plate.

[Jade Falcon]

On a mild note, I noticed the BBC displayed it's lack of military know how, saying that the Russians claimed they had no tanks, and then they pointed to a column of BMP's as if proving them wrong. Oh, and then they identified them as BTR's.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

No but getting rid of the territorial conflict with Russia is a huge first step, as long as it remains getting into NATO will be impossible - a state that suits Moscow fine so denying them that is vital.

The likelihood of that happening, is less likely than having the taps on the oil pipes turning off.

[Shroom Man 777]

Check Bush's speech out, live on the Beeb. He sounds so fucking constipated and pissed.

"We're sending Condoleza Rice... to France."

[Darth Hoth]

A danger true.
But is it less dangerous to have a permanent Russian occupation of those areas that prevents you from getting protection from NATO?

Naturally the Russians don't realy want to annex those areas, the only use they have of them is to cripple Georgia's foreign politics and the Georgian Prez have more or less handed Moscow his own head on a silver plate.

NATO would not admit them in any case, lest they threw out Germany and France first. Like the Board, the Great Powers go by Realpolitik, not idealism. Why would the fate of some small nation that is "in the Russian sphere of interest" in the first place interest them when Russia is fuelling them with oil and gas?

[Axis Kast]

You're changing the subject. No one is asking anyone to "raise hell" over Georgia's initial attack. People are just saying that Georgia doesn't have the moral high ground that it claims to have.

By comparing Georgia’s behavior to other nations that have fought wars in the past, I mean to substantiate that their moral failings are fewer than Marina has suggested. The bar is set very low in this world, and counter-insurgency often involves inflicting harm on population centers.

Wrong. The fact that America has lost its (presumed) position of moral leadership has absolutely nothing to do with the number of people attempting to emigrate to America. It's a red-herring, and you're an idiot.

Let me make this simple for you. If the United States was regarded as a black hole of human rights and political freedoms, people would stop coming.

Are you actually stupid enough to honestly think that my comments about America's loss of moral authority had something to do with its domestic quality of life?

The United States lost moral authority. That doesn’t mean it is on par with, say, Russia.

My familiarity with modern Russian culture and life is not deep enough to make a valid comparison. However, there is no disputing that they have accomplished some impressive feats of science and engineering. I have no doubt that there are many people in Russia who enjoy greater wealth and a more lavish lifestyle than I have ever had here in the US. On the other hand, acquisition of wealth and material goods have never been my prime motivation. How does one make valid comparisons between to nations of such divergent history and culture?

I should have been more clear; I was referring to political freedoms.

Yes, it was intended mainly as food for thought. I can't prove it, but I do wonder what went on behind closed doors. Hell, the current administration has failed to follow through on promises made to their own citizens, I have to consider that they might have done the same to others. I don't consider our current crowd in DC to be trustworthy, even by the low standards I hold for politicians.

The article you posted to support your position changes very little, I fear. When Washington is handing down explicit recommendations of non-action, there is little more we can do. As I see it, the most damaging position we took is that Georgia ought not have to negotiate on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The military training agreements and NATO membership had their own logic, and the Georgian government’s decision to link them into an expectation of concrete backing? Little we could do.

Also, given Sea Skimmer’s earlier analysis, it looks like this is the “worst of the worst” in terms of Georgia’s possible outcomes. I don’t think their expectations were completely out of the ballpark – they expected to have a stronger position militarily, which would have made diplomacy seem somewhat more useful. But this is more a case of trying to rectify the balance of Georgian expectations and reality.

Except that mode is not "altruistic" - it always winds up benefiting the empire more than the colonies. I don't think the benefits of colonialism outweigh the negatives. Indeed, colonization probably caused or worsened some of the ethnic frictions already present.

But that’s what it allows. South Lebanon temporarily became a special protectorate and economic appendage of Israel. Even if no Israeli settlers were ever placed there, the relationship had definite colonial flavor.

What makes a nation? Isn't that a core question here? I don't think there's a hard and fast definition other than "well, most of the world sees you as sovereign, you're sovereign". At what point do rebels become a sovereign nation? When does a "break-away" republic become legitimate and when not? If everyone in Cornwall decided to become independent of Great Britain would they be allowed to secede? When a country fractures, how far do you let it fragment?

It seems to be a question of, “Well, can you stop them from leaving?”

Obviously, some nations are always going to be able to get away with wars of aggression at certain times. I don’t think that advertising a notion that we would approve of changes along the lines you draw out would be a net gain for the world, however.

Better still than putting Israel in South Lebanon would be assisting the Lebanese government to oust Hezbollah. Well, according to most.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Let me make this simple for you. If the United States was regarded as a black hole of human rights and political freedoms, people would stop coming.

What the fuck? The bulk of immigration coming in happens to be hispanics who are walking over. They are coming because of the jobs. They are coming because it's a lot easier to get a work visa unlike in Europe. By and far, money is a bigger motivator than human rights and political freedoms. Idealism isn't a big factor here, at all.

[Axis Kast]

What the fuck? The bulk of immigration coming in happens to be hispanics who are walking over. They are coming because of the jobs. They are coming because it's a lot easier to get a work visa unlike in Europe. By and far, money is a bigger motivator than human rights and political freedoms. Idealism isn't a big factor here, at all.

I would wager that, in spite of being illegal, many are pretty content with the way things work in the United States.

[RedImperator]

Well If I was the Prez in Georgia I would dump the stinking goat herders, the Russians are quite welcome to them, and hurry in under the NATO umbrella.

The problem is that those are strategic border regions important to Georgia's defence against possible Russian aggression. Furthermore, it might not be wise to concede anything to an authoritarian, jingoistic great power on your border - if you give them a finger, they just might decide to take the rest of the arm as well.

I don't think the Georgians have much say in the matter at this point.

[Broomstick]

Well If I was the Prez in Georgia I would dump the stinking goat herders, the Russians are quite welcome to them, and hurry in under the NATO umbrella.

The problem is that those are strategic border regions important to Georgia's defence against possible Russian aggression. Furthermore, it might not be wise to concede anything to an authoritarian, jingoistic great power on your border - if you give them a finger, they just might decide to take the rest of the arm as well.

And if you poke a larger, belligerent neighbor with your finger you might just pull back a bloody stump.

Sure, Georgia had a claim on South Ossetia. Sure, they were unhappy. Sure, they weren't getting what they wanted. On the other hand, the situation was at least relatively stable. By this attempt to pull the autonomous region(s) back into the fold they screwed the pooch. This was not the time to do this from a purely pragmatic standpoint.

[Broomstick]

Yes, it was intended mainly as food for thought. I can't prove it, but I do wonder what went on behind closed doors. Hell, the current administration has failed to follow through on promises made to their own citizens, I have to consider that they might have done the same to others. I don't consider our current crowd in DC to be trustworthy, even by the low standards I hold for politicians.

The article you posted to support your position changes very little, I fear.

But it does show the public and private message differed. It doesn't help the situation if publicly you appear to be buying into the expansionist ambitions of the nation's government, even if in private you're counseling caution. Mixed messages and all.

[Axis Kast]

But it does show the public and private message differed. It doesn't help the situation if publicly you appear to be buying into the expansionist ambitions of the nation's government, even if in private you're counseling caution. Mixed messages and all.

I should think the private messages, between two leaders who speak in the absence of flashbulbs, counts for something more.

I want to say that it's unfortunate that our public rhetoric led the Georgians on. But when we noticed the defect, we tried to stop the avalanche. Wasn't even too late for the pebbles to vote and all that, as Kosh said in Babylon 5. It's just that the Georgians didn't want to hear it.

[K. A. Pital]

Maybe you should think about whom you pick as allies once again then.

If Georgians are uncontrollable and defer to a military solution despite your wishes, perhaps they aren't really ready for NATO, or anything else for now.

P.S. Georgia now finally produced a death tally for their side... 175 men, including military and civilian. Even if that's not true and there's more military casualties, the Georgians sure have a lot of gall to call the events a 'Russian agression', when they shelled a city leading to over a thousand victims.

[Broomstick]

Maybe you should think about whom you pick as allies once again then.

More a matter of "think about which allies we keep" - it may be argued we didn't realize the Georgians would be such dumbshits, but now that we know they would appear to be more a liability than an asset.

I want to say that it's unfortunate that our public rhetoric led the Georgians on. But when we noticed the defect, we tried to stop the avalanche. Wasn't even too late for the pebbles to vote and all that, as Kosh said in Babylon 5. It's just that the Georgians didn't want to hear it.

The "didn't want to hear it" part is a serious defect in my view.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

More a matter of "think about which allies we keep" - it may be argued we didn't realize the Georgians would be such dumbshits, but now that we know they would appear to be more a liability than an asset.

As much as hindsight isn't myopic, there is a nagging tendency for the US to pick allies on the fly just so they fit short term policies, while trampling on others' needs. The list goes on: Philippines under Marcos, currently Pakistan, Persia.... etc. etc.

[Axis Kast]

The Shah of Iran wasn't long-term. And he was arguable badly-handled by the U.S. intelligence and policy community, which grew complacent and stopped worrying about whether or not he was reliable. Some of the signs were there; nobody was paying any attention to a "non-problem spot."

[Axis Kast]

Argh. Excuse me. That should read, "The Shah of Iran wasn't short-term." He was 1951-1978, for all intents and purposes. That's quite a while.

[montypython]

Argh. Excuse me. That should read, "The Shah of Iran wasn't short-term." He was 1951-1978, for all intents and purposes. That's quite a while.

The price of both freedom and security is eternal vigilance after all, and keeping tabs on those one considers allies is just as important as observing possible adversaries too, as both Iran and South Vietnam demonstrated.

[Vympel]

Georgian Idiot-in-Chief continues making an ass out of himself and embarassing his supposed allies

It was a claim that could have provoked a dangerous Kremlin response: The United States is readying to take over airports and ports in the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The claim, by U.S.-backed Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili on Wednesday was swiftly shot down by officials in Washington, who denied any such designs on Georgian soil.

Yet, it was the latest in a string of overstated pronouncements by the American-educated Georgian leader that are further fueling tensions with Moscow.

His comments — along with a stream of biased, conflicting and often false information coming from both Russian and Georgian officials — have made it hard to figure out what is really happening in the world's latest hotspot.

Fighting between the Russian and Georgian armies raged for days, leaving hundreds dead and some 100,000 forced from their homes. The U.S. government and world diplomats are scrambling for a way to cool the tensions.

Warfare erupted when Georgia sought to retake control over the breakaway province of South Ossetia last Thursday and Russia responded with overwhelming military force.

Saakashvili has been conducting daily interviews in his fluent English on international television networks and making frequent televised speeches at home.

On Wednesday, he said in an interview on CNN that Russian troops were "closing on the capital, circling," and planning to install their own government in Tbilisi.

Associated Press reporters in the area saw no sign of an impending coup. An AP reporter saw dozens of Russian trucks and armored vehicles heading south from the central city of Gori in the direction of Tbilisi, but they later turned away.

Saakashvili said Russian troops moving deeper into Georgia "even steal toilet seats."

He later said on Georgian national television that the U.S. arrival of a military cargo plane with humanitarian aid "means that Georgia's ports and airports will be taken under the control of the U.S. Defense Department."

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell responded, "We have no need, nor do we intend to take over any Georgian air or seaport to deliver humanitarian aid. ... We have no designs on taking control of any Georgian facility."

Saakashvili has repeatedly compared the Russian incursions to Hitler's invasion of Poland in 1939, to the Soviet crackdown in Prague in 1968 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

In his Wednesday TV address, he said, "Russia has lost more airplanes than in any conflict of this scale since 1939." While such figures are not publicly available, the calculation seemed unlikely given how brief the fighting has been and how uneven the two countries' forces are.

He also cited rumors that Russia was planning to bomb a rally in Tbilisi on Tuesday. The rally ended peacefully.

Saakashvili insists he's not overstating anything, and lamented Wednesday that the West ignored his warnings that Russia was planning a military operation in Georgia as "exaggerations."

"Now look what they're doing. This has already exceeded my worst expectations."

Saakashvili, who graduated from Columbia University Law School, has always been blunt, and his bold language and flamboyant manner helped drive the Rose Revolution that brought him to power after disputed elections in 2003.

He has long been derided in Russia, where he is seen as a vassal of the United States as it seeks to expand its influence in Moscow's backyard. The conflict has made that worse. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev indirectly referred to his Georgian counterpart as a "lunatic" on Tuesday.

Russia's leadership has been fierce — and often wrong — in its claims about the conflict, too.

Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said in a BBC interview Wednesday, "There were many reports that Russian tanks are inside Georgia which later proved out to be totally untrue."

AP reporters saw a Russian convoy in the area of Gori on Wednesday, including support vehicles, ambulances, heavy cannons and about 100 combat troops.

___

Associated Press writer Angela Charlton in Moscow contributed to this report.

[K. A. Pital]

"Lunatic" seems rather fitting if he makes statements like that.

[Broomstick]

More a matter of "think about which allies we keep" - it may be argued we didn't realize the Georgians would be such dumbshits, but now that we know they would appear to be more a liability than an asset.

As much as hindsight isn't myopic, there is a nagging tendency for the US to pick allies on the fly just so they fit short term policies, while trampling on others' needs. The list goes on: Philippines under Marcos, currently Pakistan, Persia.... etc. etc.

That's consistent with US foreign policy always being short-term - it's a flaw that's been around for a long, long time.

[Block]

More a matter of "think about which allies we keep" - it may be argued we didn't realize the Georgians would be such dumbshits, but now that we know they would appear to be more a liability than an asset.

As much as hindsight isn't myopic, there is a nagging tendency for the US to pick allies on the fly just so they fit short term policies, while trampling on others' needs. The list goes on: Philippines under Marcos, currently Pakistan, Persia.... etc. etc.

That's consistent with US foreign policy always being short-term - it's a flaw that's been around for a long, long time.

Has any nation's foreign policy ever NOT been short term?

[Adrian Laguna]

Has any nation's foreign policy ever NOT been short term?

The British Empire until the 1930s and Prussia (later Germany) under Bismark come to mind. The Russians have also managed long term planning on occasion.

[Block]

Has any nation's foreign policy ever NOT been short term?

The British Empire until the 1930s and Prussia (later Germany) under Bismark come to mind. The Russians have also managed long term planning on occasion.

Really? The British? Their lack of consistency in foreign policy was hardly long term thinking. Unless you consider a 10 year span long term. They lasted a long time, but their foreign policies were always shortsighted. Germany... I again disagree. Unless you're considering 10-20 years being long term. The Russians I don't know enough about to say one way or the other.