Russia vs West

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia vs West

Do you think when US bombed Yugoslavia for 3 months it was not excessive power.

The bombardment stopped the day Serbia declared its withdrawal from Kosova. When the civilians in Kosova started to flee, there were no NATO "peace keepers" on the ground to arm albanians and conduct raids agaisnt the Serbians. Milosevici had also a history of suporting massacres in Bosnia ... if you remember correctly. Today Serbia freed from the (ex-)communist leaders wants to join European Union and NATO. So let's put the things into perspective.

It is not just about imperial policy.

It is about post-soviet imperial policy...

BTW, Georgia started with shelling the capital of Osetia by heavy artillery.

If there were no russian "peace keepers" on the international recognized territory of Georgia that wouldn't have happened. Russia's ambitions of revival of its imperial power are the cause for destabilizing the region.

All these enclaves were formed as bridgeheads at the collapse of the soviet union.

Osetia is not even close to Georgia military power.

The Russian government doesn't have any right to talk about "peace keeping" in the region and right to self determination after the brutal massacres perpetrated in Chechnya, after the "involvement" of "volunteers" from the 14th Army in Moldova and after they have patronized the massacres and ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_...ns_in_Abkhazia

At that time Russia even employed Shamil Basayev as a young GRU officer in the "liberation" of Abkhazia.

If Russians are happy to live under a Neo-Stalinist regime that's fine with me ... but in the free world people prefer to think for themselves and are not fooled by empty propaganda.

People in the free world can go and demonstrate in front of the WH against the Iraq War. Guess what would happen if a group of russians would go to demonstrate against the military adventurism of Czar Putin???

Maybe the Itar Tass , propaganda talking points is very effective in for russians dumbed by 70 year of comunism but that is not valid outside Russia.

[Rantly McTirade]

Re: Russia vs West

I wonder if Ukraine is dumb enough to intervene... if they do, then watch NATO really do nothing.

The russians might as well keep going...

Perhaps to Belgrade?
Hardly knew ye, 'Kosovo'.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia vs West

Sure, the pretext for solidifying rebel's claims on South Ossetia and Abkhazia are thin.

But so is the idea of handing Kosovo over to the Albanian mafia.

The whole point is that since the UN decided that Russia could be ignored on the Kosovo issue, Russia - combined with Saakashvili's idiotic escalation into South Ossetia - feels that a precedent was set.

Between Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it seems something like 1/4 or 1/3 of Georgia is in dispute.

The whole area is a mish-mash of ethnicities due to the area being populated by nomads in the near past; it is unsurprising that understanding this is impossible for those not from the region. This includes myself.

As for Sham - like Osama and his cadre weren't trained by the US? For that matter, the Taliban? Doesn't mean squat in the grand scheme of things.

The Georgians that I know living in Russia are actually equal parts appalled by the fighting and the idiocy of Saakashvili.

Saak tried to invoke a rescue reflex from the UN and Europe and instead found himself going it alone. Oops.

[rj1]

Re: Russia vs West

I have no doubt about that. But the question remains: has Russia the right and force to enforce it's imperial influence in Caucasus?

As much right as the U.S. has to depose governments and install their own leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq...or invade Grenada.

This is war. There's no such thing as "the right to do something" or legal/illegal in war.

[phirang]

Re: Russia vs West

As much right as the U.S. has to depose governments and install their own leaders in Afghanistan and Iraq...or invade Grenada.

This is war. There's no such thing as "the right to do something" or legal/illegal in war.

A nice little skirmish with Russia should allay any concern about deflation, at the very least, and create employment (or at least attrite the unemployed through slaughter).

[ASH]

Re: Russia vs West

A nice little skirmish with Russia should allay any concern about deflation, at the very least, and create employment (or at least attrite the unemployed through slaughter).

Heh. Hope not. I've got 3 more years in the IRR, and a newborn daughter to raise. (Plus I'm employed, and altogether too out of shape to report in my alphas.) ;)

Seriously, though, I buy into the view that the short-term ramifications are minor (no wider war) but that the long-term ramifications are major (Putin feels strong enough to wield hard power on Russia's western border, and may be increasingly apt to do so). I knew this day was coming, but if you had asked me a month ago, I would have said it was due in about ten years -- not today. I had figured he'd wait for economic rot to eat away at America's military while he rebuilt his own forces with money from energy receipts -- a process that is hardly complete. In another decade (if not before) we'll be in the throws of an incapacitating budgetary crisis, and the conventional Russian military might be a real threat to Europe again.

Still, perhaps Putin's timing isn't so bad at that. He has probably correctly gauged the West's likelihood of intervention in this case. Perhaps he has only limited goals at this stage.

[phirang]

Re: Russia vs West

Heh. Hope not. I've got 3 more years in the IRR, and a newborn daughter to raise. (Plus I'm employed, and altogether too out of shape to report in my alphas.) ;)

Seriously, though, I buy into the view that the short-term ramifications are minor (no wider war) but that the long-term ramifications are major (Putin feels strong enough to wield hard power on Russia's western border, and may be increasingly apt to do so). I knew this day was coming, but if you had asked me a month ago, I would have said it was due in about ten years -- not today. I had figured he'd wait for economic rot to eat away at America's military while he rebuilt his own forces with money from energy receipts -- a process that is hardly complete. In another decade (if not before) we'll be in the throws of an incapacitating budgetary crisis, and the conventional Russian military might be a real threat to Europe again.

Still, perhaps Putin's timing isn't so bad at that. He has probably correctly gauged the West's likelihood of intervention in this case. Perhaps he has only limited goals at this stage.

The timing is so perfect... remember what Sun Tzu said(to paraphrase): attack your enemy when he is half-way across a river. The US is so confused and divided that by the time we decide to act, Kadyrov 2.0 will be in power, and it's fait accompli.

This is a massive blow in US prestige: our bluff has been called, and we were found wanting. This will make Iraq that much more intractable, and of course it's a huge boon to Iran.

It also doesn't help that Israel was supporting Georgia...

[metalman]

Re: Russia vs West

Heh. Hope not. I've got 3 more years in the IRR, and a newborn daughter to raise. (Plus I'm employed, and altogether too out of shape to report in my alphas.) ;)

Seriously, though, I buy into the view that the short-term ramifications are minor (no wider war) but that the long-term ramifications are major (Putin feels strong enough to wield hard power on Russia's western border, and may be increasingly apt to do so). I knew this day was coming, but if you had asked me a month ago, I would have said it was due in about ten years -- not today. I had figured he'd wait for economic rot to eat away at America's military while he rebuilt his own forces with money from energy receipts -- a process that is hardly complete. In another decade (if not before) we'll be in the throws of an incapacitating budgetary crisis, and the conventional Russian military might be a real threat to Europe again.

Still, perhaps Putin's timing isn't so bad at that. He has probably correctly gauged the West's likelihood of intervention in this case. Perhaps he has only limited goals at this stage.

"It's important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order. It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business."

One of the Georgian parliament members did not settle Saturday for the call for American aid, urging Israel to help stop the Russian offensive as well: "We need help from the UN and from our friends, headed by the United States and Israel. Today Georgia is in danger – tomorrow all the democratic countries in the region and in the entire world will be in danger too." War in Georgia: The Israeli connection

getting ominous and complicated in a hurry.

[Rajiv]

Re: Russia vs West

See also Justin Raimondo's
The Real Aggressor
Georgian invasion of South Ossetia sets the stage for a wider war

The anti-Russian bias of the Western media is really something to behold: "Russia Invades Georgia," "Russia Attacks Georgia," and variations thereof have been some of the choice headlines reporting events in the Caucasus, but the reality is not only quite different, but the exact opposite. Sometimes this comes out in the third or fourth paragraph of the reportage, in which it is admitted that the Georgians tried to "retake" the "breakaway province" of South Ossetia. The Georgian bombing campaign and the civilian casualties – if they are mentioned at all – are downplayed and presented as subject to dispute.

The Georgians have been openly engaging in a military buildup since last year, and President Mikhail Saakashvili and his party have been proclaiming from the rooftops their aim of re-conquering South Ossetia (and rebellious Abkhazia, while they're at it). Avid readers of Antiwar.com saw this coming. In a column entitled "Wars to Watch Out For," I wrote:

"As President Mikheil Saakashvili deflowers his own revolution and shuts down the opposition media, he could well try to divert attention away from his political problems by ginning up a fresh conflict with the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both of which are protected by Russian troops and regional militias."

That's what Western reporters aren't telling their readers: the South Ossetians (and the Abkhazians) have had de facto independence since 1991, when they rose up against their "democratic" central government, which had banned regional parties from participating in elections. They beat back the Georgian army, which, nonetheless, inflicted a lot of casualties and damage. A low-level war has been in progress ever since, with Saakashvili and his ultra-nationalist party using the rebels as a foil to divert attention from their repressive domestic policies and Georgia's sad status as an economic basket case. As I wrote way back at the beginning of this year:
.
.
.
.
(continued)

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia vs West

http://www.kommersant.com/p1010376/r...a_evacuation_/

Alexander Belov, leader of Movement Against Illegal Migration, announced yesterday he arranges a raid in Moscow, aiming at the places where the Georgians tend to crowd. The raid is of peaceful nature, Belov assured. They will first inspect those places with video cameras, posing questions to neighbors, and then go to enforcement bodies should the collected data appear suspicious.

Now, they are drawing up the lists of flats, where the Georgians illegally reside and the lists of places, where the Georgian criminal bosses tend to meet, Belov said.

http://www.kommersant.com/gallery.as...&pics_id=81562

Activists of Movement Against Illegal Migration and Slavic Union march during the May Day demonstration in Moscow.

[rj1]

Re: Russia vs West

http://informationdissemination.blogspot.com/

Russia's Divide and Conquer Strategy



Give credit to Russia, they have exercised power brilliantly, and the end game is near. While there are still media reports of sporadic fighting in Russia well after the cease-fire, the objectives of Russia have become clear. The politics will now decide whether the cease-fire holds.

Early in the conflict Putin and Bush exchanged words in China, prior to Putin flying off to the front lines to be the face of the conflict. Some have described the Medvedev-Putin relationship in this conflict as "good cop/bad cop." We think that relationship applies, but not in a conventional way. We see Medvedev as the good cop for Europe, and Putin as the bad cop for the US.

Based on Bush's actions following his meeting with Putin: staying in China... and Bush's inactions following that meeting: doing almost nothing for Georgia; Russia essentially had the green light to achieve all of its objectives. There will be no partial achievements here.

Russia's objectives from the beginning has been the insurance of Russian interests for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We can only assume, based on Bush's press conference at the White House, that Bush expected Russia to fill in those regions with Russian troops and stop. We can also assume the administration did not believe Russia's tactical objectives included Senaki, Zugdidi, Gori, and Poti.

With these assumptions, and taking Russia at its word that the objectives are South Ossetia and Abkhazia, why then did Russia move on to these other tactical objectives? Furthermore, while Russia is established near all of the towns mentioned above, why has Russia stopped, set up defensive lines, and not occupied the cities themselves? How can we suggest that some sort of diplomatic effort factored into a cease fire where Russia ends up strategically positioned, dug in, and prepared to let loose its full force on the major cities in Georgia? One might imply instead that Russia positioned its forces exactly where they wanted them to be 'coincidently' before the cease fire was announced.

If Russia's strategic objective is South Ossetia and Abkhazia, then what is the purpose of the other territories Russia currently occupies? These represent Russian political concessions. No one can take them from Russia, and they can destroy the cities if their demands are not met. In other words, Russia can achieve exactly what they want, and if the west complies, Georgia gets to keep its country. If Georgia or the West doesn't comply? Georgia is destroyed further until the west accepts Russia's conditions. One should expect that one condition will be to validate Russian military action as legitimate.

All Russia needs is a broker. Enter France. This ran in the Russian press yesterday.

The US is not suited to the role of lead mediator in resolving the Georgian-Ossetian conflict. The statement was made by French Minister of Foreign and European Affairs Bernard Kouchner.

In Kouchner's opinion, the United States is actually part of the conflict, as it is present in Georgia and is equipping its armies, reports Channel 1.

Is it coincidence good cop Medvedev is ready to receive Sarkozy and work out a cease fire? We expect France to put forth a resolution of the conflict that puts the EU in charge of Georgia. This will insure Germany and France's position that Georgia should never join NATO, and will additionally give the EU a public victory in foreign policy and diplomacy. Russia gets its new provinces and legitimacy in its military action, while Georgia gets to survive, probably without regime change although the next election may not be kind to Saakashvili.

Where does that leave the US? The US has proven itself not to be factor in this entire affair, and that is not likely to change now. Georgia, a small country that joined the "coalition of the willing, " was left to the tender mercies of Russia thinking their friend the US would come. I'm sure the Chinese and Russians are ready to sell the script to other powers, and that script will sell.

Superpowers pay a high cost for action in the 21st century, but it is also true that superpowers pay a high cost of inaction in the 21st century. When Bush took the military option off the table, even if he never in a million years intended to actually use that option, he doomed Georgia. Russia hasn't given the United States a second thought since. The Bush Administration played poker with Putin, but did so with the cards face up on the table. We should expect results to reflect such a play.

When we say Russia's divide and conquer strategy, surely you didn't think we were talking about Georgia. Russia will use this incident to divide Europe and the US, there is humiliation coming for American inaction. The Russian exit strategy involves Europe throwing the US under the bus so Georgia can survive. It's Russia and France at the diplomatic table, what did you really expect? In that room, US interests finish last.

[Louie.G]

Re: Russia vs West

Hi Guys

My first post and I am neither Pro nor Foe Russia.

I came across this site this morning. They say they are "the world’s leading online publisher of geopolitical intelligence"

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo..._balance_power

Part of their report states

"The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery."

"The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike."

and now...

"August 12, 2008 1613 GMT
The Russians are offering a cease-fire in Georgia to avoid crossing a line with friends and foes alike and because Moscow does not want to administer Tbilisi"

I guess time, as always, will tell.

[metalman]

Re: Russia vs West

welcome to the tulip. i attempted to express a similar sentiment in this post...

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....3308#post43308

it's all about confrontation with the usa and cozying up to europe... think of the political points won at home. huge!

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

.......
When we say Russia's divide and conquer strategy, surely you didn't think we were talking about Georgia. Russia will use this incident to divide Europe and the US, there is humiliation coming for American inaction. The Russian exit strategy involves Europe throwing the US under the bus so Georgia can survive. It's Russia and France at the diplomatic table, what did you really expect? In that room, US interests finish last.

Can not agree more with all your post. But "divide and conquer" is used by US everywhere. The part of this problem that US made this possible by ignoring European and others interests for many years. Now the real game starts. I hope Russia will make this deal. This would help counterbalance US foreign policy and probably will be for all benefits.

[Louie.G]

Re: Russia vs West

welcome to the tulip. i attempted to express a similar sentiment in this post...

http://itulip.com/forums/showthread....3308#post43308

it's all about confrontation with the usa and cozying up to europe... think of the political points won at home. huge!

Thank you very much for the welcome.

I agree and feel all of your picments are pretty accurate (my new word for the day thanks to your post). The last one sums it all up most accurately and eloquently.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, you have made a dam good return on your investment.

Cheers