Russia vs West

[touchring]

Re: Russia vs West

I think the US is the lesser evil.

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.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Russia vs West

Russia has made very significant strategic gains at a very small cost. With the earlier loss of Ukraine they had lost a major strategic deep water port on the Black sea. With the new order in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they now control the only tunnel through the mountains and have complete access to the Black Sea deep water port in Abkhazia. So we can now expect a major new investment in both these facilities. This will further back up their investment as Georgia will now not have any access to the Russian markets on the other side of the tunnel.

Add to that new military bases in their newfound friendly nations, now all with new Russian passports and anyone can see this has been perhaps the greatest strategic blunder on the part of the US, certainly in my lifetime. And look just how close the new Black Sea facilities will be to Ukraine? And, again, remember that they can now legitimately bring their Mediterranean fleet into the Black Sea.

The whole exercise has been a wonderful bonus for Russia.

But what really gets my blood boiling is that the US could have played the same game in reverse by instead granting South Ossetia their freedom, giving them their own passports, thus also presenting the North Ossetians with a similar move and instead of the Russians having the upper hand, Europe and the US would have had a new, friendly enclave, inside Russia. Georgia would have had new investment. Abkhazia would have had the same deal and we would have new investment opportunities on the Black Sea coast.

But that would need a US administration centred on peaceful investment and freedom. Sic!:rolleyes:

That instead of using military means, they had used freedom, trade, investment as their tools, they could have had the whole setup on a plate to our advantage.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia vs West

Chris,

I agree on your assessment of the situation, but not that this was the greatest US strategic blunder.

There are several ahead of this one:

1) Iran: Iran is a nation which normally is at odds with its ostensibly Muslim brother nations.

By supporting an unpopular regime (the Shah) and then carrying out a continuous policy of aggression against the succeeding government, the US has converted what might have been an ally into a determined foe.

2) China: Russia and China have been skirmishing over their mutual border for a long long time. Siberia seems a natural fit for a nation with so many people and so little habitable land.

Even with the same revolutionary ideology, China and Russia were never more than uneasily coexistent.

Yet again the US ham handed policies have pushed together 2 otherwise unfriendly nations.

Georgia is a perfect example of the Iran-like thinking - support the government you have in your pocket even if they are foolish.

[touchring]

Re: Russia vs West

Even with the same revolutionary ideology, China and Russia were never more than uneasily coexistent.

Yet again the US ham handed policies have pushed together 2 otherwise unfriendly nations.

The Chinese won't want Siberia, if they wanted, they would have taken it 2000 years ago, when Russia and the Russian people didn't even exist.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Russia vs West

The Chinese won't want Siberia, if they wanted, they would have taken it 2000 years ago, when Russia and the Russian people didn't even exist.

Have you flown over Siberia lately? the whole area, from the Urals to China is rapidly warming and instead of the largest area of frozen tundra, there is the largest area of potential arable land, fertile, and perhaps able to support a very large population as well as feeding the rest of us. The potential prosperity of the region is quite off scale.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia vs West

Touchring,

Have you spent much time in China? At or north of Beijing?

It is friggin' cold there as well.

The summer in Siberia - at least in parts - is very conducive to farming. Think of the Great Plains in the US.

[Andreuccio]

Re: Russia vs West

Heh. Hope not. I've got 3 more years in the IRR, and a newborn daughter to raise.

Ash: Congratulations on the birth of your daughter.

[touchring]

Re: Russia vs West

Beijing is a terrible place, cold in winter and hot in summer, as the us president has learnt recently.

Touchring,

Have you spent much time in China? At or north of Beijing?

It is friggin' cold there as well.

The summer in Siberia - at least in parts - is very conducive to farming. Think of the Great Plains in the US.

[Supercilious]

Re: Russia vs West

An interesting piece from Russia:

Andrei Illarionov , a liberal economist and former policy advisor to the Russian president, has released his conclusions on the war in Georgia. The conflict, he argues, was a “brilliant provocation carefully planned and successfully carried out by the Russian leadership.”

However, the Russian leadership did not achieve its main goals– removing Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili from power and changing Georgia’s political regime. In Illarionov’s opinion, Georgia’s NATO aspirations have only been heightened.

By leading forces into the territory of a foreign government, Russia has been internationally recognized as an aggressor, according to the economist. Georgia, on the other hand, became an internationally recognized victim. Illarionov believes that Russia has become completely isolated in its foreign policy, as only Cuba supported Russia’s Georgian campaign.

“The G8 has, in effect, become the G7, ” Illarionov asserts.


The Second Georgian War: Preliminary Conclusions
Andrei Illarionov
Yezhednevny Zhurnal
August 13, 2008.

1. The war against Georgia was a brilliant provocation carefully planned and successfully carried out by the Russian leadership. The campaign was practically identical to the plan carried out in another theatre at another time — [Chechen warlord Shamil] Basaev’s attack into Dagestan and the beginning of the second Chechen war in 1999.
2. In the new situation that has taken shape following the war, Georgians may find a legitimate reason to recognise Georgia’s de facto loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
3. The military losses of Georgia are greater than those of Russia. At the same time, however, the financial, foreign policy, and moral losses of Russia are much more significant than those of Georgia.
4. The Russian leadership did not achieve its main goal — the ouster of [Georgian President] Mikheil Saakashvili, change of the political regime in Georgia, and Georgia’s rejection of membership in NATO. Rather, the opposite has happened.
5. The international community regards Russia as the aggressor that brought its forces into the territory of another member state of the United Nations. The international community regards Georgia as the victim of aggression.
6. Russia has found itself in almost total isolation in foreign policy terms. Only Cuba supported Russia’s intervention in Georgia. Neither Iran, nor Venezuela or Uzbekistan, not even Belarus said a word in Russia’s support.
7. The G8 has, in effect, become the G7. The series of foreign policy defeats of the Russian leadership, beginning with the Rose Revolution in Georgia in 2003 and the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, and including the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008, was now followed by yet another fiasco.
8. The Russian leadership succeeded in something that the rest of the world did not (want to) believe: The resurgence of fear of the “Russian bear”. This fear and — be it temporary — sense of powerlessness is something that the world will not forget for a long time.
9. Russians with no access to sources for news other than the official, found themselves in total isolation in terms of information. The degree of manipulation of public opinion, and the speed with which the society was brought to mass hysteria, are clear evidence of the regime’s “achievements,” and pose an undeniable and unprecedented danger to the Russian society.
10. The institutional catastrophe, about which I have had to speak about many times before, is happening before our very own eyes. Its main — albeit not the only — victim will be the Russian people.
11. The war helped reveal the true faces of some so-called liberals and democrats, who previously had condemned the “imperial syndrome,” but when it manifested itself, quickly caved in to the regime, calling for an attack on Tbilisi and for the reinforcement of Russia’s defence and law enforcement agencies.
12. The only political institution, members of which were capable of formulating differing opinions regarding the war (including those, with whom I do not agree in principle) and discussing them, was the National Assembly. In effect, the National Assembly proved — in a moment of crisis — that it is better able than any other institution to function as a proto-parliament.
13. The war confirmed once more the validity of the most important principles of conduct of morally conscious Russian citizens in relation to the present regime:
–do not believe,
–do not fear,
–do not beg,
–do not cooperate.

[c1ue]

Re: Russia vs West

Some info which our lovely MSM has still failed to note: the recent past of 'pro-democracy' Saakashvili...

http://www.blacklistednews.com/view.asp?ID=4733

Georgia's president has declared a state of emergency in the capital Tbilisi, in the wake of opposition protests against his rule.


Mikhail Saakashvili on Wednesday requested parliamentary approval for the imposition of emergency powers, hours after demonstrators were dispersed from outside the parliament in the capital by riot police officers.

"The president has declared a state of emergency in Tbilisi and this decision will be submitted to parliament within 48 hours," Zurab Nogaideli, Georgia's prime minister, said on television

And Saakashvili storming an opposition television station to shut it down:

[MEDIA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHxQZmMRysU[/MEDIA]

And arrests political opponents

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7019845.stm

And appoints his buds to head up both the Georgian law enforcement and judicial divisions

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2368188

And the list goes on and on.

[Chris Coles]

Re: Russia vs West

When it comes to Saakashvili I am reminded of the old title; Stool Pigeon. The ultimate reason for all this is nothing to do with Georgia or Russia, it is Obama and preventing him winning in November by making him look powerless, when the Neocons can bluster for a few months covering their tracks with hyperbole. He must be tearing his hair out in Hawaii wondering what to do next and the fact is he can do nothing.

The Russians will stay in Georgia, set up a "protection force" for the Ossetians and link their enclave with the coastal ports so that both are connected and "protected". They know that no one is going to start a full scale war to get them out and as such, as the rest of the world has already painted them into a corner, they might as well make the most of it. After they have created a "Protection force", (Russian soldiers in new Ossetian uniforms), they will "pull out" with great fanfare.

Remember, all the munitions recently supplied to Georgia are now being picked up for analysis and later, profitable sale onto the black market. I should expect that Southern Ossetia will become the new retirement resort of choice for the Russian generals who are, as we speak, looking around for the best houses to occupy. And remember, this has brought the same army into Georgia that has already largely destroyed Chechnya.

This evening, we are told that they have already "threatened" Poland.

The ultimate poker game with Russia throwing all their chips onto the table and smiling. As they see it, the Neocons will not move against them and they will have both won their respective "games". November election keeps the Republicans in power and that brings the prospect of another five years of fear politics. So in that case, no one has any incentive to do anything other than keep the whole thing going. Potential war is good business to the Neocons; just as it is for the Russians too.

My last thought is to ask just how long will it take the rest of Europe to work this all out? After Georgia, Europe and the free world are the real losers from all this.

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

Let me make some points about Russia vs West.

At this moment there is nothing like "Cold War" or "Hot War" ideas in Russian society. Not any. It is only on Western minds. Russia had several bloody wars past years so it would be impossible to mobilize people for next 10-20 years at least. Or it should be some real threat with invasion in Russian borders when all Russians would treat it as patriotic. But regarding NATO etc there is some kind of nation memory-idea that somebody would like to capture Russia if it will weaken. And it has historical ground: Sweeden war, Napoleon invasion, Nazis invasion. All these wars and some others were threats which could destroy Russians as the nation. That is why NATO or any military things near the borders cause this negative reaction. One Russian Czar said "Best Russian friends are army and navy".

What is happening for last 20 year just proved this in eyes of Russians: in 90x national wealth was in hands of oligarchs and the process of transfer this wealth toward other countries started with support of international institutes like IMF. At the same time NATO encircled Russia breaking the agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev. So many starts to believe that West is not a friend how they thought before.

Russia now is completely different from USSR even if somebody thinks the political system is similar. Russians want to have a friendship with the West, integrate in some areas like trade, security, travel and etc. Not to be dissolved in the West but to be separate entity with own ideas and pathway. Russians have no interest to "conquer" the West, they more afraid of that West will do this because of Russian territory and resources. Since Russia exposed tremendous changes for last 20 year it is more flexible society comparing to West which is still living in "Cold War" stereotypes.

Again Russian officials constantly repeating that we have more world wide troubles we need to work on instead of fighting each others.

What is about comparing Stalin and Putin it is irrelevant. Russia was ruined before Putin so he was a social necessity at that time. Think about history who unifies and bonds the societies in difficult times: usually military type of people.

Now the main problem of Russian society is not to war with the west, but evolving inside the borders since Putin's system is very unstable and corruption replaced the breakdown. Now since Russia have the stability Putin's system will start to drag the country and main fights I see as a political struggle inside the Russia. The only threat to the West if it continues push Russia. In that case some ultra nationalistic powers could take the power and start bad things outside.

So we need to cooperate and forget the old fears. Respect each other and there will be a peace.

[metalman]

Re: Russia vs West

Let me make some points about Russia vs West.

At this moment there is nothing like "Cold War" or "Hot War" ideas in Russian society. Not any. It is only on Western minds. Russia had several bloody wars past years so it would be impossible to mobilize people for next 10-20 years at least. Or it should be some real threat with invasion in Russian borders when all Russians would treat it as patriotic. But regarding NATO etc there is some kind of nation memory-idea that somebody would like to capture Russia if it will weaken. And it has historical ground: Sweeden war, Napoleon invasion, Nazis invasion. All these wars and some others were threats which could destroy Russians as the nation. That is why NATO or any military things near the borders cause this negative reaction. One Russian Czar said "Best Russian friends are army and navy".

What is happening for last 20 year just proved this in eyes of Russians: in 90x national wealth was in hands of oligarchs and the process of transfer this wealth toward other countries started with support of international institutes like IMF. At the same time NATO encircled Russia breaking the agreement between Reagan and Gorbachev. So many starts to believe that West is not a friend how they thought before.

Russia now is completely different from USSR even if somebody thinks the political system is similar. Russians want to have a friendship with the West, integrate in some areas like trade, security, travel and etc. Not to be dissolved in the West but to be separate entity with own ideas and pathway. Russians have no interest to "conquer" the West, they more afraid of that West will do this because of Russian territory and resources. Since Russia exposed tremendous changes for last 20 year it is more flexible society comparing to West which is still living in "Cold War" stereotypes.

Again Russian officials constantly repeating that we have more world wide troubles we need to work on instead of fighting each others.

What is about comparing Stalin and Putin it is irrelevant. Russia was ruined before Putin so he was a social necessity at that time. Think about history who unifies and bonds the societies in difficult times: usually military type of people.

Now the main problem of Russian society is not to war with the west, but evolving inside the borders since Putin's system is very unstable and corruption replaced the breakdown. Now since Russia have the stability Putin's system will start to drag the country and main fights I see as a political struggle inside the Russia. The only threat to the West if it continues push Russia. In that case some ultra nationalistic powers could take the power and start bad things outside.

So we need to cooperate and forget the old fears. Respect each other and there will be a peace.

well stated! usa leaders are quite stupid on this front. they press china on human rights and tibet only to strengthen the hawks inside china. with nothing to react to the hawks and dictators die off. chavez is an invention of bush. what will he do if obama is elected? no one to fight with... he'll whither and die. same with russia. who does putin have to fight with to justify agressive moves like planting a flag under the arctic claiming oil?

[Guest]

Re: Russia vs West

I don't normally read Nyquist as he tends to be a raging cold warrior stuck in a rut, however given some of the truly silly candy-coated things I'm reading in one or two posts here regarding "misunderstandings" and "misrepresentation", parts of what Mr. Nyquist writes appear to me to be fairly clear headed observations in comparison. The most critical part of what this thread overlooks is not "Russia Vs. The West," which is a generalization worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster film. What this topic should be examining is the de-facto Finlandization of Europe to Russia due to rapidly approaching ENERGY DERIVED geo-political hegemony - this is the elephant in the room apparently not getting properly factored in here. You might call it "putting the GEO into Geo-politics".

I think the lack of mention of this point in RU > EU geopolitics (energy will be the great strangling TRUMP CARD of the next 20 years) renders all the rest of the observations here summarily invalid. You cannot talk about "peace, rapprochement, and the clarification about bad misunderstandings between east and west in EU-RUSSIA" unless you cast a very sharp eye on the power politics engulfing the ENERGY equation. And in this area, Europe is soft, utopian and ripe for Russia's picking - already, today. Frankly all this talk about Putin's Russia being more focused on internal development, compromises with the West and the talk about "building bridges" makes me wonder if people holding these views about a "misunderstood Putin" ever heard about real-politik.

Countries don't have friends, they only have interests. We all claim to know this, but who is observing this wisdom in interpreting this threads question? We need to tattoo this point on our collective foreheads, because just like lone humans (or animals for that matter) when nations go hungry, they quickly regress to the state of 'DOG EAT DOG" and the hunger fast approaching is for ENERGY, and the dog who will be doing the eating of the other dog is the one who has the energy, while the dog who will be fed the bare bones is the dog who does not have the energy. The energy rich dog will rapidly progress to where he has the power to keep the dog without energy alive. All the rest is silly chatter.

I don't like Nyquists right wing politics, and I am most at home with 110% constructive diplomatic dialogue rather than conflict, but I think Mr. Nyquist has it 100% correct in this article, and everyone here posting warm and fuzzy talk about how we are all "misunderstanding" has a head full of cotton wool. This is the REAL face of the next 20 years, between EU, Russia, and USA.

I say, beware. He who controls what you may continue to get of energy, has a rope knotted firmly around your throat, while you sleep.

[ And BTW Metalman, "Chavez is an invention of Bush" is not the most astute of your comments. Try that observation out on an educated Venezuelan who has been opposed to Chavez for the past few years. They will more likely tell you that "Chavez is an invention of Chavez", and invite you to take a front row seat and observe the unfolding spectacle of his continuing "self-invention of Chavez" first hand. And with regard to claims on Arctic oil and gas reserves? If we follow your strategy of letting Putin make all the claims he wants at the Arctic Circle, on the premise that without challenge from other nations he'll merely get bored and go home, we will most certainly then witness the construction of a large sign at the North Pole surrounded by a busy oil boom town, and the sign will read "Welcome to the GAZPROM EXCLUSIVE ENTERPRISE ZONE. That's when the oil costs $500 a barrel and whoever has that particular franchise will have a very healthy national balance of payments indeed. Perhaps if we feign disinterest Putin will instead get bored and go home? ]

________________

RUSSIA'S CONCEPT FOR DOMINATING EUROPE - BY J.R. Nyquist

M oscow’s blitzkrieg in Georgia is more than a military campaign. It is designed to empower Russia’s diplomatic strategy, which seeks to make the European Union (EU) the West’s chief representative in future negotiations with Russia. Quite naturally the Kremlin wants to escape the logic of U.S. and NATO policy, which is to contain Russia within her national borders. Meanwhile, the European Union is an entirely different animal: toothless, utopian and ready to please.

The Kremlin strategists believe that the United States is on the brink of a crippling dislocation. According to a July 29 Pravda article, an anonymous Russian diplomat revealed that the “Russian administration believes the United States may soon suffer from a serious political crisis.” The sequence begins with a financial crash, advances to political unrest and finally to the dissolution of American military power. As the Russian diplomat warned, “America is standing on the verge of a large-scale crisis of its own existence.”

Last month Russia’s ambassadors were called back to Moscow. On July 15 President Dmitry Medvedev spoke to them at the Foreign Ministry. “I would like to use this opportunity for an open and pragmatic conversation,” explained Medvedev to the assembled diplomats. “Russia is indeed stronger and able to assume greater responsibility for solving problems on a regional and global scale.” You see, the Cold War was not an American victory. Medvedev reminded his colleagues that they had “survived the Cold War.” And now Russia is prepared to establish “a new equilibrium.”

Medvedev’s speech was prescient: “the habit … of resorting to force … is increasing…. In such circumstances it is important to maintain restraint and to evaluate situations carefully.” When wars break out, it’s best to know what you’re fighting for; so Medvedev wanted his ambassadors to familiarize themselves with the party line before they headed back to their embassies. We should not worry about Cold War style confrontations, Medvedev lectured. “I am convinced that with the end of the Cold War the underlying reasons for most of the bloc politics and bloc discipline simply disappeared.”

In other words, NATO is divided. And NATO’s violation of Yugoslavian sovereignty in 1999 now enables a devastating Russian response.

History ought to be remembered, said Medvedev. “We simply cannot accept the attempts taking place in individual countries to highlight the ‘civilizing, liberating mission’ of the fascists and their accomplices.” He was obliquely referring to anti-Communist patriots in Georgia, Ukraine and the Baltic States, and to the way they’d welcomed the German invaders in 1941.

“Characteristically,” he continued, “it is those states that have such a passion for rewriting history and domestic and foreign policies that are at the same time the most zealous advocates of illegal acts, like the Kosovo precedent…. And those same states are the ones who have become ultra-nationalist in their policies, harassing national minorities and denying rights to the so-called ‘stateless’ citizens in their countries.”

Here was an obvious reference to Georgia, which was about to be invaded by Russian motorized and airborne divisions. “For us, this task is particularly important, since in many cases we are talking about abuses against Russians and Russian-speaking populations. And protecting and defending those rights is obviously one of our responsibilities.” And then, Medvedev explained Russia’s overall diplomatic strategy: “I have focused on these aspects because Europe today needs a positive rather than negative agenda.” In other words, the invasion of Georgia is not an end in itself.

The real purpose of this operation, the Russian president hinted, was to highlight the dangerous obsolescence of NATO and Europe’s unrealistic expectations with regard to Russia. The old treaties will not keep the peace, he said, because they are unfair. Russia is a great power and deserves greater influence. “I’m absolutely convinced that this requires new approaches,” he explained. “That is why we proposed to conclude a new treaty on European security and to start this process at a European-wide summit.”

The invasion of Georgia now comes into focus. As President Medvedev noted, there are “flaws in the architecture of European security….” The Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) agreement is unfair because it forbids Russia from positioning large tank armies in Europe. This sort of thing won’t do, said Medvedev. What we need is “a truly open and collective security system.” What Moscow must demand, in fact, is the reform of international institutions. The old Soviet republics must be reintegrated through a strengthening of the Commonwealth of Independent States. According to Medvedev,

“A strategic partnership between Russia and the EU could act as the so-called cornerstone of a Greater Europe without dividing lines….” [ :rolleyes: ]

The formula is simple. Expose NATO’s weakness. Welcome the European Union as a mediator and deplore the meaningless twaddle of a helpless U.S. president. The West is weak and the time has come to prepare a great harvest. It is not the 1940s, Tbilisi is not Berlin, and George Bush is not Harry Truman. A new era has dawned in which the Americans stand at the sidelines. “The United States strongly supports France’s efforts, as President of the European Union, to broker an agreement that will end this conflict,” said President Bush.

What a silly, silly statement.

How many divisions does the EU have?

Today the European Union confronts Russia in the same way Neville Chamberlain confronted Hitler in 1938; being outwitted and tricked in the ceasefire negotiations, there is no possible outcome other than appeasement. The Russians insist that their troops be accepted as peacekeepers in Georgia. The French mediators allow this. And so, the stipulated withdrawal of combatants therefore does not apply to the Russian troops. Under this ceasefire agreement Moscow can claim – in a strictly legal sense – that Russian troops can stay in Georgia indefinitely.

President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin are laughing at the French while observing international law. Meanwhile, occupied Georgia is looted and burned; Georgian ships are sunk and the Georgian capital is strangled.

NATO has done nothing, even though NATO has promised to make Georgia a member of the alliance. NATO defers to the European Union. Bush also defers and sends his Secretary of State to Paris instead of Moscow. While all of Europe demanded a negotiated solution, only Poland and the Baltic States (along with Sweden and Denmark) denounced Russian military aggression. All of Europe should have denounced Russia with one voice. All of Europe should have eschewed “negotiations.” All of Europe should have demanded an immediate withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgia. All of Europe should have begun to mobilize troops and combat aircraft for the defense of Georgia. Only in that event, Russia would have retreated.

But the Kremlin knew, in advance, this wouldn’t happen. There is no “military confrontation” in Georgia. As President Medvedev said, “I am convinced that with the end of the Cold war … bloc discipline simply disappeared.”

The Russian president is right.

[VIT]

Re: Russia vs West

To LukeSter:

I heard the same things before. But I think if we know this strategy he wanted us to know it.

I believe most societies are developing by their internal means so you can tell or demand whatever you want in foreign policy. But it should be supported by nation at a whole.

The idea of interests does not mean military wars. But dominating in a Europe is a stretch . Russia has only 140 mlns and a lot of demographic problems.