Georgia crisis tests EU
You can't accuse the French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of lacking a sense of drama. He has branded Russia an "international outlaw" after it recognised the breakaway Georgian regions, and warned of the possibility of more conflicts to come along the Russian/European fault line. He told French radio that he's worried not about a new cold war but "hot" wars: "We fear a war and don't want one". 
The UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has been just as tough in a speech in Ukraine, telling Russia it is less trusted and less respected than before, that it is guilty of double standards.
European Union diplomats are well aware that Russia feels a humiliating sense of grievance over the contraction of its sphere of influence since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Consider that three EU member states actually used to be inside the USSR and seven were more or less within Moscow's grip. Consider that all Warsaw Pact members, apart from Russia itself, are now members of Nato. Many of these eastern EU members have been complaining strongly for a while about what they see as Russian provocation and interference, something I reported on last year.
Now for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union Russian tanks have rolled into an independent country, a part of the old empire. The worry of diplomats is that this is not a one-off but that Russia could wield hot war to thaw other "frozen conflicts", as they are know in the jargon. Trans-Dniester, officially part of Moldova, is the most obvious case.
Ukraine is the most worrying. Like Georgia, Ukraine is a former Soviet republic aspiring to join the EU and Nato. The split between the pro-Western and pro-Russian factions are deep and bitter. Russia is said to eye the Crimea, part of Ukraine, with particular proprietary interest. Mr Miliband has renewed Britain's commitment to Ukraine, strengthening its links with the EU and building its military through Nato.
But Mr Kouchner also says that the crisis, while regrettable, gives Europe a chance to assert itself. But how? It's true that French President Nicolas Sarkozy, taking the lead while his country chairs the EU, quickly brokered a peace deal. It is true both the US and Russia saw this as a natural role for the EU. But while the peace holds, the deal is in tatters: the French and most other EU countries believe that the Russians have not kept their part of the bargain. The EU's ambassadors meet tomorrow to prepare for Monday's emergency summit. But it is not clear what they can do.
President Sarkozy has raised some hackles by suggesting that if the Lisbon Treaty were in force things would have been much easier. It's rather an odd red herring of an argument. If the EU were governed by the rules of the Lisbon Treaty there would be a much more powerful high representative, with money and a bureaucracy to help him or her. He or she would probably not have been delighted with President Sarkozy muscling in on what would clearly be the High Rep's job. So Mr Sarkozy seems to be arguing that he shouldn't have been allowed such a free hand, which may or may not be correct.
But of course institutional arrangements would have little impact on a fundamental truth of EU foreign policy: the huge difficulty in agreeing anything beyond bland platitudes.
All the usual reasons apply. It would be weird if 27 countries did not have very different approaches, driven by different history and geographies. Some will say that makes it not worth the effort, others that it is better than the European differences being paraded proudly and openly.
Poland has led the Baltic states in demanding a tough response. Sweden has given strong backing to this position. Britain is at the same end of the spectrum, with the foreign secretary talking about organising a coalition against the Russian action. Germany wants dialogue with Russia kept open, which cynics will interpret as worrying more about lots of lovely oil than the national sovereignty of Caucasian countries. Italy's PM Silvio Berlusconi is evidently telling fellow leaders that he has a personal relationship with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin and will smooth things over.
But it is not this traditional division alone that is hampering firm action. There is the very real question of what the EU or indeed the West can do. I came off the phone to several diplomats rather puzzled about their apparent fuzziness and lack of a plan. My initial feeling was it was rather lame.
Then, as I sometimes do, I tried to war-game in my head the options. What would I say if I was an adviser to an EU foreign secretary? Scenario one went something like this:
Minister: "Mark," (or it could be Marko, Marcus or Marc... this could be any European capital) says the foreign secretary, "you've always said that the Russians are bullies - 'only thing the bear understands is a sharp rap across the snout' I believe was the phrase. What do you advise?"
Adviser: "Clearly a tangible rebuke is needed, a punishment: we could stop them joining the World Trade Organization."
Minister: "But it's in our interest to have them inside a rule-based international organization - and before you say it, the same goes for the partnership agreement the EU is negotiating."
Adviser: "The G7 could stop inviting Russia to G8 meetings."
Minister: "The McCain solution? Russia doesn't seem bothered."
Adviser: "End co-operation with Nato?"
Minister: "That's happened on paper, and what about our supply routes to Afghanistan through Russia?"
Adviser: "Well, at least speed up Nato entry for Georgia and Ukraine. If Chancellor Merkel hadn't blocked it we wouldn't be here now."
Minister: "No. We might not. Or we might be in the middle of world war three, or trying to wriggle out of clear commitments to go to war."
Adviser: "Warn them about the dangers of ignoring national sovereignty by invading another country... they could end up being regarded by the rest of the world just like...".
Minister: "Yes?"
Adviser: "Never mind."
War-gaming the second scenario is much easier.
Minister: "Mark, you've always urged keeping the dialogue open with Russia and not treating her as a pariah: isn't that just appeasement?"
Adviser: "Such a dirty word, minister. Putin is not Hitler. No, our outrage is clear but back channels can also make it clear this is a special case. Russia has special interests here and if it is regarded as a bit of tit-for-tat over Kosovo: well, we agree to disagree on these two cases."
Minister: "But it's not a one-off is it? It is pretty clear they want to push back into the old Soviet space."
Adviser: "It's a one-off if we say it is. If we say it is part of a wider crisis then it becomes so. Do you honestly think they are going to march into Ukraine? We have to keep Nato membership on the table for Georgia and Ukraine, but these things can drag on. When did Turkey first apply to join the EU? 1959 I think."
Minister: "So just let them get away with it."
Adviser: "Heavens, no. Ramp up the rhetoric and warnings. Stand shoulder-to-shoulder with every plucky country in the region. Words like 'illegal', 'disproportionate' and even 'untrustworthy' are helpful, or 'may be deployed within forty-five minutes'."
Minister: "Steady!"
Adviser: "And point out the damage to their stock market."
Minister: "Let the market decide? I like it."
I am sure the foreign ministers have much cleverer and more imaginative advisers than me, so the outcome may be rather different. But one very senior diplomat did point out that, while President Bush is urging EU nations to show some toughness, on Monday the White House didn't have any concrete proposals for action either. Round conference tables in the Western capitals there are no hawks, just different species of dove.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~12~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Maybe the West should respond by recognising the independence of Chechnya, and, for a laugh, Tatarstan.
Complain about this comment
just a few hours ago in one of the BBC articles related to the Georgia crisis there was few words of wisdom from the former british ambassador to Yugoslavia mentioning the 'issues' of having the West accepted Kosovo independence and opened a Pandora's box.
now I can't find that section anymore.
why is the BBC so reluctant to draw comparisons with what has happened just few months ago?
because if Russia is the aggressor now then other nations were too in the past?
Complain about this comment
Perhaps just go to war as the now beligerant Poles seem to want. Hate to see grown men cry don't you? See how noisy they all become when the cold hard winter appears at the same time as the Russian gas disappears!~So come on all those motor mouths such as Milliband, let's see what you're made of. Or is the talk more to do with a possible Prime Minister post?
Complain about this comment
So Russia has recognised the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I'm sure the militants of those two nations will take them at their word.
Within a year, Russian 'peacekeepers' will be the target of attacks by local militants, funded by the CIA and, no doubt, using Georgian logistics.
Complain about this comment
Mark
The first question to ask is what is special about the official borders of Georgia that makes them worth us defending them?
Wasn't it the case that the borders of Georgia within the former USSR were fixed by Stalin who wished to ensure that the individual republics that made up the USSR were not sustainable on their own? This meant that Georgia was given territory where the local population was not Georgian, like South Ossetia and Akhasia. It seems perverse, to say the least, that the West should be seeking to defend boundaries set by Stalin, rather than favouring the democratic will of the people of South Ossetia and Akhasia!!!
The Russians are only doing precisely what the West did by invading Serbia and occupying Kosovo and later in recognising Kosovo as an independent state. Our Government is guilty of gross hypocrisy by condemning Russia and has only themselves to blame for creating this crisis in relations with Russia.
I trust Russia will treat David Miliband and our Government with the same contempt that our Government showed when they totally ignored Russia's objection to the recognition of Kosovo.
Our Govt has forgotten that this crisis was caused by Georgia trying to regain control of South Ossetia and attacking Rusian peacekeepers. That was the equivalent of Serbia trying to regain control of Kosovo and attacking NATO peacekeepers. We wouldn't put up with that and the same is equally true for Russia.
Georgia created this crisis by attacking Russia and we are compounding it. The Georgian President is a liability we can all do without.
This is a time for building bridges with Russia and not a time for recreating a totally unnecessary Cold War in which the West is in the wrong.
We should not forget that Russia has now recovered their economic strength. We should be seeking closer ties to bind them closer to us. Russia is going to become more powerful anyway, so surely it is all our interests and our security to ensure that they are a friendly and not a hostile power?
Finally, I didn't notice the West going to the defence of Azerbaijan after the Armenians won the war with them in 1994. That war ended after a Russian-brokered cease-fire was put in place. The war was a success for the Karabakh Armenian forces who managed to secure 14% of Azerbaijan's internationally recognised territory, including the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh itself.
All this history and examples I have provided of double standards by our leaders only serves to illustrate the hypocrisy and stupidity of our stand over Georgia today
Complain about this comment
Not in a million years would I defend or even be thought to be defending those gangsters in the Kremlin the West is partly to blame for this mess by so preciptously recognising Kosovo. After that it is merely a matter of perspective whether or not Moscow's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are provocative or merely spell loyalty to Mother Russia. To the man in the street in Russia it will seem to be very much a case of what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The inconvenient truth is that a rather substantial majority in Russia has been doing rather well since the demise of the Soviet Union (after a few early rough years) and is unconvinced that this democracy lark is worth a candle. But they are convinced that, despite US denials, the missiles Washington wants to station in Poland and the various moves to get several former Soviet bloc states into Nato are all at heart intended as threats to Russia. Not so, we cry, we are peace-loving democrats. Honest. Well, we like to think so, but invading Iraq to bring about 'regime change' in the greater interest of humankind and all that sort of guff rather underwhelms your average Russian who is apt to see hypocrisy in the West's every move. As for the EU managing to cobble together a unified strategy which all 27 - 27, for goodness sake - will stick to rigidly, well, I'm not at all sanguine, but for once I hope Brussels will prove me wrong. You see Moscow knows just what a load of bickering idiots inhabit Brussels and seems to be banking on the fact that whatever it does, the EU couldn't organise an orgy in brothel.
Complain about this comment
What the European Union could accomplish regarding the Georgia-Russia crisis? We can't accomplish anything because we are to divided. France, Germany, Italy, Austria and Greece do not support a tougher approach on Russia while the Baltics, Britain, Poland, Denmark, Sweden, Czech Republic and Holland support a tougher approach (I'm not familar with the positions of the remaining European Union countries). It seems to me the European Union has accomplished just a War of Words.
Complain about this comment
Yes, from what of read in the international/European press, governments have been struggling to get to grips with the situation. In part, due to needing to safeguard energy supplies.
There are of course other factors that particularly make pro-dialogue European leaders feel awkward:
- There is obviously history in South Ossetia and Abkhazia dating back to 1992 after the civil war in Georgia.
- The 'Rose Revolution' was dubiously funded and supported and Georgia's recent human rights/Democratic record has been appalling.
- Mikheil Saakashvili launched the attack upon South Ossetia and it was launched with an artillery and missile bombardment upon a civilian population.
- Hypocrasy is a factor..... when the US/Clinton attacked Yugoslavia in 1999 he didn’t even try to get UN approval, he just bypassed it completely in favor of a unilateral assault. Nineteen nations, all of NATO, technically signed up to the war but the US (with UK assistance) took the lead role and did most of the fighting, just like Bush’s “coalition” in Iraq. Most of the world was against the war, there were even small riots in front of US embassies. Unlike the Iraq war, the US did have the support of West European governments, but the rest of the world was against it (some were extremely upset). One of the administration’s slogans was “multilateral when we can, unilateral when we must,".
During the war all sorts of allegations were thrown around about hundreds of thousands of Kosovars being massacred, rape camps being set up, mass graves littering the province and so on. NATO’s own investigations, after the war was over, failed to find any proof of these accusations. There were atrocities, as in almost every war, but nothing even remotely approaching genocide. NATO’s bombings killed more people than the so-called “ethnic cleansing” which allegedly motivated it. Just as there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, there was no ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Furthermore, the CIA later admitted that it began supporting the KLA even before the bombing started. In other words, Clinton intentionally instigated the whole conflict, using the KLA as a proxy army to attack Yugoslavia and create a situation where he would have an excuse to bomb the country.
- There's also the the issues of Iraq/Afghanistan/The War on Terror.
This doesn't mean Russia are right by any means, it just means that there's recent precedent of major nations invading other nations dubiously.
My advice to the hawks like John McCain, David Cameron, Dicky Cheney et al is to take some holiday - preferrably for a very long time.
Georgia (bolstered by the US) walked into this and they've got to live with the circumstances.
In order to alleviate those circumstances, we should follow the Germans and keep on talking. As for Eastern European countries, they should simply avoid raining missiles down on any civilian populations - just in case there are any Russians there!
Complain about this comment
There is another conversation:
Adviser: Georgia has behaved badly by an indiscriminate on a city. We should have said this at the start of this conflict, and supported Russia in defending civilians.
Minister: Are you mad, what will Bush think of that?
Adviser: We should then invite Russia to join the European Union
Minister: What, you mean actually develop meaningful relationships with a cold-war adversary?
Adviser: Look back at the history of the EU, it was designed to prevent war between former enemies.
Minister: You might have something there.
Adviser: (speechless, in a state of shock that common sense exists)
Complain about this comment
Mark, you need to make one correction to this latest blog.
You suggest it was Sarkozy on behalf of the EU who brokered the socalled peace deal. Well, let me tell you, neither Sarkozy nor the EU had anything to do with it. Medvedev and Putin drew the deal up and allowed Sarkozy to present it as his own. Unless of course it really was Sarkozy's idea to allow for Russian buffer zones within Georgia itself (I would call that the 'Daladier' method ---> Sudetenland).
That Kouchner sees the Georgia situation as a chance for the EU doesn't surprise me at all. This is only the latest of the 'beneficial crises'. A beneficial crisis is a crisis that will inevitably be used by the EU in an attempt to wrest even more powers away from the memberstates (remember folks: vetos represent sovereignty and national democracy).
And what an arrogance from people like Miliband. First he helps recognizing Kosovo, then he betrays Britain by ratifying something 80% of the British didn't want to be ratified, and now he starts lecturing other countries that they cannot do what he and the rest of the west (US/EU) can do.
Speaking of a common foreign policy, now who's foreign policy would that be? Germany is heavily dependent on Russian gas. France has no moral authority because its troops still fight covert dirty wars in Ivory Coast and Chad. Italy is too busy with clearing up the immigration mess created by the EU's rules. Are they gonna force countries who disagree with the 'common' policy to 'toe the line'?
Well, I for one hope we never see the day of a 'common foreign policy' or any kind of superstate or supreme government in Europe. Superpowerism is bad, bad, bad!!! I never want the EU to have the capability of 'beneficiously' putting parts of non-EU countries under its protection by military means. And yes, that IS what they want in Brussels, a common foreign policy and a common army, they just won't ask us peoples because they already know the answer.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Mark Mardell is just being obtuse, but there are obvious reasons why having a High Rep in place- and a fully tooled up External Action service would have helped the EU considerably in the present crisis. It is not an either/or situation (ie. either a High Rep or a Foreign Minister acts.) Rather, it is a 'both/and' situation.
Having a High Rep and common External action service in place would have given us three benefits. First, the thinking and scenario planning would have been done, anticipating just such a crisis in Georgia (the surprise is that it is not a surprise.)
Secondly, institutions are vital precisely because they create the process of bringing all the analyses together and forging a consensus and-- have the machinery then to deliver. Getting a few foreign ministers around a table to cobble together a position- the curent situation-- is no alternative.
Yes, nation-states have different interests, but don't exaggerate those differences. And having a shared institutional set-up will go along way to smoothing out those differences, understanding our differences where they occur and combining our forces where necessary.
Complain about this comment
Why not ask the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia what they want? Aren't we supposed to believe in self-determination (up to a point)?
Complain about this comment
@ 5
Busby2
What are you talking about?
The west did not invade Serbia,but it initially pressured to end military operations against civilians.And then only as a last resort went on with the bombing campaign,with a broad consensuss of all European countries,and most members of the U.N.
More then a Milion refugees and thousends dead and towns burned to the ground was before NATO bombed.
Had NATO not interfered in tha conflict do you or anyone really imagine what the consequences would have been?There'd probably still be a war going on in Europe that would have draged in half of the continent.
(And you are sain that this should have been allowed to apease the brutal government policies of Russia without regard to human values whatsoever,and to apease a crazy,completely out of the mind Miloshevic regime,and satisfy a crazy,completely out of the mind,and continuing Serbian nationalism?)
The crissis was not started by Georgia as is commonly sugested,go a few days back in time and news buletins to find out that it was started by militants operating under the nose of the Peacekeepers and freely attacking Georgian army within their own country backed up financially,and militarily by the very (suposedly) peacekeepers.
Georgia did not attack Russia ,but even if it did use disproportionate force against militants backed by Russia within their own country,Russia still had no right whatsoever to invade territories outside the disputed areas,and into Georgia,destroying in the proces infrastructure and looting at will.And lets not forget about ethnicaly cleansing South Osettia of Georgians, and Abkhazia as well,which was not under military attack by Georgia.
What you fail to understand is that there was no alternative to Kosovo's independence.
It was not the west's wish to make Kosovo independent,since it was the West itself who gave Kosovo to Serbia in 1912 ignoring the will of the population.And Kosovo could have well continued to be part of Serbia even today was it not for the disastrous,ultranationalistic policies of the Miloshevic regime.More then 90% of the population there dont want a return under Serbia,and it would have been imposible for any government in Kosovo not to declare independence.
And by not recognising their independence just because Russia dont want to,because it wants a foothold in the hart of Europe,would have been wrong,and would have served no purpuse.
Complain about this comment
Alanbloggz, you're totally wide of the mark.
The Poles don't want war, they've had enough of it. But Poland is a naturally defensive nation (Bad geographic position). They want to protect themselves, as does every other sensible country in the region. The Baltics, the Scandinavians etc.
The Poles know what it's like to have your allies forget about you and land in Moscow's orbit. Have a read about Yalta 1945.
They want to make sure it can never ever happen again.
In that sense, despite a rather unstable internal political culture, Poland's Foreign Policy has remained remarkably consistent.
As an extenstion of this, the installation of the US missile defence system within its borders is one way of ensuring Poland's Western-orientated democratic freedom. Only once there is a respect for it's territories, and for those of it's neighbours, can Warsaw start to build any meaningful bridges with Moscow.
What is needed is a strong stand of unity against the wailing greedy bear. Not talk of war.
But Mr Mardell is right. The EU looks lame. When you're relying on Berlusconi, you know things are bad. But Capo to Capo, Berlusconi to Putin, at least they'll be speaking in the same style.
Complain about this comment
The hypocrisy being demonstrated by western governments during this crisis is staggering beyond belief!
Complain about this comment
@ 6
pfgpowell
Russia has admited that South Ossetia and Kosovo are not simmilar cases,and if you new anything about the legal,historical and political aspects of the conflicts as a course of logical conclussion you would have to admit that aswell.
The democratically elected government of Kosovo declared independence from Serbia as a matter of urgency,urgency for political stability,security on the ground,and economical progress.
The country is being sufocated by overpaid,corupt U.N and E.U burocrats,and a population left in disastrous social state by the war,and by the crimes of Serbian Military,with thousends of people still missing and thousends of women sicking help in different N.G.O's,with wounds of conflict still open,wants nothing to do with a Serbian state any more,so there was no alternative to the independence.
Dont forget Serbia still mantains the same line,of blaming the victims,and of not accepting the crimes commited on the civilian populations there,as well as with Russia's help and western media's sympathy continues the propaganda war.
Thats why it was better and it was right to recognize the independence.And thats why all big democracies in the world have recognised it.
Complain about this comment
Amid the BBC's obvious belligerence towards Russia in it's news reports we hear a single side. As far as I am aware Ossetians are seemingly not worth talking to and their view irrelevant. Had the reporters, actually at the time this was going on, visited Ossetia and reported reality rather than biased Georgian here-say I'd be more impressed. Are they repeating the Israel Guerin/Plett fantasies? Much of the comment here is spot on yet totally at odds with Gov/Beeb/Miliband/Cameron (you name it) received wisdom. I despair. Kosovo was not the wide eyed innocent in the Balkan farrago. It was inundated by barbaric Arab mujahadeen fresh from the triumph of Afghanistan who amongst other things used Serb heads as footballs. They even took pictures! So for the Beeb to root for them eludes me. And now history repeats itself and our national broadcaster sides with the aggressor? Anyway apart from the ethics and ideology of this, messing with Russia is futile. They control the energy of Europe so what precisely is the blustering Miliband going to do? Tell them off even more?
Complain about this comment
Well, isn't it a time for some calmer words, or discussion at BBC forum is not heaten enouth yet? Not to a level: "-USA is the greatest military power and will teach you pricky bears - OK, we are ready; you also be ready to erase NY and LA from maps"
There shoud be a new understanding between NATO, continental Europe and Russia. Agressive rhetorics with no real action may be a first step to building this new mutual respect. After all, "democracy is a mutual etiquette of armed men" - both on inter-personal and inter-national levels...
Complain about this comment
I find the hypocrisy from Britain and America breathtakingly outrageous.
Russia is doing in its provincial border areas exactly what America and the US did with Kosovo, why is it right only for the US's dictates to be acceptable whilst Russia's not?
Miliband speaks for the US, he does not speak for the people of Britain and should be removed from office anyway because the man has stated that he only thinks one super power should be evident and that being the US, he is like all the rest of the New Labour traitors, who sold us out to the Americans and why we are facing a massive recession and being dragged into wars with countries like Russia to serve US policy.
America hasn't got a hope in hell of winning through on this, what it has got a chance of is destroying NATO and alienating so badly the countries and peoples of Europe who are once again feeling like the designated field of fire in the war of words brewing here.
I also hear Bush and Miliband crow about international law but hold on, isn't NATO in Afghanistan outside of its legal remit? Ot absorbing Poland and the proposed Ukraine and Georgia applications also against the law?
Its like Bush screaming about Iranian's in Iraq but forgets that he and Blair/Brown sent special forces into Iran to seed destruction and death, it seems its all OK, its legal regardless of the law as long as its America thats doing it... in other words total crap.
And come winter, if Putin turns the gas off to Europe, what will the europeans do for light, heat and how will industry function in a current climate of oil scarcity?
Is this what the ID cards and increased police powers is all about, the possibility that countries in Europe may suddenly rise up in arms because they are freezing to death with no light or heat or means to cook food? A pre-emptive big brother because its always been on the cards that NATO and America would reignite the cold war?
What the people in Europe do not understand is that their leaders have sold them out so that their countries literally become decoys and targets for Russian missiles, this is done to buy time for the US to go underground and mount a response whilst Europe is razed to the ground, the people in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Ukraine simply do not understand that in a US led antagonism, it is very likely, almost a certainty that they would be vaporised first, then Germany, France, Britain, we have a couple minutes warning, the US has half an hour at least, we the people of Europe have been set up and it will be us that will be doing the dying in any future pan-european conflict.
And the question to be asked here is: Would the US risk total annihilation in response to us here in Europe being attacked?
I think it is time that America was thrown out of Europe along with its arrogant titles of command, if the US wants to duke it out with the Russians, fine, let them do so but not at the cost of Europe being held up as a hostage and a shield, it is time before the Russians do enter onto a path of no return that we start making decisions for ourselves, not elected spokespersons for Washington reflecting policy that does little for us but always works to the American advantage, it is time that we stood on our own and faced our own perils, not that of a warmongering, fascist state
Five years ago, Russia was a partner, thanks to Bush, it is now a very angry enemy, folks, don't point the finger at Putin, make sure its nailed squarely at Bush...
Complain about this comment
@14
Polish-Underground
What some western media and part of the public opinion does not understand is the Russian mentality of punishment,and of no respect for human rights whatsoever.
When they talk they talk only with the language of punishment,and plot to punish.
It is countries such as Poland,Lithuania and other eastern European countries that have experienced this kind of hipocritical and brutal mentality that know best.
It is why Poland is pro-American because it can see clearly what is the benefit of American values of freedom of speach,democracy,and the rights of the individual.American values that western Europe take for granted,and some times even missunderstand them or attacs them out of ignorance and gelosy.
It is good that Poland unlike most of Europe has the guts to stand up to Russia,and it is good that Poland is standing up for small democracies such as Georgia.Poland is a country that knows what it means to be attacked by big dictatorial neighbours and what kind of destraction and human suffering can bring the ignoring of this issues by the big democracies.
In the last 20 years Poland has got every big foreign policy decission right.
And it was also right that it decided about the misile system,because by doing so is saing goodbye to the threat of Russia against the democracies in eastern Europe.
Complain about this comment
5 - busby2
"Wasn't it the case that the borders of Georgia within the former USSR were fixed by Stalin . . .?"
Stalin was Georgian. If anything, he set the border to create an artificially large Georgia in part because of his distrust of ethnic Russians living in the Caucus region.
On the more general question, it is possible to over complicate the situation and I think Mark Urban summed it up neatly near the end of his Newsnight piece last night. There are a lot of votes in promoting a strident foreign policy in Russia and I believe that Medvedev and Putin were far more interested in promoting their agenda to the Russian people than starting another Cold War. Saakasvili played right into their hands by launching an excessive preemptive strike. Sarkozy compounded it by cobbling together a hurried and badly thought through peace plan which, one suspects, had more to do with promoting himself as a world statesman than actually addressing the issues. All of this happened in the context of Moscow knowing that, even if the will existed, there was sweet damn all the west in general and Europe in particular could do about it.
Now we have Kouchner and Miliband charging round Europe mouthing the usual meaningless platitudes that are generally associated with a total inability to do anything about it. We might as well get used to the fact that the Russians won this one hands down. They have payback for Kosovo. We can only hope that both sides will be a lot more circumspect in the future.
Two final points. Ukraine is potentially much more dangerous and one hopes that western politicians flocking to Kiev are warning Ukraine not to be tempted into anything precipitate. Also, it is worth mentioning that the Afghan and Iraqi adventures were big vote winners in the States at the outset. If the Russians, flush with success, overplay their hand, this could still backfire on them.
Complain about this comment
@Named-Erion
you are confusing facts with propaganda.
Serbia's armed forces may have committed certain acts of agression, but at the same time they also defended Serbs from the agression of Bosniak militias and the KLA terrorist bands.
However, I am inclined to agree that a majority should decide within every country. Clearly the EU politicians ignored the majority of peoples in most EU countries and ratified the anti-demcratic Lisbon Treaty against their peoples wishes. We therefore we have every right as peoples to declare that ratification be nullified at once. We Dutch did not want to ratify this treaty, and therefore we should be given the opportunity to nullify the ratification and put our politicians who ratified it anyway on trial for treason.
Complain about this comment
May I suggest a new blog called 'Everyone at the BBC is a Bigoted Twit'? That way, all those posters like logdon at 17 can bang on about the Corporation's bias between themselves and let the rest of us engage with the substantive issues in peace.
Complain about this comment
I cannot but help agree with those who have posted on the Kosovo issue. The predictions surrounding the US and EU support of Kosovan independence have come home to roost and I feel that some of the balance in this story has been lost as reporters have failed to point out that this very action was predicted at the time. Whilst the West worries about Georgia and Ukraine the simmering conflict between Azerbiajan and Armenia also needs to be remembered. The BTC pipeline that runs through Georgia was diliberately designed to avoid Armenian territory ( which is supported by Moscow) which would have provide a more direct route to the Med.
This region is one where the west will have to be very careful, I spent 3 months of my recent Masters studying it and there are so many flash points here involving Russia, Iran, Iraq and Turkey even without the former Soviet states.
Complain about this comment
It is amazing how Mark Mardell and I always see things differently. But what to expect from pro-Nato writer. He has been taught to be scared of Russian, he has been taught that eastern Europe is poor, dirty...
In his every post I see that, I will sorry for him. Now, Russia is outlaw, hmmm, I don't even waste my time and words with your hypocrisies. Thank god that some nato states are opening their eyes and starting to see what is going on. Look at what you are doing in the name of "democracy" (Kosovo, Iraq, etc)
You, wester govs, have opened the Pandora's box and now you are accusing Russia.
Complain about this comment
THE SOLUTION IS NUCLEAR
Europe: "I am divided please conquer me".
The biggest power Europe has is Russia, use it wisely.
The ideologists that scares me most are ideologist January, ideologist February, and ideologist March. Ideology depends on the temperature.
Now please come on Europe you can do it get the finger out of the hole, get those Nuclear Power Plants built ASAP so y'all can watch developments in your cozy living rooms next winter.
Nuclear makes you independent, solves your anxiety about global warming, and makes you less dependent of the nice people in Russia.
Enjoy your winter.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone explain to me how is Abhazia different from Kosovo?
Complain about this comment
Georgia crisis tests BBC objectivness.
Complain about this comment
As a Russian living permanently in the UK, I have usually been very much in agreement with the British press in its interpretation of the Russian politics - and have respected it for the perfect balance between objectiveness and profound analysis.
Not this time.
When Russia attacked Chechnya its statements looked so ridiculuos, with all the tales of "territorial integrity". Now when Georgia does exactly the same, the West just repeats this meaningless stance over and over again as if it's any different from the one they have viciously opposed.
South Ossetia never wanted to be part of Georgia. It became so by mistake, as a side effect of the USSR decay. What "territorial integrity" are we talking about? It's been convenient for Georgia to have that region - and indeed, some Georgian people, a minority, have been living there for centuries - so maintaining stability in the South Ossetia was a difficult. But the Georgian president (a pro-Western bloke with some bright ideas picked up from his US education, but obsessed with power and generally rather stupid) thought otherwise. He decided on the easy solution: destroy the self-proclaimed capital of a region and kick the Ossetians to the North, into the Russian autonomous republic of North Ossetia.
De-stroy, I emphasise. There was no talk of "targeted disruptions of separatists' bases" or anything like that. Not even Saakashvilli himself ever pretended so. How much his vicious attack was provoked by Russia and/or by the US - and each side might theoretically have its own benefit in that - is a different story, but what is clear that Saakashvilli is a war criminal here, not Russia.
Sorry. Not this time. I understand that it sounds counterintuitive - I've been furious with Russia's previous idiotic bans on Gergioan wine and mineral water and all sorts of other stuff, but now the story has changed.
Of course I will agree that Russia's been no angel either. But its actions, however controversial, have been much more sensible and rational than Georgia's: they went in to destroy the bases from which Ossetia was attacked and pulled out. I hardly believe they ever wanted to invade Tbilisi. Why? Simply because if they did, they would now be there.
Now, would it be better if Russia just stayed there at the border motionless, watching how thousands of Ossetians are getting killed? I really don't think so. I don't care what Russia's real motives were, I simply think that its actions were justified at least because there was no-one else to help these people - while they did, and with little blood.
I am used to the politics of double-standards in Russia - and indeed, the media coverage of the conflict by the Russian media has been yet another example of those. What makes me much more disappointed is that the very same politics is now endorsed by the ever-liberal Europe and condoned by the ever-independent British Press.
Complain about this comment
Firstly, Welcome Back Mark!
Now, back to business....
After the blunder of Kosovo, what did the West expect?
I'm amused by the news of Miliband saying that Russia's recognition of South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence is "unacceptable". What, exactly, is he going to do? Threaten not to resupply our troops via Russian air-space? Convince our EU partners (ugh!) not to buy Russian gas and oil? Stamp his tiny feet and hold his breath until he's blue in the face?
I'm quite sure that the Russians are not quivering in fear at the Wrath of Miliband. Putin is more likely to give him a good clip around the ear and tell him leave the grown ups alone, go to his room and do his homework.
Like wayward children, for the past 20 years we in the West have been prodding this 'mangy old bear' with sharp sticks (encirclement by NATO; Kosovo; etc) in the belief that the bear had been de-clawed and was locked tightly in his cage.
Then, when truly provoked the bear lashes out and we find that the cage is insecure and that we are totally defenseless against him - we cry "aggression!".
Eating humble pie - and one's hat - is indeed 'unpalatable', but it's the only dish on offer. (Unless you think Merkel and Sarkozy are going to offer to lay down the lives of their troops to enforce Georgian 'territorial integrity').
Complain about this comment
Oh, and Mark, I very much doubt that EU "foreign ministers have much cleverer and more imaginative advisers" than you.
This may say more about EU minister than you, Mark ;-)
Complain about this comment
Hi, Polish Underground,
Just to comment on your comment about the outcome from the Yalta agreement.
Not all the Allies forgot you in 1945. As you know, Britain declared war on Germany to protect the Polish Nation in 1939. However, by 1945, Britain was bankrupt and practically destroyed - it was in no position to fight another superpower of that time.
Britons of that day were appalled when Poland fell under Soviet rule. We went out to defend your nation and watched it fall to another.
Now, in this present age, the EU is all powerful in finance and growth, but we have no Army. That is the final hurdle of the EU - an Army. But who contributes what, and how much does each nation finance it.
Because of this, we are in no position to fight Russia. Instead, we must talk to them, and let them know that we have no desire to fight them.
If anything, we would like them to work more with the EU, and thus bring them into the union of Europe. That way, all wars in Europe could be over for good.
However, should Russia ever set one foot in Poland, I think the inevitable step that would be taken (because we have no unity of an EU Army) would be the threat of using Nuclear Weapons.
This would be Russia's gamble - would Europe retaliate ? - I have a feeling that Britain would threaten Russia with war. I don't know what the French or the Germans would do, but I suspect that Britain (with America probably getting involved) would stand up for Poland.
But because of the threat of Nuclear Weapons, it is this very reason that we must talk to Russia, and try to calm a very dangerous situation down.
This has all stemmed from the Missile Defence system where the West fears an attack from a rogue Islamic state.
If any Rogue State were to (be unbelievably stupid) to attack the West with a nuclear missile, then it's safe to say, that that Nation would not exist the next day.
Thats why I think the Defence System is a waste of time.
My own view is, is to not put the defence system in Poland, the Czech Republic or anywhere else in Eastern Europe at this time. Even the entry of the Ukraine and Georgia into the EU should be postponed.
This will at least calm the Russians down and may give them pause to re-think what they are doing.
If anything, we need to win Russia over first. That means, trading with Russia and working with her. Then, slowly, very slowly, allow those other nations into the EU first, before setting up any NATO links which has made Russia feel threatened.
This could turn out to be a bad spat, rather than bad blood.
Complain about this comment
The Russian-Georgian conflict has been simmering for years and did not simply begin on August 8. Russia has violated Georgian territory and airspace repeatedly and is the true provacateur of the conflict.
Russia has a centuries old imperial tradition and that is precisely why the former Soviet republics and satellite states are desperate for protection. They know first hand the oppression of the Russian paw and have every right to seek membership in international security arrangements.
The West is right to confront Russian aggression. The difference between Kosovo and the Georgian territories is that Serbia inflicted Europe's worst ethnic violence since WWII against the Kosovars. Serbian ethnic cleansing took place for years before the West finally intervened. Tellingly, Russia did little to stay the hand of Serbia and opposed the West's intervention to stop genocide. Had Russia taken a more responsible role in former Yugoslavia, then military action against Serbia and partition would not have been necessary.
The West must be resolute. Otherwise, today Georgia, tomorrow Ukraine.
Complain about this comment
It is pleasant to read comment which makes some sense about the Russian invasion of Georgia. Georgia is a sovereign country, recognised universally, and its dissent with two provinces within its borders ( to a large extent engineered by Russia ) is an internal concern. Russia invaded a foreign sovereign nation, broke two truces and reluctantly agreed to the third (brokered interestingly enough by the non-NATO power France) ... which it has still not fully honoured. I have even seen apparently informed comment that said 15 Russian 'military advisers' (= soldiers) were injured in Georgia's artillery barrage, as if this were some obscure justification for the invasion ... what exactly where they doing in a foreign country anyway? Now, nobody really knows or cares much about Georgia - but the Putin regime (still in place) has its eyes on all the former soviet territories ... if Georgia goes, Ukraine will be next - and Ukraine is oil-rich and was always the breadbasket of the USSR ... that one could go nuclear. To be quite honest, the west's response to naked Russian aggression until the last couple of days has been utterly spineless. This is not giving good signs to Russia (it was Nikita Kruschev who warned - from a position of weakness - 'We will fight, and we will die - but we will bury you'). The invasion is utterly unacceptable and must be stated to be so by every responsible government in the world.
Complain about this comment
27 - NikolayTzvetkov
"Can anyone explain to me how is Abhazia different from Kosovo?"
Apart from the small matter of a democratically elected government?
Complain about this comment
In response to #19, Ian Watson's post...
I am no fan of Bush and will be in a celebratory mood when he is out of office, but I do not see how you can blame him for Russian aggression. Bush is the fool who looked into the soul of the steely KGB agent and saw a "friend." Bush is an imbecile who has underestimated Putin every step of the way. Putin has played Bush for the fool that he is and that is a big reason why Russia is so bold.
You express concern for Eastern Europe when it hosts a missile shield, yet Russia has brutalized Eastern Europe for centuries. The missile defense shield can hardly be said to make Eastern Europe less safe. And in the (highly unlikely) event of any conflict with Russia, the UK and France would be automatic targets simply by the existence of their own nuclear arsenals.
The best thing for Europe at this point is to be firm in the face of Russian aggression and to seek energy independence so as not to be victim to Russia's energy blackmail schemes.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark:
First, i hope you and your family had a nice vacation!
Now, Georgia is testing the European Union, and i hope the test will be passed...
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
''It is good that Poland unlike most of Europe has the guts to stand up to Russia, and it is good that Poland is standing up for small democracies such as Georgia. Poland is a country that knows what it means to be attacked by big dictatorial neighbours and what kind of destraction and human suffering can bring the ignoring of this issues by the big democracies.''
The current tensions between The West and Russia will not be resolved by having the 'guts' for it but by having the strongest nerves. We have won Kosovo and the Baltics but the second round went to Russia. We all agree we can't afford losing another round (Ukraine). However, we don't know what to do next. Should we choose the passive or aggresive approach? Altough I agree with you we should choose the more aggresive approach we should not offend Russia that much it could lead to war. The United States nor Europe is capable of fighting a war with Russia right now. The best option untill we agree on a joint approach towards Russia is, in my opinion, to strengten our ties with Ukraine and Moldova.
Complain about this comment
What Europe should do is say that now that Russia has accepted the idea of self determination for break away states, we expect a recognition of Kosovo forthwith.
Meanwhile, we should push for a UN commission to administer the Georgian breakaway territories pending discussions and referendums on independence.
It seems certain that the breakaway states are not going to return to Georgia, so how do we ensure that the Russian military stay north of the Caucasus and don't threaten the rest of the region?
Over the Winter, Georgia should be given a sophisticated air defense and short range missile system so they can at least make further Russian aggression painful.
Complain about this comment
Any conflict which will involve the eu is not supported by me. down with the eu .I saw a ten pound note with the word no to the european union on it, maybe we should start a trend.
Complain about this comment
@ Nikolai # 27
There is not much difference between Abkazia and Kosovo. The difference is between Russia and EU/NATO.
EU/NATO had no interest in having an independent Kosovo. Personally, I don't care about it either. I care about peace and stopping the killing. I think that there was no better solution, under circumstances, than independence for Kosovo. This is perhaps what most European leaders thought, too. Only those that have similar problems in their own countries were of another opinion. And nobody callled them traitors because of that. I do not think that independence is the best solution for Kosovars, but this is what the majority of them wanted. So be it.
On the other hand, Russia does not "force peace" upon anybody. Russia forces her hegemony on everybidy she can. IT is all about Georgia and her drive to NATO and other western structures. It is most likely about the pipelines that may circumvent Russia and create an alternative route for Central Asian gas and oil, a chance for the Central Asian countries fair price for their resources and not the fraction of what is worth and what Russia is paying them.
There is a lot about hypocrisy on this blog. Here is my contribution to that discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaFrCy9HTOM
Any comments Nikolai?
Complain about this comment
the eu is just as bad as russia its unelected on forced on to us is this democracy ?
Complain about this comment
Woo hoo, the Euroblog has started up again.
Bland platitudes indeed. As usual, whether over Georgia or Kyoto, the EU just comes up with a bunch of words, and hopes that that will be enough--and, as usual, it isn't enough.
At least the United States is showing a little bit of a spine without being too confrontational by sending humanitarian aid...carried by military planes and ships, not so subtly pointing out that the Americans have a military presence in the region and are still a force to be reckoned with.
The EU 'economic superpower' has given a poor collective response to date. Sarkozy has procured an apparently useless ceasefire. Whoop dee doo. This is your continent EU. You should be taking the charge for the West, with the United States in a supporting role from the sidelines, not the other way around. If you're a rival to the USA, then show it and help put Russia in its place. Europe's vacillation is a large part of why Russia believes that it can bully its near neighbors.
Fortunately, China has given some criticism; while Russia seems to general thumb their noses at the EU and USA, they are quite chummy with the Chinese. Another large part of Russia's rekindled confidence is that they foolishly believe China is their ally.....
The EU should follow the line that Sweden, Poland, the UK, and France are currently taking, a stronger one, while the Germanys of Europe should buck up. And now Europe has an even more pragmatic reason to reduce dependency on fossil fuels.
Complain about this comment
Yes of course Mardell...test of Russian language for Europe:-p
What to say and to not be boring..welcome to post Kosovo (and Metohia) world.
In this case, I will just cool some beer, take some peanuts and sit to watch CNN, BBC. This time it's not my country on the screen.
Cheers and good luck.
Complain about this comment
West should not let russia even touch the Ukrainian soil, no matter what.. if russia want to play, then let the game start.
We must prepare for the worst, because there is not going to be a Cold War, but a Hot one instead, and if it escalates, expect nuclear mashrooms, over main cities...
one thing is for sure, both sides win or both sides loose..
whoever wins, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.
but russia will not stop untill someone will accept the challege.
so there comes great responsibility with great power.
lets see if the politiburos of both camps are tired of peace and want to play war games to have fun, they have tried almost everything in this world except making war.
Complain about this comment
Well timed holiday, Mark.
I think you might have underestimated the EU's resolve in this matter. Unlike in previous foreign policy crises, notably Iraq, the current situation highlights a problem that is common to all 27 members of the EU, namely their dependence on Russia for their future energy supplies.
The situation presents a classic "prisoners' dilemma" for the EU. Russia has noone to sell their gas to other than the EU. The EU expects Russian gas to become their main energy source in the next decades. If the EU can act as one, they will be able to negotiate a good deal for all of them. If however some EU members negotiate better deals for themselves directly (as e.g. Germany would be able to with the new Nordstream pipeline), then everyone will suffer.
Something else that all EU nations have in common: they all know that they are small countries in the world today and they have all experienced in the last century what it is to be bullied and/or occupied by a bigger country, be it Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. The strongest unifying instinct of the EU is never again to allow any of its members to be bullied.
So what can the EU do?
(1) Make an explicit commitment to fasttrack NATO and EU membership for Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova
(2) Explicitly guarantee the sovereign integrity of the same three
(3) "Offer" (in the Corleone sense) to send EU peacekeepers to replace the Russian peacekeepers in the "buffer zone" within Georgia proper
(4) Institute a common policy vis-a-vis Russian gas imports
Some miscellany:
The recognition of Kosovo was a blunder in the sense that it gave an obvious diplomatic figleaf for Russia's current actions, which was widely foreseen at the time. However the Kosovo situation is fundamentally different to South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Transdniestria. In the case of Kosovo, the West intervened and the province declared independence AFTER its population was subject to persecution and then expulsion by the Milosevic regime. In the case of Russia's three puppet states on the other hand, they declared independence without any such provocation, and then received Russian support for their various wars of independence - indeed in the case of the Georgian exclaves it was THEY that then went on to expel significant numbers of Georgians from their territory.
Regarding the next crisis, I personally would look to Belarus. There are due to be parliamentary elections later this year. The Lukashenka regime has recently cut its close ties with Moscow (surprise surprise - it was over a gas dispute) and has now released all of the regime's political prisoners in a lame effort to appease the West. The stage may be set for another orange-style revolution, however this time with a dictatorship that may not be afraid of violent suppression. If it comes to that, who could think of a better pretext for Russia to intervene militarily in another part of its near abroad?
Complain about this comment
to biniol:
sorry I'm responding before Nikolai.
The video clip you've shown is very relevant, except that this time it was Georgia behaving this way.
as for the genuinely peacemaking intentions of NATO (and its "no interest" in the independent Kosovo), please forgive me for calling this view a little naive.
the truth is that in politics the egoistic interests are always going first.
i suggest that we get away from the idealistic view of the "good" NATO and the "evil" Russia and judge not by the (invariably not-so-genuinely altruistic) intentions, but by the outcomes.
as far as i am concerned, this time - and i'm not making any generalisations here at all - just this time - a) Georgia, not Russia, is the real aggressor and b) NATO is doing more in Georgia to get back to the cold war situation than Russia does.
Complain about this comment
What is with all the Russians pretending to not be Russian on this blog? Who do you people think you're fooling?
Ummmm..... The West (led by the United States after Europe was (you guessed it) too weak, cowardly, unwilling (take your pick)) only invaded Yugoslavia after thousands of civilians were murdered and brutalized in ethnic cleansings. The few hundred people in South Ossetia killed in warfare between South Ossetian rebels (and Russian soldiers?) hardly constitute an ethnic cleansing. The Georgians were only trying to retake their rightful land, not kill every South Ossetian in sight.
By the way, personally have the opinion that Kosovo should have remained part of Serbia, if only because all these tiny 'race'-based countries springing up are absurd.
Also, will second the question of: will Russia now let Chechnya and other secessionist regions of Russia win their independence from Russia? After all, isn't Russia such a big supporter of self-determination, as its support for the poor, beleaguered South Ossetians and Abkhaz (who, along with the Russians are at least as much responsible for starting this latest war as the Georgians) shows? That's sort of the thing: an authoritarian country trying to hold onto a region which wants to secede from it would have difficulty taking the moral high ground in the national self-determination field. In contrast, there is little support in any American state for secession from the Union. Similarly, the Scottish in the UK, the Flemish in Belgium, and even the secessionist-leaning regions of Spain are not being forced into their countries at gunpoint. So the West has more latitude in taking the moral high ground in this area.
Free Chechnya? Free Tibet?
Complain about this comment
U fight FIRE with FIRE,
russia go to hell..
KGB was once defeated, and can again be..
Complain about this comment
NikolayTzvetkov
"Can anyone explain to me how is Abhazia different from Kosovo"
well,300000 Georgian refuges(makes more than 50% of pre war populaion)is not enough?
Russian did everything to undermain Georgian sovernety,they were provoking Saakashvili for a long time,unfurtunetly he was stupped enough falling into the trap,but on another hand there was very big pressure from Georgian population,its really hard for non Georgian to understand..
this was a heaven of criminals, right in front of our noses and we could not do nothing..
so cold "peacekeapers" never stoped this rebbels from firing on Georgian villages and now they are doing nothing to stop them doing very horible things...
WHY PEACEKIPERS DO NOT PROTECT ETHNIC GEORGIANS???IS IT SOME KIND OF APARTHEID PROTECTION??
Eurpian leftits ,who are supporting Russian brutal actions,please answer me...
Complain about this comment
DuchNemo
I totally agree with your comment.
I am not advocating military action against Russia,but I do think that Democracies shout stand their ground firmly here,there is alot at risk.
It was the first time that a democracy has been militarily invaded,and there should be consequences for that.
This was an unjustifiable clasic invasion of an democratic sovereign state.
Complain about this comment
To start with, I am Russian, although I currently live in a Western country. However, it was very entertaining to read this article and comments to it, since it was a couple hours ago only when I was trying with my friend to understand the underlying motivation of Westeners blaming Russia. Let me try to explain the viewpoint of the other side.
I believe, I am expressing the point of view of most people saying that Russians don't feel as much humilated as they feel deceived and ignored by Western countries, especially by US and partly by Europe. And yeah, nobody is seriously concerned with Western opinion any longer.
Firstly, during last 16 years whenever the *actual life* of people improved, we were critisized, and vice versa, which didn't help to build intercultural understanding at all. Secondly, despite the dissolution of Warsaw Pact and USSR, NATO not only survived, but it keeps growing in the direction of Russia. This is viewed as a hostile movement, since NATO was created to counteract the legal precursor of Russia and is dominated by a country, which is famous for its warmongering. Finally, a biased approach in Kosovo, US withdrawing from ABM Treaty, and relentless preconceived support of Georgia don't help either.
Now it just looks as if nobody in West can think pragmatically any more, and thus, they appeal to irrational fears of Russia, and try to also make Russians afraid by escalating pressure. I personally think that Mr. Medvedev has approved of Abkhazia and SO independence to cut any routes back because of lack of prospects of independent judgement of the conflict, and NATO destroyers entering the Black Sea, i.e. taking a step to a hot war. This is a road to nowhere.
Why don't you guys try to reassess your fears and base further decisions on reasonable statements rather then irrational fright? I believe, we could find a common language then.
Complain about this comment
@Anonymouscalifornian (48)
All that stuff about Serbia ethnically cleansing and genociding vast areas turned out to be lies and propaganda.
And what makes you think the Chechens want independence? A small minority clique of mostly islamist terrorists (the kind that killed 300 children at Beslan without batting an eye). Another case of western media propaganda.
I saw the last few weeks what was largely a rerun of the onesided propagandic media campaign that was run in the early stages of Clinton's illegal war against Yugoslavia. Reality here is that Saakashvili is the warmonger. Oh, and your taxmoney paid for Georgia's army (and that of Israel, Egypt, Uzbekistan and a few others too).
And as for the west having moral highground? Not anymore. Especially not the EU which has in quite a covert and sinister way slowly strangled parliamentary democracy and moved most legislative powers away from parliaments towards unelected politicians. Russia is more democratic than the EU ever has been. And lets not forget that fella Bush you guys got, a clueless cowboy who invaded Iraq on some WMD pretext. Sure, one good thing came out of it, the Kurds now have sovereignty in their part of Iraq, and are waiting for the chance to declare independence. Who'se gonna stop them, you? Turkey? That would kill Turkey's EU chances (I am 100% opposed to Turkey anyway, so it would probably be a good thing).
@benagyerek (46)
Turkey and Georgia are not European and should therefore never be allowed in the EU. And since when is Georgia on the Atlantic?
Complain about this comment
to Mikhail Spivakov:
I fear you have the bull by quite the wrong horns: Russia has encouraged - very practically - the separatist claims of part of another country; they have even issued Russian passports to foreign nationals to foment dissent (imagine if Britain gave UK passports to Bretons to get up France's nose ....) - they had troops within the borders of a sovereign foreign state - the Ossetian premier even dismissed his entire government for not being pro-Russian enough ...
After this provocation, Georgia launched a military strike to try to restore the situation
Russia invaded a foreign country, bombed its citizens, killed thousands - utterly illegally by all international law
Those are the FACTS - live with it
Complain about this comment
How can Georgia be the aggressor when this happened on their territory. You can not deny that those regions, who want to break away(key), were in Georgian territory. Russia INVADED Georgia. They are the aggressor.
I will not hide and run from the Russian Bear, because i know its a ruthless animal, ready to terrorize.
If it wanted to free those regions, for one they should have never crossed into undisputed lands and should not be sitting in Poti and patrolling what goes on in an undisputed port city of Georgia. The people of those regions could live in peace, they did when they had an overbearing monster of an ape called the CCCP rule them. But that dissolved and Georgia was in charge of those regions, they should deal with them. IF anything, do any of these peace loving people remember a peace loving non violent man who changed the world?
Who is the aggressor?
Do not bring in other situations that are in flux, deal with the issue in hand. Otherwise we can bring in all the aggressive acts of Russia for the last 100 years, not only what they have done to other countries, but to their own people as well, Gulags anyone?
Complain about this comment
Not content to let us Yanks roll around in the
dung-heap of world public opinion, the Russians
have decided to follow us in a military misadventure.
Just as we are getting out of Iraq, the Russians
are unifying Europe against them by provoking
this conflict. I say, great, now they can be the
"bad guys."
Complain about this comment
NordicPerson,
I appreciate hearing the other side but I am unconvinced. Before accusing my country of being "warmongering," you would do well to review Russia's long history of aggression against other nations. Russia tried to stab the US and Western allies in the back by blockading Berlin. Even the great post-WWII wars in Korea and Vietnam were caused in large part by Russian funding and support of violent communist insurgencies. South Vietnam was destroyed, but thank goodness South Korea thrives.
If the US wanted to destroy Russia it could easily have done so after WWII when the US was the only nuclear power. There was no attempt to attack Russia then because the US had no interest in attacking Russia.
The US is far from perfect and I have encouraged my fellow Americans to think carefully about US bias towards Israel and our support for corrupt governments in the Middle East. Russians would do well to consider why their neighbors are desperate to join NATO. Why do Russia's European neighbors value an alliance with the USA/Western Europe over good relations with Russia? Clearly they regard Russia as a threat and there is an historic basis for that.
I do not trust Russia and I do not like the current Russian leadership. The US and NATO want to contain a resurgent Russia and that is a good thing.
Sign me,
A Wary American
Complain about this comment
jaws1912 @40 wrote:
"I saw a ten pound note with the word no to the european union on it, maybe we should start a trend."
Thanks for a great idea! It's a good way to keep the anti-EU message topical and, literally, in circulation.
I'm easily led and have captioned all my banknotes accordingly. I know that it is a crime to 'deface' HM currency - but first they'll have to prove that it was me.... especially in hundreds of us start doing it.
Complain about this comment
A lot of the pro-Russian posters here seem to be proud that Russia can twist Europe's arm by threatening to withhold the Russian hydrocarbons on which much of Europe is reliant. Almost as though they revel in having the capability of pushing others around. Some of the Chinese on James Reynolds' China blog exhibit similar attitudes.
Sheesh, if more Americans acted that way, then that would make things a lot easier. Bush: world's most wanted terrorist; fascist Imperial America. Why, such compliments. You shouldn't have. Really, Americans don't deserve such flattery. :-D
Complain about this comment
@all those frightened people
I am amazed by this stream: “centuries of oppressions”, “oil pipelines”, “bullying neighbours”, “russia will not stop untill someone will accept the challege”... What makes you think so? Come back to earth, please!
“Centuries of oppressions” -- “centuries of colonial exploitation”,
“oil pipelines” -- none damaged
“bullying neighbours” -- SO and Abkhazia are long-standing conflicts, which were largely settled by Stalin (yes, he was Georgian); no other interventions in last 20 years of independent Russia (just in case you don't know, from 1924 to 1951 USSR was ruled by a Georgian, and from 1951 to 1982 it was ruled by Ukrainian guys); let comparing to US politics alone...
“russia will not stop untill someone will accept the challege” -- What makes you think Russia is going to fight you? We still remember WWII, and everyone understands what war means, and nobody wants it.
@all those suggesting to press more
Do you seriously think that keeping up to the hard line would help to break Russia??? Trust me, it won't! Instead, we are all going further down the road, where one cannot return from. I pray for peaceful negotiations!
@bretorne (54)
You merely blindly trust your newspapers. Unfortunately, both sides were caught lying. For example, one US TV channel has shown Georgian salvo bombardment systems firing Tcshinvali with footage claiming that it were Russian systems. As a counterexample, recently a major Russian TV channel has shown an “edited” version of Fox News video, which caused an outrage among Russian viewers. I believe, the FACTS are DIFFERENT.
@55
It's called “humanitarian intervention”, which was caused by an outstanding brutality of Georgian, who were trying to flatten the town out completely and indiscriminately. Which of this do you deny?
@everyone
You comparison with bear just makes me think of WWII Nazi's propaganda every time I see it.
Complain about this comment
I hope that the Euro 2012 qualifying draw will yield toppers such as Kosovo – South Ossetia or Abkhazia – Transnistria :-)
Complain about this comment
I find it hilarious how this is somehow America's fault. It seems people prefer to blame Bush, however absurd the reasoning rather than blame the true enemy - Putin.
America is just about the only thing stopping Putin taking over all of Europe. Britain, Poland and the eastern bloc are about the only nations with a backbone - hence, America's 150,000 troops at Ramstein AFB. When will Old Europe take responsibility for its own defense? We all know if Russia got really nasty America would come and help, and then they'd probably get the same old disrespect from Europe.
Complain about this comment
@DCHeretic (57)
I'm glad to read an intelligent response here, and, well, I can understand your mistrust, and it's reciprocal.
Firstly, although Russia was extremely weak in 90s, it still retained it's nuclear weapons, and it means that the doctrine of mutual destruction was still in force. Moreover, I would say that many Russian people believe it was the only reason Russia was not invaded by you, Americans.
Secondly, I am really concerned with the lack of trust in the today world. Everybody seems to try to threat another one. Why don't we move in another direction and don't stop to surround each other with missiles and bombs?
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry bretorne, but what you're saying isn't facts, but statements:
- After this provocation, Georgia launched a military strike to try to restore the situation
please define "restore"
please also explain how could the said situation (ie, giving away Russian passports to Ossetians, a very questionable practice, I completely agree, although your comparison with Brittany isn't entirely correct) could be "restored" by a military strike
- Russia invaded a foreign country, bombed its citizens, killed thousands - utterly illegally by all international law
Thousands probably were not killed in this conflict at all. As for the hundreds who were actually killed, there is strong evidence that they were killed by the Georgians during the Tskhinvali strike, not but the Russians during the directed attacks on the Georgian military bases. If you could show me evidence supporting your point, I would be very grateful, as I'm not indending to support Russia in this conflict - my position is solely based on the information that I am aware of.
And yes, by the way, bombing your own citizens and killing hundreds of them (as Mr Saakashvilli has done) is also utterly illegal. Why is no-one going to bother about this? Because it's an internal affair? But then, why was Iraq attacked? Not because of the WoMD, of course - as we know it...
The truth is, NATO doesn't give a damn about Georgia except as a military base, but it wants us - Western residents to believe that it does. I would urge you not to buy this - and assess the situation calmly and objectively. There are obviuosly no angels on either side.
Complain about this comment
NordicPerson, I take your points, but none of Russia's
neighbors seem to be taking a calm view of things.
What Putin and Medvedev did was a very clumsy attempt to
destabilize a neighboring government because
they did not like their politics. They tried to pull
the Georgian army into a trap, which failed because
of timely American satellite intelligence.
Personally, I think that it is a good thing to let
the Russian army stay there for the time being
so as to clarify their true intentions and unify
the West against them.
In the meantime, a small fleet of NATO warships
is assembling in the Black Sea. Four of them
are Turkish, and one of them is Polish.
All I can say is, if I were Putin, I would not
fire on any of those ships, and especially not
the Polish one!
Complain about this comment
Sorry for this, but I will be stubborn...welcome to post Kosovo (and Metohia) world.
Complain about this comment
EU, this is the last moment to beak up with USS occupators and turn to Russia. Russia is in the Europe, not the USS.
Warmest regards from Serbia (including Kosovo and Metohia)
Complain about this comment
I think the EU leaders should exercise a measure of self-criticism. Honestly, I'm not kidding.
First of all, they should admit Saakashvili started this senseless war, and send this unreliable, lunatic leader to The Hague, for he is guilty of the worst of crimes, the crime against peace.
In the second place, they should stop using words like "violation of international law", "territorial integrity" and so on and so forth, and acknowledge they themselves opened the legal quagmire by recognizing the Kosovo unilateral declaration of independence. They should therefore apologize to Serbia for having sliced out the latter's historic region by sheer use of force and power.
In the third place, they should acknowledge they have been along with the US of A thoughtlessly harassing Russia to the point of suffocation, by breaking Reagan's promises and expanding NATO, and by supporting the missiles in Poland, and staging and funding coups in neutral and even friendly countries to Russia on behalf of corrupt politicians.
Last but not least, they should apologize to Russia for having insulted it so much, and for having distorting the facts so shamelessly. They should also apologize to their public opinions for having insulted the intelligence of their peoples with misrepresenting declarations by which they accuse Russia of all the violations they haven't stopped committing so far.
However, all this implies we have honest, enlightened leaders. But we don't.
Complain about this comment
Mikhail Spivakov
Firsteble, there are much less then 100 Osetian civilians killed,(that's what indepedent sources are saying,they are not much,becouse Russians refusing to allow them entering the region,I wonder why)i'm as Georgian personaly feel deep sorry for any Osetian life loss ,but lets be objective..
secondly, it should be clear,the rebbels were firing on Georgian villages, with Russian arms, under Russian "peacekipers" noses,why Russian "peacekipers" failed to protect Georgian civilians with the same enthusiasm,ha??
can you answer ,please?
Complain about this comment
@gunsandreligion (65)
You are trying to threat once more... whatever! It doesn't work any more, because Russia is fed up with threats. However, I also sincerely hope we aren't going to fight each other.
Personally, I think that in most former USSR countries to the west from Russia it is the government only, which decided that *everything* Russia does is hostile. Well, it's their right, but afaik, only in Latvia and Estonia, and partly Poland, this views are shared by the majority. In other countries the debates are still going. Again to my mind, such fears should be called paranoia.
As for a destabilization attempt, it's arguable, but I don't want to go into details, because they are lengthly.
Complain about this comment
To Named_erion and DC Heretic
After NATO went into Kosovo they found no proof of the allegations of Rape and genocide, just like there was no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This is fact go do some investigating within UN and Redcross reports.
The west Gave Kosovo to Serbia in 1912? From memory the battle for Kosovo Polje happened in 1389 between the Serbs and the Ottomans? Propganda does not equal truth. Another thing from memory the reason the Serbian ary went in to Kosovo was after the KLA attacked a police station and killed 7 officers in a unprovoked attack.
Complain about this comment
I'd be interested to know exactly when the principle of "territorial integrity" was enshrined in international law - and exactly how far back such "integrity" has to go to justify the claim.
Two hundred years ago, Mexico's "integrity" included California, Texas, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico and bits of Colorado and Wyoming. It was after a conflict that those areas were ceded to the more powerful USA.
Two hundred years ago, there wasn't an Italy - just a collection of small mini-powers who happened to share a region. And Nice wasn't part of France. And Taiwan was a part of China.
The majority of African states have boundaries imposed as the result of colonial nations drawing lines on a map.
Alsace has occilated between France and "Germany" (also a fairly recent construct) over the years.
Georgia has had fluctuating borders for many centuries. The current lines were drawn by Stalin. At exactly which point were these decreed to be sacrosanct?
Greater Serbia was a recent construct. Did it have any claim to "territorial integrity" - if so, from when - or were we right to force its break-up?
Give it 30 years, when the Hispanic population has expanded, and wonder whether the UN would support the wish of Florida, Texas, California and New Mexico to create a Spanish speaking Union outside of the existing USA.
For goodness sake. Georgia is a middle-eastern country, sitting on the edge of a super-power. (Don't get me wrong. Russia's military kit is nothing like the USA's. But it has natural resources and people who don't like being pushed aroubd. Ask Napolean or Hitler.)
Should we worry about Georgia? Yes. But defend historically-varying and arbitrary boundaries? Not so sure.
If the West couldn't be assed to intervene in Rwanda or sort out Darfur, hasn't the reach to get involved with Tibet, or the stomach to stop Mugabe destroying his country, why should we get excited about bits of an artificial country?
JFK's people made a pigs ear of the Bay of Pigs. OK, there was no attack on the "integrity" of the state - it's a bit hard to redefine an island. But the USA wanted a degree of "calm normality" in their region.
I do not condone any military action against civilians - or states - unless there is clear evidence of wrong-doing against those states' own people. I don't think we have a very good record in that regard.
Rather than have a kid like Miliband building a grand coalition against the Russians, it would be a good idea if people sat down and thought a bit before suggesting sanctions against a state that needs a sense of pride.
Remember, it was an idiotic US "historian" who said that the collapse of the Berlin Wall marked the "end of history". Complete horlicks. Could only have been some bloke in the USA...
Always stand up to a bully. But recognise that sometimes they do what they do because they feel put-upon and unloved.
I spent some years going back and forth to Russia. Saw some extraordinary things - both good and bad. And worried that the West would try to plunder what it could and the Russians would do whatever they could to prevent it. It was obvious that those people could do things. But had little idea how to match Western mass-production and distribution standards. That should have been the focus. You get people happier because their lives are a little bit better, you create a better relationship. You take what you can, when you can, you really stuff people up.
If the UN were to do something useful, it could initiate a programme whereby every country in the world was forced to examine where its "natural" territory lay, why, for how long and explain what it was doing to ensure that people living in that jurisdiction would be included in whatever prosperity it could deliver.
Complain about this comment
The truth of this matter is that Russia IS actually reacting to the initial Georgian attack and no amount of biased comment and reporting by our Western media will alter this fact. So, all this talk of Russian aggression, new Cold War etc is extremely counter productive to the cause of peace. Western politicians will always react to the wishes of the headline writers who are in the employ of a small number of extremely wealthy (and often corrupt) businessmen (any connection here with the exiled Russian oligarchs?) Thus we may slide into conflict not because either politicians or people wish it, but because a tiny minority of very powerful media magnates wish it. Please, BBC, keep a cool head and stick to the facts. Vincent Bourke, Ireland
Complain about this comment
Proposed Template for reacting to future "crises" in the caucasus/baltics/whereever-in-asia-minor...
It is demonstrably America's fault for not being xxxxxxx enough about these things.
ok?
Complain about this comment
@IrishHumanist (73)
I couldn't agree more!
@fairlyopenmind (72)
The principle of right for self-determination was endorsed after WWI, and the principle for territorial integrity - after WWII. Recently, the strong ones were observed to choose either of those principles at their own will, which is bad, imho.
Complain about this comment
@Turtle_Gut_Inlet (74)
From my point of view, currently America wants rights to control the whole world, but doesn't want to take responsibility. For example, Afghanistan and Iraq are not stable yet, but USA wants to withdraw already. How is it responsible? So, in my opinion you should either take both, or don't take any in order to decrease the amount of criticism.
Complain about this comment
#72 fairlyopenminded said
"Give it 30 years, when the Hispanic population has expanded, and wonder whether the UN would support the wish of Florida, Texas, California and New Mexico to create a Spanish speaking Union outside of the existing USA."
In 30 years the USA will be a Hispanic majority nation. No need to turn to the UN for anything---the Hispanics will wield their power at the ballot box and in the halls of government. I wonder how that will affect America's relationship with Europe and Asia?
The Hispanics are just as patriotic as other American ethnic groups. I doubt they will will be willing to abrogate the levers of global power when they reach majority status.
For non-American readers, do not underestimate the power of the American immigrant communities. They play a key role in shaping US policy towards Israel, Cuba, and Armenia to name just a few countries. I often wonder how the wave of Russian immigrants that arrived in the 1990s will begin to flex their political power.
Complain about this comment
NordicPerson
Thanks for the comment.
But doesn't it seem odd that we seem to recognise a "right for self-determination" and also a "principle for territorial integrity"?
The Basque people have tried to win a separate area away from France and Spain. That would be "self-determination". But both France and Spain have a supporting "principle for territorial integrity".
How does that work?
After WWII, the USSR was recognised as a singular power (which I didn't much like). And was treated as such by the UN - and certainly by the USA.
When did it lose its right to territorial integrity in favour of self-determination by constituent areas?
Can I expect a UN mission/strike force to arrive in the UK, to support the wishes of a large number of Scots who would like a separate autonomous country?
What constitutes a justifiable break-up of a "country" into the areas which choose self-determination?
Territorial integrity based on a snap-shot of a map, created by politicians many years ago and mostly based on violent seizure or rebuttal, with no understanding of the people on the ground, is bound to get it wrong.
Africa proves that.
If a strong South Africa took over a putrid Zimbabwe, would anyone care?
But would it be legal? If the Zimbabweans said they wanted such a merger, how does that contrast with the "right" of Zimbabwe, as a state, to retain its "territorial integrity"?
There may have been post-WWII declarations, but do they have any more legitimacy that Papel declarations many moons ago?
Do we simply accept that countries only exist because, post-WWII, a bunch of guys decided that the map looked ok at the time?
Denmark was once a part of a Swedish Empire. Not now. When did the "territorial integrity" lapse? Way before WWII. But I find it hard to understand Tibet, Kashmir and many other regions, as the "old truths" don't seem to get reflected in the current views.
How do you reconcile "self-determination" with the bureaucratic, unelected, creeping paralysis of the "European Union"?
An EU that obviously doesn't realise that Georgia is NOT in Europe? Never has been. Can never be, unless the tectonic plates do a quick shuffle.
Georgia as part of the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation? For goodness sake, it's on the Black Sea. Not even the Med, which has a narrow connection with the Atlantic.
If NATO restated its mission, ambition and purpose, it would have to change its name.
A wide EU economic region sounds pretty good to me - and I would have hoped to see Russia come into the arrangement.
But a political splurge as we see now? Give us all a break.
India and Pakistan were imaginative and probably inevitable creations - but post-WWII. Does that give them complete territorial integrity? On what basis? And, should there be some "self-determination" for any regions?
Take an island. Should be integral? No. Haiti/Dominican Republic co-exist. Why? Where's the integrity in that?
Take a continent - Europe for example. Integrity? Not much of. People get along, but they are just different. How many slices of difference do there have to be until a "territorial integrity" can be assumed?
Greater Serbia existed post-WWII, therefore should have had "territorial integrity". Why did it disappear? (Don't justify why it was created in the first place, but it's pretty obvious that it was helped to implode by external forces that we paid for.)
Many years ago, politicians had to think about many things. We seem to have got into a cycle where 4-5 years thinking is about as much as they can handle, as afterwards, someone else will pick up the problems they create.
I'd like to see a President of the USA, Russia or China (even the UK) who lived at least 5 years in a culture that was entirely different, in order to gain a little insight into how other folk live.
Where is the moral balance?
Complain about this comment
Another note to the Propaganda pushers e.g. Named_Erion and DC Heretic
Comments made by Madeline Albright
With the Nato bombing over, international teams descended upon Kosovo to exhume the “holocaust”. The FBI failed to find a single mass grave and went home. The Spanish forensic team did the same, its leader angrily denouncing “a semantic pirouette by the war propaganda machines”. A year later, Del Ponte’s tribunal announced the final count of the dead in Kosovo: 2,788. This included combatants on both sides and Serbs and Roma murdered by the KLA. There was no genocide in Kosovo. The “holocaust” was a lie. The Nato attack had been fraudulent.
That was not all, says Del Ponte in her book: the KLA kidnapped hundreds of Serbs and transported them to Albania, where their kidneys and other body parts were removed; these were then sold for transplant in other countries. She also says there was sufficient evidence to prosecute the Kosovar Albanians for war crimes, but the investigation “was nipped in the bud” so that the tribunal’s focus would be on “crimes committed by Serbia”. She says the Hague judges were terrified of the Kosovar Albanians - the very people in whose name Nato had attacked Serbia.
Complain about this comment
Some FACTS:
A whole lot of Russians are hiding this fact. "Soviets" did bad things and they were not Russian, becasue Stalin was "Georgian", but in Fact born to an Ossetian. Stalin was actually Ossetian, his father was Ossetian, so that makes him one, he just managed to be born by a georgian woman. So maybe we should keep an out one them....
Pleas continue
Less we forget, Did Georgia attack Russia? NO
Who has been poking around in Georgia, you got it, Russia.
Will Russia allow North Ossetia to join the south and set up a new ocuntry, NO.
Would Russia love to go into the Ukraine and do some damage, Yes. Will it, I don't know, but if it did, it will start world war III. At that point, it will have poked its head in a well established country, that MOST of its citizens don't like Russia.
By the way being Ethnic is not an excuse to try and break away from ones country. It's a poor excuse used by war mongering people, people who are to ignorant, that one can be ethnic and not need to be seperate.
It is most important being, not being somewhere or belonging to something.
If russia needed to give those people citizenship, let them take all of those back to mother Russia. But remember, the land was given to Georgia, if they want to go, go.
And all you people believing that Stalin was a georgian, his father was Ossetian, so does make this ok now, because some how all the horrors all blamed on Stalin because he was georgian.
Some public history about Stalin
Joseph Stalin was born Ioseb Besarionis Dzhugashvili in Gori, Tiflis Governorate to Besarion Dzhugashvili, an Ossetian cobbler who owned his own workshop,[8] and Ketevan Geladze a Georgian who was born a serf. He was their third child; their two previous sons died in infancy. The second and third toes of his left foot were webbed.[9] Wikipedia
Kalinovka (Russian: ????´?????) is a village (selo) in Khomutovsky District of Kursk Oblast, Russia. It is the birthplace of Nikita Khrushchev.
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (Russian: ?????´??? ????´? ??´???), born Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Russian: ?????´??? ????´? ????´???), and also known by the pseudonyms V. I. Lenin and N. Lenin, (April 22 [O.S. April 10] 1870 – January 21, 1924),was born in Simbirsk on the Volga River. He was a Russian revolutionary, a communist politician, the main leader of the October Revolution, the first head of the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic and from 1922, the first de facto leader of the Soviet Union. He was named by Time Magazine as one of the 100 most influential people of the 20th century.[1] His contributions to Marxist theory are commonly referred to as Leninism.
If I were to blame all that went wrong in RUSSIAN AND THE SOVIET UNION IT WOULD START WITH LENIN
AND GUESS WHAT, HE WAS RUSSIAN.
HE STARTED RUSSIA ON THE PATH IT IS IN NOW, HE IS TO BLAME.
Complain about this comment
It would be nice if EU leaders could make informed decisions. I mean get to know real facts and data on the events and not act/decide on the info similar to that, which comprised the notorius Iraq WMD case. May be, read some memos which their UN Security Council representatives were sending them over the last half year. Or, may be even UN Security Council and Secretary-General reports on the issue.
It would also be swell if they could invest some time in thinking about those facts and figures rather than engage in knee-jerk reaction "building anti-russian coalition".
May be, they could ask themselves "what if we would have approved russian draft UNSC resolution of July 8?" "Why had we not done it?" Or, "can we trust Saakashvili after all hehave said over thelast two weeks?" Or, "which of the two choices is safer for the peoples of the region - (i) we rearm Georgian military (ii) we don't".
Complain about this comment
Nordic Person, Russia is a threat. Russia is unstable. It hates and loves the west. It is envious of what the west has. Russia is home to the most expensive city in the world, when most of it people are poor. Ignorance is the best commodity in Russia. WHen ther was for brief period a free TV station and radio station, they are now gone. A giant oil company with free thinking people gone, western companies who invested in oilfileds forced out(SHell and now BP). Let's be realistic, Russia is not kind, it is hungry for power and wealth. Wealth which the West has and it wants. It sees how to twist arms and it does, by force to Georgia, and by selling or cutting off gas to Ukraine. Why avoid Poland to sell gas to Germany and the rest of the EU in its new pipeline, to Punish Poland.
Come now, Russia is weaving a web, and many Europeans have become numb and do not want to remember what the "soviets" did. You can not hide it's legacy, Russia was the Soviet Union, it controlled all it could until the Bear got old and sick. Now a new Bear is born, hunting for what it's father had and could not have because of a system theat was foul and twisted.
Europe do not give in as you did to Hitler, do not forget, least you forget your children and history.
Complain about this comment
The natural problem is the region has inflamed ethnic boils. These were left over from the USSR breakup and have caused countless trouble and will continue to do so if not put on the table.
These needs lancing through wholesale negociations, especially areas with less than 50% Russian ethnicity. Independently monitored referendum should be held to establish this self determination.
Crimea should revert to Russia, from Ukraine
Chetnya should gain independence from Russia
Transnistria should gain independence from Moldavia
Dagistan should gain independence from Russia
Tartistan should gain independence from Russia.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia should be independent from Georgia. Russians should leave Poti and Georgia proper.
Countries should be free to join NATO or EU; or choose trade/security links with Russia, if thats their wish.
Complain about this comment
West Europeans are afflicted with a very complicated "extended motherland/ fatherland complex". It began with Alexander the Great, then there was the Roman Empire and sometime back, Nazi Germany and today: NATO. Hardly surprising that Italy and Germany are less strident than the more hawkish anti-Russia Europeans. Painful experiences are good teachers.
On the other hand, we Asians despite having limited available resources are willing to go on a war offensive just for the heck of it. It began with Genghis Khan and continued today in Afghanistan with the Taliban. During the Cold War, the only true "hot warriors" from Communist side are Asia's North Vietnamese when they took on the mighty US armed forces.
Nothing irks a country like Russia more then having to face small countries behaving like Mongols or Tartars as in the past but today: Georgia. A small country with limited resources but expecting both material and moral support from NATO in her adventurism.
Today, what Russia sees is a "gang of bullies" using the "smaller boys" to humiliate her. Sounds and looks Hollywood, and sure enough there is the USA hollering anti-Russianism the loudest.
Complain about this comment
Why would it be odd for Sarkozy to claim with Lisbon things would be better? With Lisbon, he wouldnt be in charge but someone who does this 24/7 would be. So he is right.
Complain about this comment
@Ichris1 (82)
I'll comment on your factual statements only, since the rest are your personal beliefs.
“Russia is home to the most expensive city in the world...” Moscow? Right, it is one of the most expensive cities in the world *for foreigners*, but it is not nearly as expensive if you live there. Next time just try to go to a supermarket instead of a fashion shop on a tourist street, and you'll see.
“...most of it people are poor.” To a certain extent it is true.
“...free TV station and radio station.” They were not as free as you think, but I didn't like the way they were killed either. However, the grave problem here is different, and it is corruption in courts.
“A giant oil company with free thinking people.” Now, it's funny to hear it. The people who worked there might be good, but it doesn't cancel the fraudulent operations they did in order not to pay taxes, and it doesn't cancel the trail of assassinations of their competitors. I am happy they are gone!
“hungry to the power and wealth” Well, perhaps, just to the same extent as most international corporations and businesses are, and to a much lesser degree then USA, who claim every inch of Earth to be their “core zone of security”. Is Russia wrong not obeying to US?
“by selling or cutting off gas to Ukraine” I am not sure where you come from, but would you like your country, say, Poland, for example, to sell metals and chemical products half a price to Russia? So, we didn't like it either.
“Why avoid Poland to sell gas to Germany” Because Poland is deemed an unreliable transit country. Not that you've cut the supplies to Germany, but you are constantly threatening Russia. Why should we rely on someone who threats us?
@Irchis1 (80)
You're twisting the facts.
I am not going to elaborate on who bullying whom, because I personally believe that if two sides want a war, nothing could stop them. Russian peacekeepers managed in 1992, but failed in 2008.
“Would Russia love to go into the Ukraine and do some damage, Yes.” It sounds as crazy, as US army attacking Canada or UK.
As for passports, there is a law in Russia that any former USSR citizen can quite easily get Russian passport, which happened to the inhabitants of SO, because it made them easier to trade with and work in Russia, and yeah, it wasn't two days before the war has started, but much earlier.
As for nationality, I don't know how you determine it, but I judge by the native language and country you spend most of your time. Stalin's native language was Georgian, not Ossetian. Khrushchev has got his education and his career in Ukraine. Well, at least we agree upon the nationality of Lenin and Brezhnev. Anyway, I've originally posted it to provoke those trying to blame Russia and Russian people only, as well as those claiming to be enslaved. The truth is, however, we were a single state, and one shouldn't blame one country, because everyone had an opportunity (think of Latvian Mr. Pugo, for example)
@robius3 (83)
You are missing one point: Russia didn't really bother until Georgia started to exterminate SO population. Also, ask yourself why EU is not considered hostile in Russia, whereas NATO is.
Complain about this comment
Wait a moment
Crimea should revert to Russia, from Ukraine.
I don't Think so, just because a bunch of Russians, actually soviet leftovers were transplanted there does not give them the right to take it over. If the Russians did try to take it over it would be WWIII. They leased a base and that's it. Period.
But may be if they handed over kalinngrad.... no in fact they should because it doesn't belong to them, it belonged to Prussia, actually historically to Poland and Lithuania. And at the end of the Soviet Union it should have been given back. Those people in the enclave are just transplants if they have loyalty to mother Russia.
It comes down to this--
Russia is stirring up Europe, discord and chaos
People have short memories and prefer the easy way out, give the bear what it wants, more so if it is not you or your own.
How quickly we forget...
question for a 99p what country started as a foe then got smacked and yelled for help? and then caused almost 50 years of misery for the forgotten eastern Europe? and now wants to rule again??
Complain about this comment
NordicPerson
why are you not in mother russia, it sounds so perfect there according to you? Why go West young man?
Complain about this comment
sizzlestick, least you for get Tartars and Mongols were no small boys. They ruled a lot of land from Europe to Asia. Its a lot of former trod on eastern Europeans who dislike Russia, most Americans could care less about Russia now. Most Americans would want no part in any war, but that shows how many don't understand the big picture. Even if I don't like the people in Washington, they are forced to deal with the big picture and that means Russia for everyone's sake. By and by Vietnam was a business war, and fought haphazardly, on the other hand the Japanese fought well. Koreans are hard, but the Japanese now they were brutal. And yet they changed, decidedly so, but Russia has not learned from history, or at least want to.
Complain about this comment
# 13 ok, so you're not happy with the Kosovo analogy.... fine.
Why not use the central/South America example? The US has enforced regime change in just about every state (particularly the democratically elected ones) under the heading 'National Security' - although it's got more to do with business interests. If you doubt, fine, however, the CIA are happy to use these as examples of their success.
I really think you're splitting hairs!
Unfortunately, their is recent precedent for this type of unilateral action so the Russians feel justified.
Complain about this comment
# 20, you are mis-informed, I refer you to my oringinal posting #8.
#48 AnonymousCalifornian, interesting to hear a 'wise' American point of view. If you don't want to use Kosovo, simply substitute it for just about any South/Central American country and you get precedent.
Do they teach history in your schools or do you spend all your time saluting the flag?
Complain about this comment
I must reply to AnonymousCalifornian who accused me when he wrote in message 48:
"What is with all the Russians pretending to not be Russian on this blog? Who do you people think you're fooling? "
This was in response to my comment at message 5 that "The Russians are only doing precisely what the West did by invading Serbia and occupying Kosovo and later in recognising Kosovo as an independent state."
I'm English and can trace my line back to well before the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from Plymouth, in my ancestoral home county of Devon, in 1620.
Having spent the first part of my life living through (and winning) the Cold War, my motivation is to ensure that we don't create a new Cold War. I was delighted to see the collapse of communism and freedom for the Warsaw Pact countries. That was the time to welcome the new Russia to the community of nations but we have blown it. Whereas Stalin created the Cold War, this time it is our leaders that are to blame this time. Have they learn't nothing?
I don't know how many people listened to the interview with David Miliband on Radio 4 this morning but I do recommend that you try and listen to it later if you missed it by visiting the BBC Radio 4 website. David Miliband showed himself to be the complete idiot that I always thought him to be by proving conclusively that he could not see, let alone take account of, the other persons point of view. For a Foreign Secretary, that is a fatal flaw. Now I know why Gordon Brown appointed him: David Miliband is so bad at his job that he makes Gordon look a genius in comparison.
Complain about this comment
Interestingly most of the the above posts don't even mention the EU as a power (soft or hard) to be reckoned with in this complicated geopolitical conflict.
The EUs irrelevance and impotence is to be celebrated. The last thing the world needs is an unwieldy, unelected, pompous, supranational bureaucracy throwing its good-for-nothing, cowardly, lightweight self around.
Personally, I think Britain should not intervene in this spat. To paraphrase Bismarck: 'The Caucasus are not worth the bones of one Grenadier Guard'.
Fairlyopenmind: you make some good points, but you're an idealist. Personally, I think that even though the markets are depressed, this is a good time to invest in armaments and aerospace industries - as well as companies that build nuclear power plants.
Finally, regarding my support for the emerging trend of marking British banknotes with the phrase Say No to the EU! - I do realise that defacing currency is against the law. I, therefore, withdraw my previous public commitment to executing this campaign. (If you do see lots of banknotes bearing my handwriting they are blatant forgeries! Furthermore, I cannot be responsible for what others may do....). Hypocritical of me? To paraphrase Francis Urquhart: "You might well think that; I couldn't possibly comment"
Complain about this comment
Right, people. Bad Russians are at it again - slaughtering poor, defenseless, innocent Georgians. We must help them! Now!
Go ahead, do it. Russians could not care lees what the West has to say at the moment, since the West has repeatedly ignored Russia's opinion throughout the last 10 years or so. Why should they bother to even be concerned with all the current EU hysteria? It will calm eventually, as the US/EU can do NOTHING in this matter. Let them jump about a bit so they do not feel so bad about this fact.
Georgia had started the conflict. Full stop. There are reports they were provoked - well, look at the Georgian military activities in the region for the past 3 years or so and you will find international (!) reports of numerous provocative incidents by Tbilisi in relation to the disputed areas (shelling, special forces raids, UAV flights, etc., etc). Do not pretend to ignore those operations as they did take place - illiegal under the peace deal signed in the early 1990s. And do not say that those ops were "retaliative measures for separatist attacks" - there were not any recorded according to the same international sources.
And what sort of country-reuniting is that? Firing at a civillian center and the peacekeeping force legally mandated by the UN with no warning? The closest term to describe this is "an act of war".
And please do not start all this Yugoslavia business again. UCK in Kosovo had been receiving the CIA support since 1997. Those who do not beleive it go read Ramus Hardinnaj's memoirs - he served as a rebel commander during the Kosovo wars. The UCK rebel tactics was simple - provoke the Serb forces to retaliate whilst attacking them from behind the civillian population. Worked really well did it not? The USA made a triumphant return and "successfully resolved the crisis" (after being kicked in Bosnia).
One more question. What do you think Israel would do in a similar sort of situation? Hint: remember Lebanon.
Complain about this comment
@ Named-Erion
Kosovo "democratic" government was elected by a nearly 100% Albanian-Kosovar population. After the bombings the Serb-Kosovars were forced to leave by Albanian violence. This is well documented (orthodox churches and Serb houses burnt). In my mind, this is an ethnic cleansing. And yet the US-NATO peacekeepers in the area did nothing to stop this. So it's a bit misleading to rely on a vote that was held under these conditions. Eliminating opposition and expelling voters with a different opinion of yours isn't a democratic process.
Secondly in 1974 Turkey invaded the independent state of Cyprus and still has occupying troops on the island. This action and the continuing occupation has been condemned by the UN but nobody in the world seems to care.
I am not pro or against Russia. My point is that throughout history (recent and past) all the great powers in the world cared for one thing and one thing only. Their own interests. US and their European puppets wanted Georgia for the gas and oil pipes that passes through there. Russia wanted to wants to control Georgia to secure it's own gas pipes and extend it's control over the Black Sea. US-EU wanted Serbia broken up so that it was easily because it was in their interests to support the American loving Albanians and thus controlling the Balkan region.
It's all a matter of economic interest and one would be greatly mistaken if he thought that any of the great powers that control the world would start a war just to protect human rights.
Complain about this comment
"Secondly in 1974 Turkey invaded the independent state of Cyprus and still has occupying troops on the island. This action and the continuing occupation has been condemned by the UN but nobody in the world seems to care."
perhaps because the Greek Cypriots were REALLY asking for trouble? In 1922 Greece and Turkey signed the treaty of Lausanne which was meant to end centuries of ethnic squabbling by returning all 'Greeks' to Greece and 'Turks' to Turkey'. 1.5M people were forced from their homes and it caused countless misery.
In 1974 the Greek cypriots made moves to join Cyprus with Greece (at that time under a fascist junta) which would have allowed them to deport every 'turk' on the island back to Turkey. Turkey repeatedly warned that it would defend the ethnic turks, but the cypriots didn't believe them......
Complain about this comment
I still did not get the answer from the pro Russian's on this forum..
Why Russian "peacekippers" failed to protect Georgian civilians in SO with the SAME inthusiasm??
Why russian peacekipers faild to stop those militans firing on our villages??
We all sow Putin style protection of Russian sitizens in Beslan(350 children and their parantes killed),Nord ost(were 150 civilians were poisend to deth) and finlly Chechnia were thousends were killed...
Dont you find it cinical for the richer state offering citizenship to the minority of his poorer neighbour?
Complain about this comment
96. At 11:00am on 28 Aug 2008, Peter_Sym wrote:
In 1974 the Greek cypriots made moves to join Cyprus with Greece (at that time under a fascist junta) which would have allowed them to deport every 'turk' on the island back to Turkey. Turkey repeatedly warned that it would defend the ethnic turks, but the cypriots didn't believe them......"
That hardly justified a massve and seemingly permanent invasion of 1/3 of the Island, the expulsion of the greek cypriots and the setting up of a rogue state recognised by no one and a haven for criminals and tax exiles.
Complain about this comment
Nothing like a good conflict to aid an ailing politician's standing in the polls, eh?
Someone ought to remind Gordon Brown that Georgia is not The Falklands, so there will be no patriotic fervour over it, Russia is not Argentina and he is not Margaret Thatcher!
To keep pushing the 'punish Russia' line in the face of New Labours stance over Kosovo and also their downright dishonesty over Iraq will do no more than further damage his already diminished credibility in the eyes of the British public.
The Georgia issue has been dealt with by the Russians as a policing issue. It was quick, relatively bloodless (compared to the botched affairs in the middle east) and the area is calm. Russia is aware of the disquiet felt by the West and, on the understanding that this is a one-off, we should let it go.
Complain about this comment
If Scotland suddenly declares its independence, I'm sure that the Disunited Kingdom will do its utmost to undermine any Scottish success.
What will we be expected to say then? Invade them? Recognise UK sovereignty?
I'll be watching with beer and popcorn.
Complain about this comment
1989 Census Abkhaz 17% of population of Abkhazia
1981 Census Albanians 77% of population of Kosovo
Complain about this comment
To understand events in Georgia you should ask yourself: Who is to profit from this conflict? Is it Russia? No! Could you find any material benefit for Russia from victory over Georgia and recognition Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Do you really think that Russians and their government are so stupid, that dream about reconstruction USSR and find it realistic? Yes, the majority of people in Russia and some other former USSR republics regret about it’s collapse, but they understand very good, that it will never revive and there is no need in it. Anyway, real politics are working for material interests, not for unrealistic ideas.
When I ask myself, who has profited from the conflict, I clearly see that it is USA, EU, Bush and Georgia. Before the conflict there was situation, when USA, NATO and EU was planning steps affecting Russia interests: USA wanted ABM systems in Europe, EU wanted to limit Russia investments into energy supply and distribution projects, NATO wanted to join Georgia and Ukraine. The problem is, that all these steps were clearly anty-Russian and it was discordant with official assurances in partnership relations. Now there is no problem, whatever USA, EU and NATO made, they will blame “Russian aggressive policy” for it.
Republican MacCain obviously have got advantage over democrat Obama thanks to the conflict and everybody understand, that republican Bush wasn’t just spectator in it.
Have really Georgia lost smth? Abkhazia and South Ossetiain fact were independent and there was no way to rejoin them but military way. The strategy of Saakashvily is absolutely clear: he want for Georgia to become a EU member and he want it FAST. NATO is just first step to this goal. And these unrecognized republics were like a wall on the way. He could speak to Georgians about territorial integrity of Georgia, but as a politic, he understood, that it’s not possible to reintegrate them fast, may be at all. When Saakashvily started attack on S. Ossetia, there were to possible outcomes. First, Georgia could really capture Tschinval and what is more important, Rocksky tunnel to N. Ossetia. He would became a winner and could repeat attempt in Abkhazia or to convince it to rejoin Georgia peacefully. The problems would was over, way to EU open. Second, if Russia would respond, he could blame it in aggression and ask for defend from NATO. Again the way is open. He would win in any outcome, could he not start attack?
What has profited Russia? Two dependents, the image of aggressor, NATO on it’s threshold, possible interethnic conflicts, closed doors to WTO.
What could profit Russia, if it would not respond? The image of not reliable and weak partner, NATO on it’s threshold, certainly interethnic conflicts, may be open doors to WTO.
You should understand, that Russia was playing other’s game and was just to choose better move from bad ones.
Complain about this comment
Russians broke up two point of the six point plane they have sign on just 2 wees ago...
there has been talk over Kosovo for years,Russia does not give a chance to international talk,what about rights of Georgian refuges of this two regions??As i see Americanofob leftists do not really care.
where are your liberal, proindividual values?it's just prove how politicly motivated Europian left is...
Complain about this comment
first of all, not every country in the EU recognized kosovo so it clearly shows that there is no unified stand point in the EU.
secondly, lets see Georgia's neighbors and their records...
turkey: invaded cyprus and still controlling the north of the island, even turkish cypriots are not happy.
armenia: invaded Azerbaijan as mentioned in many posts above.
russia: invaded georgia with claim of protecting russian citizens.
then lets look at USA and UK: forget about the past, right now iraq is under their invasion....
so who do they think they are to tell Russia what to do.... they are not in any better situation if not worst.
lastly, bbc is getting a little bit "foxy", pls drop it...
Complain about this comment
Whatever the truth behind the conflict, one thing is clear: The EU and NATO can do nothing about it. Unless George Bush is after a final fling by attacking Russia, the only other solution is economic sanctions. That would be a disaster, since Russia would cut supplies of gas and oil.
What on earth is Miliband playing at? Trying to be the tough foreign secretary? He comes more across as a junior manager trying to impose his authority on the old workers.
It seems that once more Europe is disintigrating slowly.
Conspiracy theorists talk about a "New World Order". Maybe the USA wants Europe to fall apart so it can strengthen it's own place in world.
Complain about this comment
Human right watch are bagging EU to protect Georgian civilians..
2 weeks after the end of hostilitys ther are continued attacks by Ossetian militias on Georgian civilians
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/27/georgi19704.htm
Complain about this comment
I only hope this time EU will not interfere in the way they did in Croatia, entering more confusion into the situation, which had been already difficult. If there is not clear goal, what is in the best interest of Europe and -- let's have some courage -- of entire world, better not to interfere. Some desicions are necessary.
Complain about this comment
May I suggest a new blog called 'Everyone at the BBC is a Bigoted Twit'? That way, all those posters like logdon at 17 can bang on about the Corporation's bias between themselves and let the rest of us engage with the substantive issues in peace.
Threnodio, it exists, but it's called 'Have Your Say'.
Complain about this comment
@ Boriz_oz (79)
That whole KLA/Kosovo situation as you have quoted mme Albright and Del Ponte is very disturbing.
Apparently, our 'western' governments are quite willing to tell us bald-faced lies and use propaganda of the worst sort to demonize those they don't like to get us to 'support' action against them. And the media went right along with it, barely a critical word, no research, they just swallowed the lies told by NATO, Clinton and Wesley Clark hook, line and sinker.
This time, the media tries to paint Russia as the only agressor and Georgia as some kind of innocent victim. But this time, they are not succeeding.
And this is the same media who to this day utterly fail to explain to the peoples how exactly the EU works and how there is a tendency to centralize powers in the hands of unelected politicians who are not subject to anything amounting to parliamentary control. Scary stuff, you couldn't make it up if you tried. In fact, most of the media is not just enthralled by the very existence of the EU, but also seems to be willing to accept bribes in the forms of subsidies or special access.
I am loath to believe in all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories but in this case I do believe we are being bamboozled by people with a certain agenda (possibly New World Order stuff?). I see the extreme lengths Barroso, Sarkozy and Merkel are willing to go through to ride roughshod over democracy and pass the Lisbon Treaty despite widespread popular opposition.
In her zeal to do anything her Brussels masters want, Merkel is even willing to basically abolish the post WW II separation of powers (federal vs state government) that was established in Germany. We see it also with Gordon Brown who has made it perfectly clear he doesn't care what the British people want because his primary loyalty lies with Brussels.
Complain about this comment
Excuse for my English. I only study it. I - Russian. And I am proud of the history.
I read many comments here and more and more I understand, that you always considered and consider now Russia as the enemy. In your comments it is so much hypocrisy, ignorance, absolute ignorance of history, a reshuffle of the facts, it is so much falseness, lie and hatred, to my Native land and my compatriots. And in the main turn your enemy are you. There where you appear - the chaos and wars is sowed. We do not want war. You pull all world to war. Another's earth is not necessary to us and so us suffices. But also the we will not give. Napoleon and Hitler it have understood. Leave also you us in rest.
You speak about independence of the Chechen Republic. And you ask Chechens at first. At them only the life was adjusted, and you again wish to set fire to caucasus. You know that the Georgian bandits from capital Ostetii beat out the Chechen battalion "East"? Rupture of templates has happened?
Excuse for an emotionality. But to suffer such false and cynical comments with calmness I can not.
Complain about this comment
The Serbian Ministry of Foreign affairs warned of the possible consequences of recognition of the independance of Kosovo at the beginning of this year. Saddly, it seems that ABKH and SO are an immediate repercussion. We only need to wait and see who will follow next.
What I find particularly hypocritical is the fact that Georgia separated from the USSR, and yet when its enclaves want to separate from Georgia (for very justified reasons), that is completely unacceptable to pillars of morality like Kouchner and Milliband.
We have the same situation in Kosovo. Kosovo's independance is recognized by most of the moral pillars of the west, and yet the northern part of Kosovo, which very much wants to separate from the thugs runnign affairs from Pristina, that is a matter that western morallists find completely unacceptable.
Where's the logic in this?
Complain about this comment
Europe's chickens are all coming home to roost, and all at the same time. How quick Europeans are to forget that six years ago two of their leaders Schroeder and Chirac won elections through anti-American rhetoric and not only did the polls turn around for them in Germany and France but this chord hit a resonant note with populations all over Europe. Disputes over trade, Kyoto, a whole host of other issues culminating in protests over the American led invasion of Iraq had millions out in the streets protesting and resulted in the overthrow of governments in Italy and Spain which supported the US by governments which opposed it. The Europeans had little interest in the perceived threats to American security then, why should Americans have any concern for Europe's problems with their own security now?
A new Russian empire in their near abroad as the result of military intervention in neighboring countries combined with their strangle hold on Europe's energy supplies, 30% of its natural gas and 50% of its oil poses no threat to the United States. Now would be the perfect time for the US to withdraw from NATO, kick the UN out of New York City, tell them never to darken America's door again, and abandon Europe to its fate. Europe never dreamt it would need America's help again in 2002 or 2003. I see no sacrifice comparable to the Berlin airlift to provide Europe with fossil fuels if Russia cuts it off or the risk of a direct military confrontation which could lead to nuclear war with Russia as a policy America should follow.
And after all, isn't this what the Europeans deserve from America, betrayal in return for betrayal? They have dismissed the importance of America to their own survival and I think they should have the opportunity to prove their point by facing the Russian bear all alone. Many of them claim that the US was not the decisive factor in WWI or WWII or even in winning the cold war against the USSR. Let's see just how well they do on their own this time around. I don't even hear a hint of contrition out of any of them so far and my instincts would be to turn a cold shoulder to it if I did.
Complain about this comment
Again this west vs east representation. Russia is bad and east, and marching into other countries and west is good. Why not looking yourself with the eyes of the other? If Russia invaded another country for the first time after Afghanistan what can be said about NATO bombing 1999 and actions in Afghanistan far from its border?
Russia does not regard NATO as a friendly alliance. What is so difficult to understand here? They do not want NATO at their borders, and NATO has been coming close to it and disregarding their objections. Every country would react the same way. It is not the imperial Russia marching again against the democracy and free world. Given what so called "west" and NATO have done in the last 15 years, it is not surprising that many countries doubt its benevolent and democratic intentions and they take it as their duty do defend their borders.
Complain about this comment
#98. "That hardly justified a massve and seemingly permanent invasion of 1/3 of the Island, the expulsion of the greek cypriots and the setting up of a rogue state recognised by no one and a haven for criminals and tax exiles."
No it doesn't, but if Turkey had done nothing then the ethnic turks on Cyprus would all have been expelled instead, THEIR land and business taken and Cyprus would have become part of Greece. Turkey had no financial muscle to stop this happening and the UN/NATO wouldn't intervene between two NATO members so what was Turkey to do? If the Greek cypriots had backed done over their union plans the invasion wouldn't have happened but they refused to believe Turkey was serious.
In effect its like Georgia: there are no good guys, just a situation that should have been stopped before it escalated beyond the point of no return.
Complain about this comment
America should not risk war with Russia to protect European interests. It will not harm America in any way if Russia re-establishes part of its former empire between its own borders and the EU. Europe has chided America over spending huge sums on military weapons while not providing universal health insurance. Europe by contrast has not paid its fair share of the cost or made its fair share of the sacrifice to its own defense. It does not provide anything like the effort or committment of money and men to fight in Afghanistan it should and has largely refused to fight in Iraq. Let them now confront Russia alone. Let's see what happens when the EU is forced to make the kinds of cutbacks in fossil fuel consumption because it doesn't have enough that it promised under Kyoto but never kept and the kinds it now promises and again demands of America. It is time for Europe to stop skating free on the backs of American taxpayers, workers, and consumers and to become the true result of its own limitations, vulnerabilities, and liabilities. Time for it to stop relying on Uncle Sam. It's time for 1-800-USA-HELP to be disconnected permanently.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry, so the west is condemning Russia for recognising the independence of Ossetia?
How is that different to:
- the west recognising Kosovo without UN backing
- calling for independence of Tibet
hi2u arbitary
Complain about this comment
110# sadly you are correct. Many Brits consider Russia the enemy. I do not. I consider the Kremlin the enemy. I have no problem with the Russian people but your leaders ARE NOT satisfied with their own country and keep interfering elsewhere.
When Russians who speak out against Putin are poisoned with radioactive materials in the middle of london we have a problem. When your leaders threaten to point missiles at Western European cities then we have a problem and when 'technical problems' turn off the gas supply we have a problem. When russian spies are STILL the single biggest job facing MI5 we have a problem.
I am not ignorant of Russian history and will remind you of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact and the Katyn forest. Russia invaded Poland 17 days after Hitler did. Not a very friendly act
Complain about this comment
Why Europe don' want to became independent. The USA will fight against Russia, China, Iran, Myanmar, Iraq, Afghanistan until the last European citizen. What is European crucial interest, to confront with Russia or to be partner of Russia and China. For Europe now the result is that it push away Russia in Asia. Is it European task, or maybe it is interest of corrupted politicians in Europe. England should decide will it be part of Europe or will it be USA airport. First of all Europe should decide what are their strategic goals, and after that to form their politics, and not behaving them self as propagator of USA politics in the world. Maybe I am wrong about European independence and democracy and all this is only farce for crowd. The example of Georgia show this clear, how USA plan to make wars until last Georgian, Ukrainian maybe tomorrow last German or Frans. English politicians helps that like puppets, but rest of Europe should have their own vision.
Complain about this comment
I have a proposal:
Let's tell the Russians that all is forgiven, we'll kiss and make up and they can join NATO if they want to. All they need do is first go into Afghanistan and Waziristan and pacify the area for the next 100 or so years (using whatever means they deem suitable).
And Georgia, etc? Heck, do we really care?
Complain about this comment
#119. To be honest I don't really care about georgia. I had 4 months in Croatia in the mid 90's that gave me a rather jaded view of the balkans/causcasus.
The problem is that I wonder how many people cared when Hitler re-militarised the Rhineland........ will Russia stop at S.Ossettia or is it Ukraine next, then the Baltic states, then back into Poland.
Complain about this comment
It is madness for the United States to continue to involve itself in Europe's eternal byzantine politics and endless ethnic hatreds. America paid a heavy price for it in the 20th century and seems not to have re-learned the lesson it forgot, the warning President Washington gave America in his farewell address to stay out of entangling alliances with European nations. The US should stop trying to live up to some impossible moral standard people in other nations have set for it and many of its own citizens have come to accept and act exclusively in its own interests just like every other nation. And it is not in America's interest to stay on the front lines of dangers to the EU especially in light of the shabby way Europe has treated America in the last few years. Time to pull out and say adios, hasta la bye-bye Europe. Besides, short of a major war with Russia, the US can't do anything to help Europe anyway. When the EU imposes embargoes on Russia to punish it, the US should turn a blind eye to it and allow its own corporations to prosper by circumventing them just the way the Europeans circumvented the UN sanctions against Iraq. Let Europe fight its own wars for a change.
Complain about this comment
MAII, I cannot agree with you...
As the old saying goes, "either we all hang
together or we all hang separately."
China and Russia are not our friends.
The Europeans are.
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion;
First of all, nations do not have friends, they have interests. Europe's interests are not those of America any longer. Russia has to sell its oil and gas to someone. By cutting it off from Europe, Europeans will have to buy the shortfall from other less efficient sorces such as having it shipped to them by tanker. If they cannot handle the volume they now consume, the difference will drive down the prices as it constitutes a surplus. This will also drive up the cost of Europe's products making it even less competitive than it already is.
We are already at war with Europe in all ways except militarily. This will be one more nail in their coffin. By rights based on their irrational policies, they should be reduced to the level of the developing world and they will be. We should do nothing to slow the process. We can't and trying only weakens our own position.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @114, I really don't think that Russia's territorial ambitions are Hilterian in scale. There are few similarities between this situation and the rise of Nazism in the early 30s when Churchill (one of my heroes) was a 'lone voice crying in the wilderness'.
I'm pretty confident that the Russians have now accepted the loss of control over the Balkan states (while, correctly, keeping Kaliningrad). There may be trouble with the Ukraine, but this is mainly regarding the Black Sea naval port of Sebastopol and the large number of ethnic Russians throughout Crimea. After a bit of bluff and bluster they'll probably come to some arrangement.
As for the Caucasus: they're welcome to it. I can see no British interest in the area, and I'm really don't want to see British soldiers dying there.
Complain about this comment
#123, MAII, what century are you living in?
Complain about this comment
If only our EU governments gave Mr Saakashvilli a slap on the wrist for starting the whole mess with a military action, this situation could have ended much sooner and much smoother.
Complain about this comment
#119, #120 Max and Peter:
You really should care about Georgia. The Russians
are attempting to control access to Central Asia,
which provides much oil and gas to Europe by
putting their bear claws on the pipelines going
through there.
It's like Jack the Ripper putting a knife against
your throat and then asking, "Do you want to
be friends?"
Complain about this comment
The hair on my body is rising in disgust at the attitude of "Western" governments, media and now our people:
Iraq
2003-now: minimum 95 000 innocent civilians killed, a country destroyed.
Afghanistan
2001-now: minimum 49 000 innocent civilians killed, a country destroyed.
Yugoslavia
1999: minimum 500 innocent civilians killed, a country leveled to the ground.
Sanctions, threats, isolation, aggressively, these are not the answers. The west is pushing Russia away, and then asking why it is reacting this way. What hypocrisy. Did the EU talk about sanctioning the US, or itself, after any of these way more treacherous and ignoble wars?
The US is currently putting missiles in Poland and aiming them at Russia, but In the 62, it almost caused global war for a few missiles in Cuba.
The only way to go is for the whole world to unite, the west and Russia should get closer: NATO has to be disbanded, or include Russia too, there is no other way about it.
Enough confrontation: a new Cold War is being started (by the West) for no good reason but to sell weapons and distract us, the population, from the failures of the last decade.
Complain about this comment
@Irchis (88)
I am not "in mother russia", because I believe in intercultural dialogue. The more I speak to foreigners, the more I understand them, and the better I get to know my own culture.
@"imperialists"
The next time you accuse modern Russia of thriving to restore an empire, think twice about your words.
According to Encyclopedia Britannica, imperialism is a "state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.".
According to Wikipedia, "an empire (from the Latin "imperium", denoting military command within the ancient Roman government) is a state that extends dominion over populations distinct culturally and ethnically from the culture/ethnicity at the center of power."
You may even like make a top 40 chart of modern empires... it should be enlightening! =)
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion @127,
Serves us right for being reliant on others for so much of our energy needs (and listening to the enviromentalist/green anti-nuclear claptrap).
Only the French were sensible and have substantial nuclear generating capacity.
I'm sure all those stupid wind-farms will keep us warm through the cold winter ahead. Alternatively we can burn all EU-related paperwork - and their offices too.
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion #125
A nation recognizing where its true interests lie and acting on them is not a matter of what century you are in, it's a matter of common sense. America was founded on "Common Sense." That pamphlet written by Thomas Paine was the clarion call to the American Revolution.
It is not in America's interest to defend the EU from Russia. It is not in the interest of Americans to continue to pay our tax money to support a vast military in Europe while the money Europeans save on not having to do it themselves pays for their universal health insurance and other social benefits they chide us for not having. Instead of us paying to defend them, they should be paying us for getting the job done while they sit back and laugh at us, spit in our eye. Without us they are dirt. That's what this war is being fought about anyway, dirt. The Russians who live in all of these near abroad countries have no allegience to them anyway, they are loyal to Russia. How many of them are you prepared to fight over? Russia will never be the USSR again. They will never be able to threaten to dominate the entire world again. Even Cuba wants no part of them and they said so just a few weeks ago. Russia has oil, gas, about 12,000 hydrogen bombs and little else. They are poor, weak, their economy and infrastructure is a shambles. Their health care system is failing and in decline. Their population and average life expectancy is going down. If they want to choke off oil and gas to the EU I say let them. Chirac wanted a confrontation with the US and Europe cheered him. Now he has it. Let's not fall on our sword for them ever again. Let's recognise them for what they really are to us, just so much dirt.
Complain about this comment
@maxsceptic (124)
I don't think Russia's ambition are Hilterian in scale either. They haven't annexed Taunton yet, have they? (M. Python fans will know what I mean :-)
Complain about this comment
110. At 2:50pm on 28 Aug 2008, kolesnik wrote:
Excuse for my English. I only study it. I - Russian. And I am proud of the history.
I read many comments here and more and more I understand, that you always considered and consider now Russia as the enemy.
Most of us do not have any problems with Russians. Perhaps if the world got rid of politicians we would all be safer.
124. At 4:30pm on 28 Aug 2008, MaxSceptic wrote:
Peter_Sym @114, I really don't think that Russia's territorial ambitions are Hilterian in scale. There are few similarities between this situation and the rise of Nazism in the early 30s when Churchill (one of my heroes) was a 'lone voice crying in the wilderness'.
Much as Churchill was a "good" leader, he also had some very dangerous ideas. In addition, some of his military plans were as useless as Hitler's. Churchill thought of supporting Finland in 1940! Britain failed to mount an offensive in Norway - Churchill again - and nearly ended at war with Russia..
Politicians are the most dangerous people on the planet. How they ever were created is a mystery, but they are there.
I mentioned a "New World Order" in an earlier post. Politicians appear to want this. Look at the European Constitution/Treaty whatever you want to call it. They are determined to drive it through despite massive opposition. A "No" vote? OK, let's reword the question and try again.
I am really concerned about George Bush and Co seemingly determined to atagonise the Russians. Missile defences in Poland? Is he really thick? If Iran ever launched a nuke at anyone they response would likely turn Iran into glass. The Iranians are not that stupid surely.
Putin is not exactly the most democratic of leaders in my opinion, but if I were the US President I'd spend a little more attention on China.
Complain about this comment
#130, MaxSceptic, you bring up an interesting new
form of alternative energy - and I'm sure that
we have more useless paperwork here in the States
than you do over there.
Perhaps we are not in such bad shape after all.
#83, robius3, I agree with you on principle, but
that's not what's going to go down. We have
thousands of years of history to prove otherwise.
#131, MAII, we'll have to agree to disagree here.
I agree that in the broader sense that Europeans
will have to pay more to defend themselves,
but if they do that, we should help them.
As far as Russia not threatening to dominate the
world again, I would say that they are well along
that path due to stupidity in the West. Instead
of this useless war in Iraq, we should have
knocked off Bin Laden when we had the chance,
and called it a day.
The Russians are taking advantage of our
current weakness, and for the next 4 years
we will see their true colors. I don't think
that they will stop with Georgia, Putin wants
to reestablish the Soviet Empire.
By allying with China and Iran, Putin can do
a pretty good job. This whole thing may go
on for awhile, perhaps 25 years or so.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 #133
Churchill was far overrated. As a military man he was incompetent and proved it at Gallipoli in WWI
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/gallipoli.htm
As a leader in WWII all he could do was pray the Americans would come to Britain's rescue before it was too late. And Japan answered Churchill's prayers when it attacked Pearl Harbor. Then all Churchill had to do was persuade America that the more dangerous enemy was Germany, not Japan. The rest is history.
The idea of putting anti-balistic missiles in Poland is to intercept an Iranian nuclear attack on the US. A successful nuclear attack on America would be unacceptable and would change the world to a greater degree than anything that has ever happened in history. Far more than Iran would be vaporized in the aftermath. Every potential adversary would be an instant target. You may not understand the rage in America among the American people after 9-11, that will be peanuts compared to the aftermath of a nuclear attack. You don't want to live to see the day it happens.
gunsandreligion, why should we help Europe defend itself when it objected when we tried to defend ourselves? How much more of our treasure should we waste on them. They are hardly grateful for it. In fact they look upon us with contempt. We can't help anyway. Don't you see it's a fools mission? They have made countless enemies even within the borders of their own countries. What would happen if Turkey claimed part of Germany where large numbers of Turks live and are abused? North African nations claimed parts of France? Pakistan claimed parts of Britain? They've allowed lots of foreigners into their countries but haven't assimilated them, haven't made them an integral part of their main stream. They've confused indifference with tolerance. They are not like us. Why take on a hopeless cause which isn't in our interest anyway. There are countless ethnic minorities inside Russia like the Chechyns. How many of them who revolt, who get help from outsiders like al Qaeda will you defend? BTW, after the US and NATO, China is Russia's number one enemy. A retired defector from the KGB who lives in the US recently wrote a book saying just that. What happens if Russia and China become hostile to each other over their common border? When there is trouble eveyone suddenly wants us to be their friend. With friends like these we don't need enemies.
Complain about this comment
So here are my comments.
1. Despite of what EU, USA and so on say Kosovo is hardly sui generis. There is no big difference between it and a number of other regions across former USSR and Yugoslavia. What we see is one of the last results of colonial mentality of the so called Great Powers (usually petty and pity at the same time). People were forced into multinational states or client states, instead of being turned into outright colonies, because they were white and were considered to be slightly more civilized. Of course no one bothered to ask them what they think. We see that this model does not work very well even in Belgium, to expect it to work in Balkans or Caucasus is a bit over optimistic.
2. Let me try to compare Kosovo and Ossetia point by point. Both are kind of independent and recognized states. Both have declared independence unilaterally, against the wishes of the former mother states. None of them is going to be a member of UN anytime soon, as both Russia and USA have right of veto in the Security Council.
3. Both were forced into multinational states as autonomous regions, and separated by their kin, with subsequent attempted colonization by Serbs and Georgians (which were a significant number on the ground already as ethnical borders are quite fuzzy). After the Cold War Georgia and Serbia attempted to assert their rule in these regions with power (one can check Wikipedia for background information). Result was civil war with all the suffering of the civilian population.
4. Big powers (Russia in Ossetian and Abhazian cases, and USA and EU in the Kosovo case) entered the automous regions, which had unclear status at this point. I am actually wrong here Kosovo is recognized as part of Serbia in UN Security Council resolutions, while George is part of UN with both breakaway republics included. So in a way the status is relatively clear. Now most Serbs, Roma and other non Albanian groups got “convinced” to leave, often with the use of violence, from most of Kosovo. Same happened with the Georgians in Ossetia and Abkhazia.
5. In both Kosovo and South Ossetia criminal dealing play important role in the economy, actually in both cases many people suspect that the local governments are very closely connected to organized crime.
6. I believe that if one really cares what people of Kosovo think, and bothers to ask them they will prefer to be part of Albania. Which is quite natural. Most people of Ossetia and Abkhazia I guess would like to be independent, but very closely related to Russia, or as a second choice part of Russia.
I hope I have answered most of the comments on my first post. Of course there are differences. Russia is hardly a democratic state, and it is recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states out of love to freedom. I guess if North Ossetia tries to declare independence the answer won’t an OK. On the other hand if Cornwall or Vermont try to become independent, I am not sure how will UK and USA react.
I wonder if anyone is actually going to read this sentence.
Complain about this comment
South Ossetia and Abkhazia,what do they have to do with Kosovo?! If it is so then Russia should immediately recognize Republic of Kosovo! That would be a good laugh.Who have not lived with slavs cannot understand them! Vindictive and evil. Russia should be knocked down ONCE AND FOR GOOD! We all hade enough of Russian fingers stiring our fates and lifes! When will slavs grow up?!
Complain about this comment
MAII, you bring up a lot of points, I shall only
respond to a few...
The Old World is tribal. There are no modern
nation states in the eastern hemisphere.
This does not mean that we don't have interests
in the region.
Europe has a long way to go, they will never
be as adaptable as us, but that does not mean
that we should not help them where possible.
As far as Russia and China, they may have
a conflict in the future, but for the time being
they seem to be uniting against us.
My position is that we should support democracies
when we can, in mutually beneficial ways,
and otherwise work to prevent one power
from dominating Asia.
#136, Nikolay, you bring up a lot of long-standing
problems. Some of these date back to the 19th
century. As you point out, we are not going to
be able to solve the vast majority of them.
#129, NordicPerson:
My position with Georgia is that the
Russians are destroying the east-west lines of
communication to central asia, and sooner
or later, we're going to have to do something
about that. The Ossetian and Abkhazian conflicts
were an excuse for the Russians to get into
the rest of Georgia.
If the Russians were really just concerned about
Ossetia and Abkhazia, they would not currently
be occupying Poti and Sendaki, tearing up
railway bridges, and putting mines on Georgian
railroads.
Complain about this comment
This from a reporter in Tkviavi, Georgia Aug 28 as reported in The Independent:
"Please tell everyone in Russia, in the world, that we want to be with Russia, we don't want Saakashvili. He has brought us nothing but trouble," implored Karaman Goguashvili, 77. "We don't need Nato, we don't need America, we need to be friends with Russia."
When asked if they agreed with this, the other villagers in the group nodded vigorously.
American Imperialism, British saber rattling Need to STOP!
Complain about this comment
this is Human right watch new report:
EU: Protect Civilians in Gori District
Russian forces started withdrawing from the Gori district around August 22, but they continue to have checkpoints in the area. Human Rights Watch researchers documented a disturbing pattern of violence against civilians, including abductions, looting, and beatings taking place beyond these checkpoints, particularly in areas bordering South Ossetia.
“Georgian villages in the border areas have become a no man’s land, with civilians at the mercy of Ossetian militias and armed criminals,” said Rachel Denber, Europe and Central Asia deputy director at Human Rights Watch. “Europe’s relationship with Russia has seldom been more difficult than today, but this issue cannot wait for a political solution to the conflict. Addressing this situation should be a top priority for the EU at next week’s summit.”
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion
What case can you make for defending "our interests" in Europe that is worth the cost and risk we'd run if we try?
One mistake you made is to call them democracies. No such thing. Look at the EU. It's as despotic a dictatorship as their ever was. And do you know that Gordon Brown can cede even more of Britain's sovereignty to it than it has already lost through a fiat acceptance of the Lisbon Treaty with the stroke of a pen all by himself? That's right, he doesn't even need agreement from his rubber stamp Parliament.
The EU has many disaffected minorities but it doesn't even acknowledge them or the injustices it has inflicted and the danger their disaffection poses to them internally. They are not even close to having a Martin Luther King let alone a Clarence Thomas, a Colin Powell, a Condelezz Rice and certainly not a Barack Obama. We have not only sped up and passed them by far a long time ago technologically, industrially, economically, agriculturally, culturally, but in our social development especially. Compared to us they are like Neanderthals. Why take sides of one tribe of Neanderthals against another?
Our mistake wasn't in invading Iraq or attacking Afghanistan, it was in in getting involved in Serbia. That was a European problem, not ours. We should not be involved in any of the myriad possible future squabbles and wars looming on their horizon.
In 1781, the French Navy blocked the port of Charleston preventing the British Navy from releiving Cornwallis at Yorktown. As the result, Britain lost the American Revolutionary War. France has never let us forget it even though it is very likely if unprovable that we would eventually have kicked the British out without their help anyway. Other than that can you think of one thing Europe has EVER done for the US? Nothing as far as I can tell unless you want to count the tens of milions of refugees who fled Europe in desperation to come to America and helped build our country. Yet they often act as though we owe them something or like we should acquiesce to their directives, follow their words of wisdom. What wisdon do they possess? Just look at their infamous history. They have little to show for their efforts of over a thousand years that is of any value to us. The only thing they can teach us is how not to fail by their example.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII,
You are unfair on Churchill. He knew his own strengths and weaknesses. As he himself said, "The nation had the lion's heart. I had the luck to give the roar".
He was fallible and flawed - human basically, but still a giant among world statesmen of the past 100 years. Can any American President come close? I have a personal favourite: Ronald Reagan. (Not joking!). Truly first class statesmen who have saved, preserved and furthered the interests of their nation, transforming their fortunes for the better, are rare. (Kemal Attaturk perhaps?)
I agree that within the next decade or so there is likely to be a Russo-Sino conflict about the rich resources and 'lebensraum' of eastern Siberia.
China's growing population - and Russia's declining birthrate - will exacerbate this sensitive subject.
Complain about this comment
Georgia crisis tests BBC objectiveness indeed.
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic
I'm unfair to Churchill? Did you read the link I posted about Gallipoli? Churchill invented that fiasco. What did Churchill do that was so great, stand around while German V1s and V2s were blowing up London all around him shouting "this is Britain's finest hour?" I'd hate to have seen it during its worst hour.
Complain about this comment
Jo-knows
This from a reporter in Tkviavi, Georgia Aug 28 as reported in The Independent:
how dare you??
this women is terorising by those militias,what do you expect from her,she is trying to survive???
did you read intire article??
Of course leftis indepedent is trying to be "balanced"...
Georgia is unite as never against those barbarians...
Complain about this comment
#142, MaxSceptic, I agree with you about Churchill.
If it had not been for him and FDR, the entire
world would have descended into a new dark age.
Complain about this comment
135. At 5:50pm on 28 Aug 2008, MarcusAureliusII wrote:
Neil_Small147 #133
Churchill was far overrated. As a military man he was incompetent and proved it at Gallipoli in WWI
If you had read my post correctly, you will have seen I stated that Churchill had dangerous military ideas.
I also put "good leader" in inverted commas for a particular reason: Churchill was able to motivate people, which was needed during WW2. If you had jumped off your horse for two minutes you would also have realised that Churchill was not elected to power after WW2. Also, not everyone was endeared to the man.
You also need some history lessons.
Yes, Churchill was desperate for the USA to enter WW2, but Roosevelt held firm. After Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, it was Hitler who made the incredible decision to declare war on the USA. Had he not done, Roosevelt would have had great difficulty in persuading Congress to fight in Europe.
You also completely misread my point about Iran.
I'd suggest some Engish literature and language lessons before you make comments on other poster's views.
Or is this the typical USA approach - dive in, attack, then check out what you actually targetted?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII, I'll can't be bothered to get into a debate with you about Churchill and/or WW2, etc., etc. It's just too tedious.
I agree that America should put its interests first. As a Briton, I naturally put British interests first.
In this instance I believe that British, American and even European interests are best served by not entering into a cold war with Russians over the Caucasus. (A far off place of which I know little, and the little I do know I don't like ;-)
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147, don't let MAII get you all worked
up. There are some of us who don't think that he
is actually an American, that he is just trolling the
waters.
Complain about this comment
Jo-knows
"Georgia is unite as never against those barbarians..."
gunsandreligion, they all feel that way against someone or other. You'll hear the same from the Wallons about the Flemish and the Felmish about the Walloons in Belgium, the same about the Basque from the Castillions in Spain and visa versa. Which of these Neanderthal tribes do you want to side with? How much risk and sacrifce should the US be prepared to make if Russia gets controlf of the pipeline to the EU which runs through Georgia (they're only a few miles away from it already) and took it over having an even greater choke hold on its energy? When do we pull out? The beauty of what has happened in the way of anti-Americanism in Europe over the last few years is that they have shown us who our allies aren't. We can leave with a clear conscience knowing that they are not worthy of any more of our efforts on their behalf. Now would be an excellent time to abandon them and tell them exactly why. What a shocking surprise it would come as to them.
Complain about this comment
Missile defence in Poland is an encroachment on Russia's neighbourhood? Or a provocation?
How does this account for Polish sovereignity? Does Poland (or any other country) has the right to determine what goes on its territory... or do they have to consult the nearest superpower?
Poland is surrounded by Russian nukes. Russia openly threatens nuclear strikes on Poland. Yet Poland has no nuclear weapons to retaliate with.
The question becomes, if by Russian argument Russia has the right to be concerned about being threatened by installations in its "near-aborad", why Poland does not have the same right?! Especially when Poland is threatend by MANY MORE Russian OFFENSIVE and NUCLEAR weapons!
The same argument applies to other countries near Russia. Why are their rights ignored?
The Russians are trying to create caste system for independent countries where the concerns of Russia overide even bigger concerns of smaller countries.
As MAII praising the US for being such a great ally. Well... after WII the US and others simply abandoned their Eastern European allies to the Russians. Now we are being told it is all our own fault, and to look out for ourselves. Except the past creates the present. Poland and others in this situation can not CURRENTLY defend themselves against Russia because 50 or so years of Russian rule over them have left their economies highly damaged and they need time to rebuild. Thus these countries are seeking allies wherever they can because they know: 1, if Russia can, it will take them over; 2, they can not defend themselves just yet... and even if they can, the Russians can just nuke them as they often threaten.
In Georgia the Russians created a farce: 1, they created and supplied the "rebels"; they ethnically cleansed the Georgians and held elections, then accepted the result; they provoked or frightened Georgia into attacking with military movements; they retaliated and proceeded to destroy the economey of the country.
The simple truth is that in the short term Europe CAN NOT DO ANYTHING against the Russians. Rather this should be a lesson for the future and a stimulus to prepare for the next time the Russians get similar ideas. Georgias grivances should be investigates by indpedent organisations and documented, when Europe (or some kind of coallition) is ready to act at some point in the future, the guilty can be punished. For now let's rebuild and economically support Georgia to the point where the people in SO and AB will wonder why life there is so much better.
Complain about this comment
All the history lessons, it's great. The one thing that is very clear to me is that the EU is loosing credibility by shouting out threats and nothing to back it up. And even if Europe could back up those threats with a military response, i strongly doubt that they would want a war, now that things are going so well. Secondly, France, according the news had about 58 or so soldiers killed in the last 30 years. Just a few days ago, 10 French soldiers were killed and Sarkosy took off to Kabul in a show of solidarity. The Brits sent seven thousand soldiers to Iraq and basically did nothing in Basra. Hmm, my math indicates to me that the probability that the EU would go to war agains Russia, just using conventional weapons, is about less than 1%. Fat chance of a robust response. Unless by robust you ( generic you ) mean hollering at the wind.
Complain about this comment
Western leaders are full of words, but when it comes to concrete actions, the silence is deafening. It's obvious that France, England and others are following the "let's look tough on Russia but not do anything to make them angry" tactic, as in the second scenario.
Call me a Russian sympathizer, anti-democracy or whatever, but #5 and others are right: the West precipitated this crisis by recognizing Kosovo. Maybe Kosovo deserves to be independent, but maybe so do S. Ossetia and Abkhazia? that doesn't make it a good idea to embolden ANY separatist movement. The only non-hypocritical thing to do is tell Kosovo to rejoin Serbia and demand the same from Georgia's two separatist regions; or else recognize the separatist regions. We shouldn't have recognized Kosovo in the first place!
Most ominously, though, has anyone thought how this situation parallels Taiwan? China has not taken sides yet, which means it is weighing how to use this situation for its advantage in regaining Taiwan.
China could support Georgia, and argue that China, too, can legitimately use force to establish "constitutional order" (Saakashvili's words) in the country, even if troops from another Power supports the de facto independence of a separatist region. OR it could support Russia, arguing that might makes right and China, like Russia, has the right to invade if the safety of its "citizens" are being threatened. OR China could just bide its time, using either or both arguments to its advantage, depending on who comes out on top once the Georgian crisis passes. Whatever happens, look to apply the lessons of this crisis to Taiwan.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small 147
I'm sorry to have to say tht it is you who needs the history lesson. Roosevelt wanted to enter the war. But American popular opinion was dead set against it, by 80%. Roosevelt had no pretext until Pearl Harbor. He wanted to sell weapons to Britain but Congress passed a law forbidding it. To circumvent the law, Roosevelt invented "lend lease" which allowed America to "rent" warships to Britain which was technically not a sale. It was probably illegal under American law. After Pearl Harbor, it was instinctive for the US to put priority on retaliating against Japan. The Royals had visited the US about a year before Pearl Harbor to plead for help but to no avail with the American public. Churchill told Roosevelt that if he didn't help Britain soon, there might not be a Britain left to help, that's how serious its plight was. There must be tens of thousands of documentaries in the US about WWII and it is remarkable how consistant they are in the facts. How many people died in WWII? 40 million? 50 million? 100 million? I'll bet I've seen at least twice that many die in documentaries and movies about WWII over the years.
And yes I know that as soon as the war was over, Churchill was voted out of office. Many in Britain were still enfatuated with Socialism and Communism. Now its another despotism, the European Union. They'll never learn.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion
1984 is past and gone. Georgia did attack Ossetia in the middle of the night. A sneak attack. Please don't attempt to persuade us with fabrications. We all heard and saw the news. Trying to split hairs on who started what because of defacto skirmishes is nonsense and desingeneous.
The fact that the president of Georgia is erratic - seen on TV numerous times during the crisis - is indicative that he is not so credible. He cries, emotional he said, then blames the EU and the West for the problem for their passive behaviour. When he said this, even Ms Rice was amazed. Did you not see her face? She could not believe that this guy, instead of being thankfull that Rice was there, started to accuse others of failure. It was the president of Georgia who failed to use reason, the one that says don't attack an enemy that can squash you like a bug. Just be thankful they are not part of Nato or we might now be in the middle of wwIII.
Complain about this comment
#147 Neil_Small147
Churchill was elected to power in 1951.
MarcusAureliusII:
If the USA had not entered WW2 in Europe then western Europe would have been ruled by Hitler. Hitler made peace overtures to the UK in 1940, we probably should have taken them, in our interest.
The war in Europe would then have been between Hitler and Stalin. The USA would have no foothold in Europe other than through the USSR. American shipping would be unable to cross the Atlantic.
The East coast of the USA would have presented an exposed flank. The Japanese would have asked for German help, possibly through their French and British allies, to divert American attention. There would be shellings, landings, attacks on American coastal shipping which the Germans did anyway, war or no war. The people in the East would have asked to be defended.
The USA might well have (in the end) come into that war on Hitler's side, Hitler would have brokered a peace with the Japanese to avoid communist world domination. Probably after a change of President in 1944.
How would you explain the "Jewish Question" in these posts, assuming the internet came into being ?
Complain about this comment
If we take a very deep look inside the situation in Georgia, it tells us that the Western Europe never had the guts to apply the solidarity thing or "principle" in regards to "die as a free man or live as a coward" and Europe is living as a coward in russian shadow, for materialistic own interests. But if you dont stop the fire in the spot it will spread till it reaches you, even though last, but there will be nobody left to ask for help.
Talk is cheap, and the EU politi-underdogs that are "speaking" dont bite. And Kremlin knows this. When NATO allies make the choice not to allow Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, they showed that they are not willing to fight for this countries.
Russia is playing its card well and is not loosing time, and I guess how the politiburos of EU will deal with the Ukrainian crisis coming soon, but this crisis will be in a very sophisticated way. Even the west itself will be amused about it.
There will be one solution in the end, either D-evolution, or World War 3. Make the right choice.
Anyway, things may get better unexcpectedly, but not soon enough.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob
The US was never Eastern Europe's ally. But so what? The US should be looking out for its own interests alone. Eastern Europe is not one of them. If the EU thinks it's in their interest, then let them defend it. They wanted expansion into Eastern Europe a few years ago because when you add all of the GDP numbers together now, they total more than the US's. It was an ego thing for France and Germany and the rest of them went along with it. In fact, France and Germany expected Eastern Europe to be under their thumbnail. Chirac told the then aspiring Eastern European applicants to the EU that if they didn't support France's position on Iraq or at least shut up, he'd block their admission. But while the governments there supported the US, the populations didn't. They demonstrated against the US just the way their western European counterparts did. Fend for yourselves, we in America don't need you. Many of us are tired of being in Europe as a military force to keep you from killing each other. There's not even a thanks for it. I'd be the first to say good-bye. Don't be surprised if Obama gets elected he tells Europe just that. They weren't paying attention to WHAT he said when he was in Berlin.
Complain about this comment
WE MUST BOMB RUSSIA to the STONE AGE and SPLIT IT IN 4 PARTS AS A PUNISHMENT.
AS WELL AS Russian troyan horses in Europe must be nutralised, and eliminatied as first priority. They must chease to exist all together.
Let finish the job in one shot and on the spot.
Complain about this comment
156. At 8:55pm on 28 Aug 2008, chill0 wrote:
#147 Neil_Small147
...If you had jumped off your horse for two minutes you would also have realised that Churchill was not elected to power after WW2...
Churchill was elected to power in 1951.
I meant immediately after WW2 but fair point.
Complain about this comment
#151, Rob_Hob, while I agree with much of
what you have said, there are some points
you have made with which I would have to
disagree.
Specifically,
1. There are many things that Eastern Europeans
can do to prevent Russia from threatening them.
You could start by telling the Germans, Italians,
and French that they should support you, or
at least not get in the way of American and
British support.
2. If the Polish asked for American nuclear
weapons to be placed on their soil to deter
the Russians, I'm sure that we would send them.
We sent 172 Pershing II missiles to West Germany
when they were under threat.
3. There are American, Turkish, and Polish
warships in the Black Sea. We dealt with
the Russians for about 40 years during the
cold war, and we are ready to deal with them
now.
4. There is a large community of Americans
of Eastern European descent, for example
Poles, as described here.
All you have to do is ask, and we'll send you
all the help you need to keep the Russians
from threatening you.
Complain about this comment
chill0
Your fantastic hypothetical history of what might have happened is entertaining but pointless. We'll never actually know what would have happened, only what did happen. With the exception of a handful of individuals in Europe and American Jews, nobody cared what happened to the Jews in Europe as the result of Nazism. Eastern Europe including Russia and Poland were always strongly anti-semitic. That included the Roosevelt administration. Let's not forget that the US government turned back the ship the Saint Louis with about 200 Jewish refugees who were without doubt fated to death in Nazi concentration camps. The US did not want to take in large numbers of European Jewish refugees. There was a great deal of anti-semitism in the US at that time. Many in Truman's administration urged him not to recognize the state of Israel in 1948. But he did and it happened ten minutes after it announced its creation as a state. America's love of Jews and Israel has been only in the last few decades. America sees Israel as its one true ally in the War on Islamic Terror and on the front lines of it for the last 60 years. Europe seems numb to it. Europe can't even get that right and its own survival is on the line. That's one more reason for the US to abandon it.
Thinking back on my own Eastern European heritige, part of my ancestry anyway, I say to hell with them. Let them face the Russians without America's help. Go bother France and Germany. They wanted you in the EU, let them now defend you. If I were in Eastern Europe, I'd start demanding my government stop building so many roads and buildings and start raising armies and buying American fighter jets. That or apply for an American visa.
Complain about this comment
Ofilha, neither Kosovo or SO/AB should be independent. The situations are similar, but not the same... but the conclusion is the same: no independence. Excluding and ethnically cleansing Serbs/Georgians to then take away their territory unde the pretext of helping the majority civilain population is unjust in both cases. The argument FAILS though, where you start to say that because Serbs were wronged in Kosovo, it is ok so something similar in Georgia.
Complain about this comment
Double standards!That's what comes to my mind when talking about Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia.I can't see the difference between them.Please, somebody explain me why the albanians in Kosovo could have their own state and at the same time abkhazians and ossetians could not?
Complain about this comment
why can't I post my comments?
Complain about this comment
gunsandreligion
You are crazy. The US will not place missiles armed with nuclear warheads aimed at Russia on European soil. Russia is not a direct security threat to the US and there is no reason to believe it could or would be in the future. Russia is not the USSR. Russia's theat to the US is through third parties like Iran. I'd be far more worried about Iran if I were you. I am.
My ancestry is partly Eastern European. They left over a hundred years ago. I feel no kinship towards them. Tell me, how are the Roumanians treating the Hungarians who live in Roumania these days? Which side should I root for? I don't care what they do to each other. How are the Czechs and Slovaks treating the Roma? How are the Germans treating the Turks? Are the police still turning a blind eye to the skinheads in former East Germany when they beat them, kill them? Can anyone named Mohammed get a job in France yet even if he was born there and has a PHD or are their CVs and applications still tossed in the trash as soon as someone sees their name? What are you defending gunsandreligion? I don't care what happens to them and they are my ancestors, why should you? If you have investments there, I'd sell out now while I still can.
Complain about this comment
MAII you are not correct. Poland and others were part of the Allies, so you were officially allied. I'll leave the moral responsibility if any for the results to determine by yourself... Self interest as you argue is fine too... but where I get annoyed is when I am being blamed for not doing enough by some kind of extension... when nobody is perfect when it comes to contributions to alliances.
You maybe right that some countries are not pulling their weight in NATO... as for the former Eastern European countries, just look carefuly if they actualy stood with America in recent conflicts, and keep in mind that they are still weak and can not help too much.
Guns, I do not think there is too much point talking to some European countries about support, aside from diplomatic one. I am quite sure that even with NATO and the EU if for example Poland got attacked, some countries would not come to its help.
As for the constant threats of getting nuked by Russia, my main point was to show their hypocrisy. Though is this keeps happening, Poland may need to have some kind of nuclear deterant of its own and crucially under ITS control. At this point I do not think there is a need to go there just yet.
As for cold or hot warlike Karolina suggests, it's best to turn it into an economic WWI. When the Russians are weak again, let's renegotiate the relationship with them.
I am not in Poland anymore, directly as a result of the Russian cold war, and frankly when I read around the unrepentant Russian neo-imperialism, or ignorant comments from their leftie sympathisers, I wish all could experience the world as it was 20 or 30 years or so ago.
Complain about this comment
why is my comments not going through?
Have we got selective opinions now?
Complain about this comment
Mark, i am sorry to say but as an adviser literally speaking "you suck".
And your minister even more.
How the hell a minister asks for advice, when his advisor must be a minister. Are the incapable incompetent incharged?
After Sarkozy failure, do we need to discuss his ideas? it's so funny to think, that EU needed Lisbon and High representatives, such as Mandelson.
If France was invaded by Russia was Sarkozy going to personally write and sign such a worst deal ever such as the georgian one????????????????????????????????????
I could see in his face, that he betrayed the Europeans, for French and personal interests... but he misscalculated, becuase russia will use this deal to destroy his reputation if he has any at all.
No deal is much better deal than a bad deal.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob
what you wish is not what you get...
and without a standing up to the russians, we are agreeing that russia is a superpower and that's it.
you want ecomomic war, russians want war-games, france wants talking war, and germany wants peace war, so what happens next is never pre-determined.
One thing is for sure, that russians gave blood, as US does in Iraq etc, to protect their interests, so Europe cannot win this without a fight. Its the law of the jungle or nature.. i think we have forgot that we are living beings in this planet as animals,plants are, so this is it.
Complain about this comment
To put it bluntly Germany (where I live) is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Basically if it shouts too loudly its gas goes off or suddenly becomes more expensive. Thanks to the last KGB shutdown of Ukraine Germany was down to 30-days gas supply. Given I think that round 50% of German gas comes via KBG/Gazprom there is no way the German Govt would be seen to be doing too much. I am sure the German Govt, would much rather be more vocal but it has little room to move. The only saving grace is possibly that Merkel being an ex-communist can talk to the Russians in the old soviet way, so her communist roots may come in useful in the end. She is a tactical and competent politician, who even if I don't agree with her every move is far more genuine and down to earth than the French style guru, sorry er President. Hence I think her brand of dialogue is probably one form that is needed right now.
Sadly though Russia knows it holds all the economic cards, so I would prepare for a new era where the EU is more the KGB-EU... perhaps not today, or tomorrow but almost certainly in 20-30 years time. Partnership is not what they are looking for....
Complain about this comment
Well there is not one serious argument to draw paralels between the Kosovo Conflict and South Osetia.
Even the Russians admited Kosovo is Unique case,in the words of Medvedev.
Russia's actions have been condemned by every Democratic country in the world.
Not even Iran,not even China,not even Serbia are backing Russia on this.Actually there is not one country backing this kind of action this time.
So the debate should be about how is the international community to deal with Russias agression.
And most importantly will the E.U be able to present a united front this time,before things get hotter?
This are interesting times.Eastern Europe will be examining very closely the actions of western Europe this time.
Complain about this comment
Russia's actions were swift and precise.Most of all,effective !
Perhaps we need some of this kind of action in Iraq nd Afghanistan !
A lot of empty talk from the West !
Nato and the West look " toothless ".
Russia wins--Big time !
Complain about this comment
Double standards!That's what comes to my mind when talking about Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia.I can't see the difference between them.Please, somebody explain me why the albanians in Kosovo could have their own state and at the same time abkhazians and ossetians could not?
you are ignoring the differences...
300000 Georgians (who were majority in this region) were ethnicly cleansed from this teritory,is not it enough?
and now Russian and Osetian militias are doing the same in South osetia...
Go head Eurpian leftists,chear Russia..
it seems OK destroying villages,looting, cluster bombing and ethnick cleansing as long as Russian is donig this!
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob Ethnical cleansing and populating Kosovo with Serbs and same done in Georgia with Russians!That is their politics, their way of thinking…not capable to do anything useful for human kind ,so stick to only one thing they are good at: killing and torturing! Any one who loves Russians so much,take them at home,we won’t miss them…also take Serbs! They are the reason for all our troubles! I think we should sue them for all these years of torture, stress and leaving entire east Europe in such a terrible mess!And again when will Slavs grow up and let us all have a life that we prefer?
Complain about this comment
Britain talked only a year or two ago about eliminating its nuclear weapons deterrant. That would leave it as helpless before Russia as it was in the face of Nazi Germany. Short of nuclear weapons, only the United States could stand up to Russia. In fact if the US were truly determined, Russia's military would be a turkey shoot for Americans. The qualitative difference between American conventional weapons and military capability and anyone elses has diverged since the end of the cold war. But it won't happen unless it is by accident or miscalculation. The US ultimately has no dog in this fight. Tweaking the bear's nose with words, antibalistic missiles in Poland, economic sanctions, and more "deals" to set up military bases in Central Asia surrounding Russia in the name of the war on terror is sure to get Russia to retaliate against Europe. There's not much it can do to America. I don't care.
Complain about this comment
The West should have expressed disconfort from the scratch over Georgian move to send troops to South Ossetia. The Georgian President is clearly a dangerous adventurer and a clumsy politician.
You will excuse me, Georgians, but I totally oppose NATO plays any role in this crisis. In my opinion the West should have created from the beginning a sanitary cordon around Georgia, limiting the consequences upon this nation.
So the fight should have been circumscribed between Russia and Georgia, leaving room for the West to play a more effective and safer role of intermediation.
Saakashvili speaks a perfect English, got a degree in Harvard and appears always with the EU flag, so what? He has brought his nation to the edge of war with hundreds of deads and thousands of peple affected as a consequence of his estupid action.
Moscow and Tblisi: make your deal and call me if you need any help as a referee.
Complain about this comment
Georgia crisis tests BBC objectiveness in his everyday reports.
Complain about this comment
@karolina001 (159)
My oh my, bomb Russia back into the stone age? Carve it up? I've rarely seen such demented stuff on this blog. A rare combination of a Hitler-esque wish to crush Russia and a Franco-British neo colonialist mindset.
And who'se gonna bomb Russia? You? Or you expect others to do it for you? And suppose the US bombed Vladivostok and Britain/France/Germany tried to bomb St Petersburg or Rostov. What do you think would happen? Russia would sit still and allow itself to be bombed?
I do suspect you want the US taxpayer to pay for all that, right? Because I don't think you would volunteer to fight yourself. No others (read: US soldiers w/British hangers-on) would have to do it for you.
And about China, it obviously doesn't want further precedents regarding breakaway regions declaring independence, but it distrusts the 'west' more than it does Russia. It's western progressives who keep harping on about Tibet, not the Russians. And with a rapidly growing Chinese economy, they might need a lot of Russia's gas and oil. Resources Europe doesn't have. And how would Europe react if Russia sold primarily to China leaving Europe literally in the cold? China did praise Russia for the 'peace' in the Caucasus, so it's obviously not siding with US/UK/EU either.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII (176)
except for the problem that the USA's troops are tied up in Iraqistan (as Bush loves to call Iraq/Afghanistan). If Russia moved into Ukraine, how exactly would you expel them from there? By raining missiles upon Ukraine? Although there is a significant disparity between US military capability and Russian, you are clearly overestimating US capability and underestimating Russian.
And if US troops left Iraqistan, both would fall to radicals quite soon. Iraq would be controlled by Shi'ite militia and Afghanistan wouldn't hold against both the regional warlords and resurgent islamic terrorists. Kurdistan would use US absence to declare independence from Iraq, which would probably provoke Turkey into invading and all hell would break loose.
Complain about this comment
betuli, #177, I agree that Saakashvili was foolish
to rush into SO, and the US told him it was a trap.
Nonetheless, the Russians are still deep inside
Georgia, and we have to kick them out sooner
or later.
In the meantime, we can make a big show
of rebuilding Georgia, and point to it as
an example: this will have more negative
consequences for them than if they simply pulled out.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
georgemil wrote:Double standards!That's what comes to my mind when talking about Kosovo and South Ossetia and Abkhazia.I can't see the difference between them.Please, somebody explain me why the albanians in Kosovo could have their own state and at the same time abkhazians and ossetians could not?
_______________________
You can't see the difference because you're either an ignorant, or a (serbo-russian) bigot, pretending not to see the difference, or perhaps, as is more likely, you're both: an ignorant and a bigot. It's as simple as that. Therefore there's no need to explain anything to you ....
PS: My post wasn't intended just for "georgemil", who happened to be the one I chose to reply to, but for all the other "goergemills" out there wanting "explanations".... and making fools out of themselves ....
Complain about this comment
mcdv-1975
First of all, if Obama gets elected President there will be enormous pressure on him to withdraw US forces from Iraq quickly. Considering that many of his closest allies and supporters in American politics were on his side because this was their number one priority, it's hard to see how he will resist. At this time, Iraq's government is far too weak to fight and Iran will see an opportunity to capture Iraq through its surrogate militias. Don't be surprised if Hezbollah sends its fighters to Iraq too. A very bloody civil war is likely.
The Kurds and Turkey will be the least of the world's worries.
Should the US decide to engage Russia in the Ukraine with conventional weapons, it will have little trouble with a poorly equipped poorly trained military using hardware that is at least a generation or more old. But Russia might resort to tactical nuclear weapons which would escalate into a general nuclear exchange very quickly.
If the US/NATO nuked Vladivostok, Rostov, St Petersburg, the US taxpayers won't be worried for very long because there won't be any US taxpayers...or anyone else left alive. World War III (or would it more aptly be called World War V) fought over Ukraine bringing an end to all human life on earth? I don't think so. Even Obama isn't that stupid.
Complain about this comment
What do readers to this blog think of Putin's conspiracy theory that the Republicans encouraged the Georgians to attack South Ossetia in order to boost McCain's chances of winning the Presidential election? The suggestion is that a Republican victory in November will keep the Democrats from finding out about all the lies that Bush and Cheney told the American people to get them to support the invasion of Iraq.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7586605.stm
Complain about this comment
bloger11,
i support your opinion,
russian bigots and puppets out of EU, out of Europe, out of WEST, but back in Asia.
Complain about this comment
What is the difference between Kosovo, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia? We know pretty much what happened in Kosovo. Serbia's government wanted to create a greater Serbia. We saw it for a decade. We had people there who reported it first hand. We saw a million Kosovars out in the snow driven from their homes by the Serbs and their militias, forced into the cold to die. America bombed Serbia without a UN Security Council resolution at the pleading of Europe. IMO it was a bad mistake. As barbaric as Serbia was, this was a European problem, just as Darfur is an African problem. But the EU wants it both ways. It demands action from the US for a cause it believes in when it suits it even though there is no legal basis for it and it condemns actions like the invasion of Iraq when it was perfectly legal due to violations of the terms of the cease fire in a war the UN approved. Russia wants it both ways too. It said that the attack on Serbia and independence of Kosovo was illegal but it did the same thing in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and justifies it saying if it's okay in Kosovo, it's okay there too. So it breaks the very law and justifies the very actions it condemned only 9 years earlier. The difference is we really don't know what actually happened in these two provinces. We have two very different sides of a story. It's hard to ever believe what Russia says but we don't have "proof" that it's wrong. Hey Europe, remember how you demanded "proof" of WMDs before the US could invade Iraq? Where is your "proof" that the Ossetians and Abkhazians weren't being attacked by Georgians all along? Seems Europeans play both sides of an argument when it suits them. And that is because they are basically unprincipled and irrational. I think Chirac would have sold out his own mother for money.
Complain about this comment
Just for everybodys attention:
Samachablo (South Osetia as russians call it) has been the part of Georgia always. Georgia was born with samachablo like I was born with my own arms. So, nobody has any wights to take it away from us.
As for Abkhazia, it's has been the part of Georgia more than 30 centuries... some 3,000 years and I guess these are too many years to ignore.
And Chechenya and some other north caucasian republics have been part of Russia only for the last 200 years and it is because Russia invaded them, killed everybody and stayed there.
And for everybodys attention as well: Georgia during his existence has never invaded any country, the only wars were Georgia participated were when the others invaded Georgia and the country has to defend itseld.
Complain about this comment
To Ardi74 Comment #175
Sue to Serbs?, Are you serious? The Serbs didnt break up Yugoslavia! Slovenia and Croatia declared independance. Germany and Austria automatically recognised them without thought! If anything the EX YU countries should be suing the west! Iraq and Afghan should be suing the west and all the countries that they have started trouble in. Unfortunately the west work on a principle of Divide and conquer!
Complain about this comment
Oh my, where have all these posters come from, is the Beeb drumming up it's mates as there are so many id's here that I've never seen before. Why don't you just understand the basics, Russia is, as always dangerous, it's still in the pseudo communist mould and can not be trusted. If the UK's bottler Brown had even the slightest ability he would be promoting the sending of peacekeepers to Georgia, as for Sarko and Germany, well the history books were written many years back and the French have never understood why the station Waterloo was named after a defeat (theirs of course).
Still look on the bright side of life, would you prefer to have our useless, inept, corrupt politicians or the US democrats who are more chameleons that the chameleons, mind you I suppose that at least they are unintelligent enough to show that getting their snouts in the trough is all that is important.
Complain about this comment
These comments about bombing the Slavs
in general, and Russia in particular are not
really helpful.
It's their politics which are objectionable,
not the Russian people.
Complain about this comment
Georgia: Satellite Images Show Destruction, Ethnic Attacks
Russia Should Investigate, Prosecute Crimes
Recent satellite images released by the UN program UNOSAT confirm the widespread torching of ethnic Georgian villages inside South Ossetia, Human Rights Watch said today. Detailed analysis of the damage depicted in five ethnic Georgian villages shows the destruction of these villages around the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, was caused by intentional burning and not armed combat.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/28/georgi19712.htm
where are the "peacekipers"??
busy looting our villages?
Complain about this comment
The damage shown in the ethnic Georgian villages is massive and concentrated. In Tamarasheni, UNOSAT’s experts counted a total of 177 buildings destroyed or severely damaged, accounting for almost all of the buildings in the town. In Kvemo Achabeti, there are 87 destroyed and 28 severely damaged buildings (115 total); in Zemo Achabeti, 56 destroyed and 21 severely damaged buildings (77 total); in Kurta, 123 destroyed and 21 severely damaged buildings (144 total); in Kekhvi, 109 destroyed and 44 severely damaged buildings (153 total); in Kemerti, 58 destroyed and 20 severely damaged buildings (78 total); and in Dzartsemi, 29 destroyed and 10 severely damaged buildings (39 total).
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/28/georgi19712.htm
I'm asking again,where are the russian peacekipers?
there are thosendts of them on a tiny territory...
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius II Comment #187
Serbs wanted to create a greater Serbia? Mate the break up of Yugo was not started by Serbia! If you check UN refugee report's the majority of refugee's in the decade of fighting are actually Serbian. Serbs did not attck the Albanians because of the Greater Serbia notion, Kosovo was already Serbian! The reason the army went in was because KLA seperatists where attacking police officers! All attrocities that where blamed on the Serbs that called that into Action where later found to be false by the FBI. I suppose you believe that WMD's where actually in Iraq? You shouldnt believe everything you read in the media Mate! If you have any evidance of your accusations please give me links to prove me wrong and only from reliable resources e.g. Red cross etc not Wikipedia
Complain about this comment
Boris in OZ
Yuogoslavia was a contrived invention in the aftermath of WWI. It has a relatively brief history. After the fall of Communism, the non Serbians had enough of it.
How interesting you bring up the attempt to murder a million Kosovars as justified in an effort to attack the KLA when in all likelihood you condemn the American attacks on Iraqi insurgents which kill Iraqi civilians and the Israeli attacks on Arab terrorists which kill Arab civilians. The difference is, as I pointed out earlier that in the case of the American and Israeli attacks the deaths of civilians was a regrettable consequence while in the case of Kosovo, the murder of the Kosovars was the intent in the first place. So called ethnic cleansing is just another word for genocide. Perhaps that is why there are relatively fewer Georgians in South Ossetia and Abkhazia than there ought to be. I'm not sure of the history but my instincts tell me that Russian governments have a long long history of telling lies. I also get the feeling that Serbian militias in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo were hardly any different from Russian backed militias in South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Complain about this comment
2 neoacid:
Straighten up your brain, citizen! Go to the source for the information, and not to propagandist interpretors like that "human rights watch" outfit. Do you happen to know how they are funded/run?
unosat.web.cern.ch/unosat/
This map presents a satellite-based damage assessment for the city of Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, Georgia following the armed conflict between Georgian and Russian military forces in August 2008. Damaged buildings have been identified with WorldView-1 and Formosat-2 satellite imagery acquired on 19 August 2008 at a spatial resolution of 50cm and 2m respectively. An estimated total of 438 buildings within the mapped extent of Tskhinvali have been classified either as destroyed or severely damaged. An important preliminary finding of this satellite damage analysis is the observed heavy concentration of building damages within clearly defined residential areas.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius
Believe me the Serbs had enough of Yugo after World War II! The Serbs where always a Pro Western People but Churchill Delivered the Serbs to Tito and the communist. The Croats, Bosnian Muslims and Albanians where all fighting with the Nazi's in WW2. After World War 2 the Serbs forgot the fact that up to 1 million Serbs where killed in concentration camps and lived together and mixed once again for another 50 years! If you can find me one bit of evidance that the intent of the Serbs was to kill 1 million people please enlighten me! I would like you to explain the Deaths of 100000+ civillians as a regretable consequance to the people of Iraq! The total death toll for the war in kosovo was 5000 people including military from both sides. If the Serbs wanted to murder one million the total death toll would be much higher then it was!
Complain about this comment
A revealing and unbiased look at the early stages of Georgia/South Ossetia conflict is offered by Chapter 5, "Democratization in Georgia" written by Darrel Slider, in the book "Conflict, Cleavage, and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus" By Karen Dawisha, Bruce Parrott. It seems to be quite old and therefore not biased by the current day propaganda. In particular, it presents ethnic composition of SO -> ~70% ossetian, and this seems to have been stable throughout XX century. This sheds light on one of the blatant lies spread by a well known oficial from one of the sides of this conflict that in recent times georgians were in a majority there, but were "ethnically cleansed". So much for "ethnic cleansing".
Complain about this comment
Some more facts for you MarcusAurelius:
1) Osama Bin Laden held a Bosnian passport
2) Muhajadeen fighters waged war against the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo
3) Remeber David Hicks he faught in Kosovo and Afghanistan on the same side in one war he shot at Serb and in the other he shot at Americans and the English
My point is that you have a very narrow mided view of the Serbs based purely on News reports that where packaged by paid public relations firms e.g. Ruder Finn Global Public affairs
Complain about this comment
Undiplomatic, YES, the EU is dependant on Russian energy supplies, NOT just Germany. And yes again, it makes it more difficult to confront Russia. So, the solution is simple, shift reliance to other energy sources... the most practicle is the advanced next generation nuclear reactors... but Germany has a problem with these as well (as do others).
Karolina there is no need to bomb or exterminate the Russian, though the idea that they should be sued and pay reparations for the damage they done to other East European countries has its appeal. To me, the best solution is economic pressures on Russia... when the Russian bears have to go out on the streets to dance for their supper because the Zoos have no money to feed them (as has been happening in Russia not long ago, may still find some reports right here on BBC), the objective will be achieved. And Frankly the Russians probably find this last image more upseting than the threat of getting bombed.
Egor, claims and counter claims. Lies and propaganda. Once source does not prove anything because somebody else will find another opposing source. As I said in one post above, this needs independent assessment. The suspicious part is that the Russians ARE NOT letting in independent observers into the conflict zone, and this makes me less likely to believe their side of the story. However, even if SO had "only" 30% of Georgians, WHERE ARE they now? No etnic cleansing you say? Have to laugh.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Carolina, you wish to throw on us bombs? We will throw them in the answer. To be at war we are able.
Complain about this comment
Boris in Oz
99% of us mostly get our information from the media. Few of us go to war zones. Unless you are a journalist or have relatives why would anyone go there. So you are saying Serbia had bad press? How do you explain the mass graves? How do you explain so many examples of people in Bosnia, Croation, and Kosovo who testified that they were tortured, their homes bruned, their friends and relatives murdered by Serb police, Serb mailtias? How do you explain away the rhetoric of those who encouraged, supported, and helped perpetrate so many crimes? And how do you explain the eyewitness accounts of UN observers in places like Srebrenica? It all forms a consistent tapestry, one that is going on trial in the Hague.
The worst faux pas the Serbs made IMO was allowing the picture of the Kosovar refugees boarding the trains. That stuck the horrors of the concentration camps the rest of Europe had been trying to forget for over 50 years right back in their faces. That single image was the dumbest mistake the Serbs committed. I knew then it would only be a matter of time before the US started bombing Serbia to rubble because the rest of Europe speaking with almost one voice demanded it. There were exceptions such as Greece who had to be dragged in kicking and screaming.
BTW, I have no personal interest in the conflict. I have no relatives who trace their roots back to any of those countries and from my perspective it didn't matter who won. If you've read my other comments, IMO the US should not stick its nose in Europeans killing each other. It should sit back and let them bomb each other into the stone age if that's what they have a mind to.
Talk of bombing Russia is pure insanity. As any chess player knows, if you want to defeat an enemy, you play to his weakness, not his strength. Russia's weakness is its national inferiority complex and its compensatory need to dominate. The way to defeat Russia is to really humilliate its government in its own people's eyes and I'm not talking about the way in which it's been done so far although encircling it the way the US is doing is certainly helpful. I also have no problem with Russia cutting off oil and gas to Europe in retaliation. It would serve them right over Iraq and their anti-Americanism if it happened. I don't care about them either.
Complain about this comment
Boris_Oz
Firstable Cxinvali was bombed mostly by Russia aviation,it was the batlefield...
this villages were tourchered AFTER hostilities and...
"Detailed analysis of the damage depicted in five ethnic Georgian villages shows the destruction of these villages around the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, was caused by intentional burning and not armed combat"
worst crime of the 21th century comitted by Osetian militias with Russia army help...
That's the truth my friend,deal with it!!
Complain about this comment
I think the West's response has been too hysterical and hyped up.
The US, UK and EU governments are over reacting.
Whether they like it or not Russia is a free market economy with a true democratically elected government.
It is not the USSR. The action taken by the Russian government is widely supported by their population.
The Russian people love there straight talking direct Prime minister.
I watched Putin last night on "Channel 1" news talk about the biased western media.
He talked about the Fox TV interview of a US teenager and her aunt, the interviewer constantly interupting the girl and her aunt as they talked of the Georgian bombardment and their fears as a result.
Putin said that the interviewer almost crapped himself as he tried to interupt as the girl and her aunt talked.
I also saw the interview, Putin was absolutely right!
I think our media have been spineless.
Why do we want to expand NATO?
Why do we want to increase the influence of the US Neo consevatives?
Why is the UK once more acting like a US poodle?
NATO is irrelevant, it should be disbanded not increased.
If it expands it will inevitably come into conflict situations.
If the US wants to expand its military influence let it do it on its own.
Complain about this comment
Unfortunely, now i have to read BBC and Russian Today, to check for the truth.
A few years ago, i didnt imagine that i have to read beyond BBC to find the facts, but now i know that is necessary to read from different resources and confront the reports and try to trace a probable reality.
IT IS VERY SAD.
Complain about this comment
As just reported by the BBC, Russia plans to absorb South Ossetia and Ak. Wow, form indepence to dependent. The bear is on the prowl, Europe.
Keep your head up and look what is happening. Even China does not approve of what Russia is doing.
This is not the West against Russia, it's the World's Majority that is.
By the way Nato is not irrelevant, not until the bear and any of its cubs fully put down all their arms for good. So as long as Russia wants to wield a stick, I will hang onto mine.
Russians has never been dominated other than by it own rulers, maybe they should truly look at what they have done over the years, look at the history of the Peoples they have destroyed.
Whether they like it or not Russia is NOT a free market economy with a true democratically elected government. Examples: the ousting of BP and Shell. Multinational companies that some how do everything legal in the rest of the world, but Russia says.... And in a country with millions of people, where are all the nay sayers, the discontented , the OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES. I can not believe Russia is a 1 party country, because that's the way it works with Putin. And for someone who is no longer President, he seems to get more air time then the current President.
All hail Tsar Putin
SO don't be fooled, look closely, the Kremlin is working as it has been for over a Hundred years, be it Tzar, Supreme Soviet, or President.
Complain about this comment
The task of EU is not difficult as it currently requires just smart talk. Russia must look at the mirror of its own promises and commitments but the EU must help her do it. First of all, the six point plan. Let’s evaluate how Russia honours it. And so on: all talk must emphasise international law principles and Russia’s own commitments. It has to be clear that different versions of the August events were presented to the world but we need to know better who did what. The EU officials should then only communicate about their conclusions to people so that every twit seas at it. This is the battle of arguments. The actions depend upon them.
A few more remarks on some previous comments. Kosovo seems to be a propaganda element in the Russia’s assault on Georgia. Otherwise, you should admit Russia is extremely inconsistent in its policy.
Somebody said Russia’s neighbours know better its aggressiveness by their own history. Sorry, this does not seem to be “history”, for it is rather a “never ending story”. Saying Georgia is not a part of Europe is not true. Even from a purely physical point of view you cannot prove it as there is no consent on geographical boundaries of the continent in the south. Was Stalin a Georgian, Ossetian, or “half-Jew”? It was documented Stalin answered to this question the following way (literally): “I am a man of Russian culture”. Claims like France is not a member of Nato just show the incompetence of some commentators. Setting Europeans against Americans is in the crazy geopolitical interests of Kremlin. It may hypothetically develop even into the WWIII, if Russia is going to be backed by some European countries. (BTW, V.P’s claim the recent conflict was provoked by Americans just to create an advantage for the one U.S. presidential candidate over the other sounds very crazy.) The claim of Americans being all pro-war in Iraq but all Europeans being contrary is more then incorrect and unfair. No one has a better capacity to be the world sheriff than the US, but some Americans lack self-criticism badly. Finally, I am only afraid that Kremlin may see the option of absorbing the whole Georgia as the most effective way to push Ukraine off the road of democratic enhancement. I’m sure the present grim situation would have not been possible without the contra-democratic tendencies in the Russian domestic politics.
Complain about this comment
When USA presents its arguments to attack Iraq, aren´t it convincing? But those reasons subsist today? And because at that moment we ceded to America, so almost a million are killed in Iraq and more millions of Iraquis are dislocated.
Now, why couldn´t we wait for a few weeks, why are we and some werstern leaders so frenetics?
Even if Putin is lying, coudn´t we wait for the outcome of american election and the new President to take actions?
By the way, are americans and israelis arming georgians before the war?
Does anybody knows that Salvador Allende, democraticaly elected President of Chile was derrubed and killed by Pinochet army under the instigation of CIA?
If we are not careful and let History to repeat itself, shame on us the Western Civilization which is more than the wills of some partisan group that control everything and try to changel the western values by money.
Complain about this comment
Today (8/29/08), a policy paper was published by the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute (http://www.cacianalyst.org/) affiliated with Johns Hopkins University. Russia's War in Georgia by Svante E. Cornell, Johanna Popjanevski, and Niklas Nilsson. The link is to the 45-page PDF: [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
Two Pavel Felgengauer's articles: Cette opération a été planifiée de longue date - [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]http://www.novayagazeta.ru/data/2008/59/04.html
Complain about this comment
I would rather say beyond the reasonable arguments we must see the person who made it, and for eight years what kind of records did USA diplomacy show? Is it a credible source of truth?
The Russians are paying the price of public discredit because the deeds USSR did in the past, isn´t it? So, in the same token, how could we believe in Bush Administration words?
And if we made another mistake like Iraq (this time the stakes are much much higher), i am afraid the least that we could expect is our international discredit, which wouldnt benefit our sons and descents in the future just as the sons and descendents of the Soviets are now reaping the whirlwind from the wind that theirs parents sowed.
For me, the most urgent thing to do is to wait until the outcome of the USA election.
Complain about this comment
“Human Rights Watch researchers personally witnessed Ossetian militias looting and burning down ethnic Georgian villages during their research in the area,” said Rachel Denber, deputy director of the Europe and Central Asia division of Human Rights Watch. “These satellite images indicate just how widespread the torching of these villages has been in the last two weeks.”
All of this adds up to compelling evidence of war crimes and grave human rights abuses. This should persuade the Russian government it needs to prosecute those responsible for these crimes.
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/28/georgi19712.htm
And i'm asking you people,can Europe ignore such a horrible crimes??
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Mark
I'm concerned about the biased and totally unfair nature of reporting by the BBC about the Georgian situation concerning the granting of passports by Russia to those living outside their borders.
The BBC reported that
"Mr Medvedev argued that Russia had been forced to use force to protect its own nationals in South Ossetia.
But Russia has deliberately engineered that situation by handing out Russian passports to large numbers of local inhabitants".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7586662.stm
No they didn't! Under Russian law ALL citizens of the old Soviet Union are entitiled to become Russian Citizens, which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
We extended exactly the same rights to citizens of Eire to apply for British Citizenship when they broke away from the UK . We also allowed free passage without passport control.
Another more extreme example of a state offering citizenship to foreign citizens is Israel. Under their constitution, all Jews have the right to live in Israel and to have Israeli citizenship.
I haven't noticed the BBC criticising either GB or Israel for offering citizenship rights which are very similar in character to the citizenship rights that Russia extends to all former citizens of the former Soviet Union.
Complain about this comment
busby2
Tha gave the pasports just two years ago...
so please stop missleading..
stop justify the worst crime of 21th century,just becouse you are afraid of cold war...
Israel gaves it's citizens to those who are comming to Israel, did not you see diference??
It's like France gives pasports and arms to ETA separatists and then came to their aid to "protect" their civlians,does it make any sence to you??
Why peacekipers are failing to protect Georgian civilians with same inthusiasm,what kind peacekiping mission it this ??
Complain about this comment
Is it truth?
Does anybody know the incubator baby incident lies, during the First Golf War?
Complain about this comment
2Rob_Hob
1. Don't be ridiculous - the book I have cited (Conflict, Cleavage, and Change in Central Asia and the Caucasus: research concepts and methodologies By Karen Dawisha, Bruce Parrott, Published by Cambridge University Press, 1997, 423 pages) provides as independent assessment of the situation as it gets (as of mid-1990,but the situation has been a stalemate, so it is OK).
2. As for that propaganda stamp "Russians ARE NOT letting in independent observers into the conflict zone... "
Russian TV1 has shown Eurocomissioner on Human Rights visiting Tskhinvali and villages in SO last weekend. This info is also available on the ECHR website. There are also various correspondents on the ground -even BBC has apparently done some relevant interviews. Of course, these are "buried" so as not to be easyily found - some obscure link "Voices from the Caucasus conflict ". Find, read and judge for yourself. Here is a peek:
"Georgians followed and killed those who tried to get out of the surrounded city. They smashed cars carrying children with tanks "
Complain about this comment
Torn between its economic self interests and its political rhetoric, Europe has come down on the side of its rhetoric here. It's exactly the opposite of what China does and what it did in the invasion of Iraq. Funny, China never pays a price for what it does, Europe always pays a price. Will the Russians alter their policies of selling Europe gas and oil? You can be sure that if they do, their timing will be superb. It will come when Europe is most vulnerable to the consequences. In the war between Europe and Russia, Russia holds the ace of trump, exportable energy in quantities which are necessary and cannot be substituted for any other way. How interesting to see Russia as America's economic ally in its war with Europe.
Complain about this comment
Egor_NY
"Georgians followed and killed those who tried to get out of the surrounded city. They smashed cars carrying children with tanks "
where is this shmashed car?
German jurnalist war witness how Russian Jurnalist gaves instuction to Osetian women what to say!
Russians can not be trust!
Complain about this comment
1. At 5:35pm on 27 Aug 2008, Polish_Underground wrote:
Maybe the West should respond by recognising the independence of Chechnya, and, for a laugh, Tatarstan.
Or maybe the West should stop using double standards and extend the same rtight they gave to Kosovo to S.Ossetia and Abkhazia?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
VasiliiChapaev
Or maybe the West should stop using double standards and extend the same rtight they gave to Kosovo to S.Ossetia and Abkhazia?
pre war abxazian polulation in Abzxazia region of Georgia -17 %
pre war kosovons population i Kosovo - 80%
ethnic cleansing were comited against Georgians,350000 georgians are refuges in their own country...
Complain about this comment
The Russians are very good chess players. They know how to set up a gambit. They know when and how to strike most effectively, when to spring the trap. This was a good one for them, long and carefully planned, well executed. Let's not pretend that human life has any value to Russia's government. Credit where credit is due but let's drop the hypocricy and talk about reality.
So when do they shut the valves on Europe, in the dead of winter? What a surprise that will be. A shocker. Europe is walking in its sleep. I say at about that time, maybe a few months earlier, America should announce its withdrawl from NATO, pull out of Europe altogether. The cold war is over, the USSR is gone, there is no longer a risk of a Soviet invasion of Western or even Eastern Europe, why are we still there? Why are American taxpayers shelling out a hundred billion or more every year to defend Europe. Let it pay to defend itself now. It has fully recovered from WWII. But has it recoverned from its insanity?
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
Don't you find it strange that during the Cold War, NATO fulfilled the role of counter balancing the Soviet threat and was therefore essential to keeping the peace in Europe. Cold War conflicts took place in the Third World, like Malaya, which we won, and Vietnam, which you lost.
Post Cold War, it has been the expansion of NATO which is now the cause of conflict and tension in Europe. NATO was formed to defend member states from external attack but NATO was used in an offensive way in Serbia, the first time that NATO went to war. Now the eastward expasnsion of NATO into Russia's backyard is making them very nervous indeed, just like the USA was at the time of the Cuban missile crisis. That crisis was settled by the withdrawl of missiles.
You wrote "America should announce its withdrawl from NATO, pull out of Europe altogether. The cold war is over, the USSR is gone, there is no longer a risk of a Soviet invasion of Western or even Eastern Europe, why are we still there?"
Marcus, have you not considerd that the answer to your question is that the Republican hawks in the USA see the expansion of NATO into Russia's backyard as extending US influence and power, and that growing tensions are good for the arms business. In order to justify your huge defence budgets, you need to have a potential threat and what could be better at achieving this than by the USA using NATO expansion to deliberately heighten tensions with Russia? After all, it is good for US business and bad for Europe.
Complain about this comment
busybee
The cause of tension in Europe is not the expansion of NATO, its the determination of Russia to rebuild an empire in what it calls its "near abroad." The expansion of NATO thwarts that. As a mutual defense pact, NATO would be forced to use all the resources at its command to defend the sovereignty of a member if it were invaded by Russia. So if Ukraine became a member of NATO and Russia decided to invade the Crimea the way it invaded Georgia, it could escalate to nuclear war between the US and Russia. This is one more good reason for the US to pull out. While it would be too bad for the Ukranians if they came under the iron fist of Russia again, that would not be a threat to the US. Russia has neither the resources nor the political doctrine to threaten world domination that the USSR had.
These new members of NATO represent very little market for American weapons makers. Hungary for example has to depend on the EU to pay to build its roads and bridges, how will it pay to buy the most sophisticated military hardware in the world? That would have to be financed by the US government itself. It will be better off buying cheaper if inferior French, British, and Sweedish weapons systems.
Conservatives in the US were dead set against the American military actions in Kosovo and Serbia. It was the Clinton Administration which insisted. And look at how hypocritical Western Europe was and is. They begged for American action then without any Security Council resolution when one was needed but screamed at the American invasion of Iraq just a few years later when another resolution was not needed. Europe should not be an American priority. We have far greater interests in the Far East, India, and the developing world. Europe is a dying civilization and a dying cause. It is time for America to give up on it and leave it to its fate.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
I disagree with you when you write "The cause of tension in Europe is not the expansion of NATO, its the determination of Russia to rebuild an empire in what it calls its "near abroad." The expansion of NATO thwarts that".
It is far more realistic and truthful to say that it is Russia trying to thwart NATO (read the USA) building an empire which threatens their national interst in Russia's "near abroad". When Castro came to power in Cuba, the USA rightly saw this as a threat in their backyard when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles that threatened the USA. The USA has never stopped considering Castro's Cuba an enemy and continues to impose sanctions, even though they present no threat to the USA. Why???? And if you consider the USA's action to be reasonable in respect of modern day Cuba, surely you can see the Russian point of view in relation to the much larger Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO? These countries, unlike the Baltic states, were part of both the USSR and Imperial Russia before that.
Placing a ring of NATO countries around Russia is NOT a peaceful move by NATO, which is led by the USA. It is an attempt to box Russia, a nuclear power, into a corner and is clearly the action of an organisation that has taken leave of its senses.
I was referring to the US defence budget and spend by the US military when I wrote "In order to justify your huge defence budgets, you need to have a potential threat and what could be better at achieving this than by the USA using NATO expansion to deliberately heighten tensions with Russia?". I was not referring to US arms exports but to spending by the US military. Increased tensions keeps the defence budget high and ensures excellent profits for the US arms industry from sales to the US military.
You are absolutely right in what you said about Clinton and Kosovo. It wasn't the Republicans involved then but it sure was the Republicans that invaded Iraq! That decision, backed by our PM, has been disasterous. Security is still poor. Millions have been displaced (including most of the Christian Iraqis who were far safer under Saddam) and Al Qaeda and Iran have been greatly strengthened.
Finally a note of agreement. I I entirely agree with you when you wrote "Russia has neither the resources nor the political doctrine to threaten world domination that the USSR had". And yet our western leaders are treating them as though they are as dangerous to the rest of the world as the old USSR!
Complain about this comment
busybee
If NATO were to just let Russia walk into every one of its former colonies and take over, then there would be no conflict. In that sense you are right, by opposing Russia in accomplishing this, Nato is acting aggressively...or assertively depending on how you look at it. Opposing aggression with the threat of a military counterstrike is not a peaceful gesture. Surrender is.
Is Russia backed into a corner? Last time I looked at a map, it was a pretty big corner. Is it still the largest nation on earth in terms of geographical area? Why isn't it satisfied to stay within its vast borders? Does it think with about 12,000 hydrogen bombs, the US or anyone else will invade it? This is the 21st century, not the 11th. Alexander Nevsky doesn't have to raise an army to battle the invaders on lake Chud, there are still hundreds of missiles in Russian silos capable of burning down the USA at the push of a button if it invades Russian territory.
I'm not going into a long discussion of Cuba right now. Suffice it to say that Cuba is a parriah nation in the Western hemisphere. Castro urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear first strike on the US using missiles based in Cuba. Cuba was a willing launching platform for the spread of the cancer of Communism throughout the Western hemisphere. Whatever the answers are to poverty in the world, Communism is not it but a dangerous delusion for millions who have no hope at any given time. How Cuba will finally be brought into the world community is anyone's guess but right now it is not suitable.
Europe would like the US to continue to bear the burden of its defense indefinitely. This is a bad mistake on America's part. Invading Iraq wasn't. Even President Putin warned President Bush that Iraq was planning to attack America on its own soil.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53096-2004Jun18.html
So did the British in their dodgy dossier and so did the director of the CIA George Tenet who was appointed by Bush's predecessor Clinton. Congress having access to all of the same information President Bush had agreed by an overwhelming vote of approval of the use of force. About 80% voted yes. So did the American public according to the polls. That Iraq is a mess now is much less of an American problem than having Saddam Hussein still in power would be. As for the Iraqis, well they and their fellow Arabs and other Moslems are mostly doing it to themselves and each other. That's life...and death. If Obama wins, the US will walk away and let other people deal with it. That's what most of the world seems to want.
Complain about this comment
It seems like real life politics is emulating Hollywood:
Bad and unnecessary sequels.
Although I must say The Dark Knight was a really good film!
Complain about this comment
Apparently the Times is reporting that Russia is annexing South-Ossetia.
If so I hope that the Serbs understand once and for all the Russians are not their allies, never were and never will be, cause with their actions the Russians have recognised the independence of Kosovo as well as the right of both Albania and Kosovo to join.
Even worse, the Serb nationalists effectively have sold their country to the Russians in return for nothing, technically making them traitors.
Or as people would say: Suckers!
Complain about this comment
By the way, people, where did you dig "the determination of Russia to rebuild an empire" from? Could you provide and grounded reasons to believe or not to believe so?
Complain about this comment
The Bear, The Band of Idiots and the Jackals!
Forget about who is right in Abkhazya or Georgia or Kosovo. THe problem here is power politics.
Now we have three powers in our hands. One is the ex superpower, which is USA. The next is the group extra ex superpowers, who had no other chance to team up in order to survive and the last one who was actually a superpower but had some idiotic regime which collapsed on itself in the end.
The first still thinks he is a superpower and he is alone in the arena. He decides to spend his unchallenged force on people who have only stones compared to him. He willingly depletes himself on his own.
Second was a group of extra super powers who terrorized the whole continent for a while to suck the natural sources but in the end managed to eat each other after two World Wars and leaving the stand to the other two.
Third was a long been superpower for the last few centuries which managed to erase itself with the other in the second group, but right after it managed to create an illusion of internationalism to establish a new imperium, waiting to collapse on its own in the late 20th century.
Now, the first is dealing with idiotic and pointless things like democratizing evil countries and successfully sinkin itself in sand traps.
The second has some money and some overused dignity of the colonial and rich history, but actually has no real natural source. Now they have no dracula teeth to suck the blood of other countries and they formed a unity to survive in the 21st century but these old men even uncapable of understanding the new brave world.
The third had a vast land and natural resources. He used to fight in the name of Jesus, later in the name of Proleter class in the past. The frightining thing is now they have no motive to fight but solely survival and power making them capable of doing anything thanks to the capitalist education they had for the last 2 decades.
Now our old guy with no teeth says to the third "Hey, boy, don't be naughty" while he is on a wheel chair with pipes stuck in his arms to let him live longer.
THe ironic thing is the young guy is holding the other end of the pipes in his hands. The more funny thing is the old guy is scrubbing other possible blood sources and telling them you can not have what I have for the last century, the nuclear power.
So the situation is that the old guy is angry and murmuring to the young guy. He plans to scrub the one tomorrow at a no effect meeting.
And our young guy with his yellow hair and bluish eyes is grinng and showing up his newly brushed teeth while preparing to turn the blood pipe of.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You wrote "If NATO were to just let Russia walk into every one of its former colonies and take over, then there would be no conflict. In that sense you are right, by opposing Russia in accomplishing this, Nato is acting aggressively...or assertively depending on how you look at it. Opposing aggression with the threat of a military counterstrike is not a peaceful gesture. Surrender is".
This can rewritten as follows in respect of Kosovo by transposing Russia for NATO:
If Russia was to just let NATO walk into every one of their allies and take over, then there would be no conflict. In that sense you are right, by opposing NATO in accomplishing this, Russia is acting aggressively...or assertively depending on how you look at it. Opposing aggression with the threat of a military counterstrike is not a peaceful gesture. Surrender is.
Now that Russia has moved into South Ossetia and Akhasia, NATO is now well aware that there is a price to pay for ignoring Russian opposition to the annexation of Kosovo by NATO.
There can be no doubt that the annexation of Kosovo and its formation as an independent state under NATO protection has been used by Russia to help justify their actions in Georgia. In effect NATO's action in Kosovo was the template and perfect justification for Russian action in Georgia.
I agree with you when you wrote: "Whatever the answers are to poverty in the world, Communism is not it but a dangerous delusion for millions who have no hope at any given time".
I disagree with you over Iraq and I must admit I'm surprised that you haven't changed your support for the invasion. It is not the case as you say "That Iraq is a mess now is much less of an American problem than having Saddam Hussein still in power would be".
Under sanctions and the "no fly zone" and Saddam's climbdown over weapons inspections, he did not represent a credible threat to anyone outside his borders. Now however you are facing a resurgent terrorist problem with the occupation serving as a major recruiter for militant Islam. Iran is now the undisputed regional power in the area and can call on fellow religonists within Iraq to support them. The invasion and occupation has increased divisions that were known to have existed before the war. By any measure, the invasion and occupation has been a disaster for western interests. How can the war and occupation be justified in terms of the financial and human cost? What is the daily cost to the US taxpayer? How can the invasion and occupation justify losing over 4,000 American killed in action and from other causes since the date of the invasion?
Complain about this comment
Boris
First of all, it don't make me no never-mind if the young blond guy shuts the valve to those old guys blood supply. Usually, the best way is to shut it slowly and demand more and more of their money to stop with each slight turn. That way you get the most out of them before they croak. If you want, I'll write a letter to the Prex telling him to send 10 more ABMs to Poland to help blond little Mister Big decide what to do.
But I woudn't be so smug if I were Mr. Blond. In about five months either a young slick talking lawyer who started out as a street smart kid on the streets in the wrong part of town or an old geezer who was tortured for five years in one of the blond guys POW camps will have his finger on the trigger of ten thousand hydrogen bombs. And if it's the old guy and he croaks, a young woman who thinks the world is 6000 years old and that armageddon will bring the second coming of Christ will have her finger on it next.
I'd wipe that grin off my face if I was that blond guy, he may not know it but someone who might be crazy or one who might have a shakey trigger finger will soon have a loaded gun pointed right between his beady little blue eyes.
Complain about this comment
busybee
If Russia is about to try to recapture the rest of its former empire when it had the guise of the USSR by military force, we may well be looking at thermonuclear war. Two lousy little provinces in Georgia is one thing but if it tries to regain control over central Asia, the Baltic states, Ukraine, Estern Europe, there will surely be war with the United States. Don't underestimate it.
I am extremely pleased with the result of the invasion of Iraq. It has oveturned the entire applecart in the region. Nothing will ever be the same. First the cost to America. 4000 dead and about a trillion dollars. That's about how many die in the US in motor vehicle accidents every five weeks. A trillion dollars over 5 years is a little over 1% GDP. The US probably wasted almost that defending Europe from non existant military threats since the fall of the USSR. It had almost no effect on the US economy. The current problems have to do with large numbers of mortgages that were issued and owned by large financial institutions, loans which never should have been made because they can't be paid back. Now the effect. All that's left is for the US to do is to pull out and all hell will break loose. Perhaps there will be a regional civil war. It will certainly tie down Iran, Syria, maybe Turkey, Saudi Arabia. Perhaps even Israel will be dragged into it. Europe is a lot closer than it thinks and so are all those Islamic republics on the southern borders of Russia. America is half a world away. I expect that if this happens, oil prices will skyrocket maybe to $500 a barrrel for awhile bankrupting Europe and China. Then the price will collapose down to $20 and guess who will dust themselves off and walk away relatively unscathed :-)
Complain about this comment
Russia is a country who likes to be feared. Russia has been threatening left and right. The y have to face the fact that they hardly have a friend in the neighbouring countries. Perhaps Byelorussia. None of them supported the occupation of Georgia for the obvious reason. Instead, they've feared Russia.
Throughout history Russia has not been a country that makes friends, rather enemies or minions.
Some of their neighbours' free choice is integration in Western alliances and democracy. Russia's response is a brute force. Will that people change their mind? Not more than Checks did after Soviet tenks entered Prague in 50-ies. They waited and the freedom eventually came. It might not always. We'll see.
Complain about this comment
Marcus, I do hope your wrong, not sure if we Europeans could cope with the consequent belt tightening. Would we have to sell our BMWs, Bentley's and Fiats for a cheap alternative? I was thinking something from the USA, but then I remembered the rising petrol prices.
A Lada it is, or, as we like to say, On your bike mate.
Complain about this comment
forgot to add what a positive person MAII is.
Even though 4000 of his countrymen (let alone many more Iraqis) have died in a war which stopped meeting its original aims about a week after it started he can still find positives.
Of ocurse another view would be that this is someone trivialising death to avoid being wrong.
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, I am not trivializing death. But the lesson the founders of my country learned and taught the world, much of which never learned it and I'm sorry to say many of my countrymen forgot is that freedom is bought and paid for with blood. If you are not willing to fight and maybe die, you will be enslaved and surely die. World War II was an example of the failure to learn that lesson. Those who opposed American opposition to the USSR's ambition of world hegemony through the threat of MAD hadn't learned it even after WWII. Iraq was another test. Comfort seems to breed complacency.
Complain about this comment
MAII. I imagine there are many who would take exception to your claim as to the origin of the fighting for freedom. Not your fault that other countries ahve been around longer thoug.
I think you know the point I was making. Iraq seems like a red herring that a lot of people (in the USA/UK at least) fell for. But even now you're inventing new reasons for it.
Comfort may breed complacency, but power breeds arrogance. There you go, I matched your meaningless platitude.
You can do better than crosseyes surely?
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
You were talking to busybee, but inadvertently exposed the cruelty of US viewpoint. I'm almost sure the scenario you've depicted is a product of your fantasy, but the easiness of invading a country, plundering it, and leaving in a civil war is frightening.
@Titiano
Thanks for your response.
Honestly speaking, I find it quite astonishing how everyone was running from USSR, but ended up running from Russia, even Russia itself... If you don't know, the amount of self-diminishing and West-praising sentiments in 91-92 was overwhelming. However, 10 years later the situation changed to be more or less equally critical to Russian own government and Western parties, and yet 5 years later, people mostly believe to their own government and media. In my opinion, this is an interesting topic to study for psychologists and historians, but it bares little relevance to the actual situation. Thus, I am sure that this fear of Russia in some former USSR countries has more to do with emotions, then the present-day situation.
As for your references to the history of Russian hostility, I think of them to be irrelevant as well. Let's take an example of Nazi Germany. Does it make Germany a country with a history of oppression? Well, yes, up to a certain point, but it doesn't mean that Germany is not a democratic country, which respects human rights, does it? The same goes for Russia. By the way, for those of you citing "a history of tyranny in Russia", I'd advise to read about Veche in Wikipedia... it should come as a shock for you.
Finally, nobody in Russia is seriously concerned about neighbour countries joining EU, but people are really worried about those, who are going to join NATO. Guess why? Right, because NATO was created to counterbalance Soviet Union MILITARY, and despite its dissolution NATO was not disbanded. Instead, it seems to confront Russia now. On the other hand, EU is not a military organisation, and therefore, it is not perceived as a threat. To sum up, it is not "neighbours' free choice is integration in Western alliances and democracy", which is opposed, but the expansion of a dubious military block, which can hardly be called a friendly move.
P.S. Please, learn the difference between communist Soviet Union and capitalist Russia. You're confusing it way too often...
Complain about this comment
Marcus
NordicPerson was spot on when he responded to our debate by addressing these comments to you:"You were talking to busybee, but inadvertently exposed the cruelty of US viewpoint. I'm almost sure the scenario you've depicted is a product of your fantasy, but the easiness of invading a country, plundering it, and leaving in a civil war is frightening".
Indeed, if your viewpoint does represent the views of the US adminstration, then it is clear that every other nation should be opposing the overseas ambitions of the US.
NordicPerson was also right in his analysis on the expansion of NATO following the end of the Cold War. It is easy to see why Russia sees NATO expansion as a threat directed at them. I would not however agree with NordicPerson on the EU as the EU has ambitions to become a superstate, with military forces.
You dismiss 4000 deaths of US Servicmen as no more than 6 weeks death rate on the roads of America. You must therefore regard life as pretty cheap in the USA and not worth protecting!
As to the financial cost of the Iraq War, it is costing US taxpayers $200 million EVERY DAY. What an utter waste.
I also don't think the cost is affordable to the USA on top of all the other budgetary costs of the US Govt. The US budget deficit is running at 5% of GDP. In the last year, the US national debt has increased at $1.92 billion EVERY DAY.
The US is also running a huge international deficit in goods and services of over $600 billion a year.
The USA is living well beyond their means, both at a domestic and at a Governmental level. The USA is becoming increasingly dependent on the rest of the world for credit, and can ill afford costly and unnecessary foreign policy adventures.
How long I wonder before there is a major run on the US dollar as creditors head for safer alternatives? It can't be long now, can it?
Complain about this comment
Hello,
I am reading, reading and reading and SHOCKED!
I'm very new here and forgive me if I make any mistake towards any of you but I also forgive you the mistake you make! I understand that you russians love your great russia which is in fact not as big as you claim but why do I have feeling that others don't love their countries?! russians! plaese, don't merntion STALIN, who was the greatest of your leaders and created the power and the country to you that gives an opportunity nowadays to teach others how to live. you are the only nation STALIN did good to. THANK HIM!
reading the comments here is marvelouse. I can recognise russians by their imperial judgement and I can recognise others by beeing a bit naive. and those who are naive shoud be sent to russia for some time to live there and then listen to there comments. \
as to russians, why don't you live in russia if it's such a great country. if others have rights of seldetermination, why ingush don't have this right. one of their leaders was assasined couple of days ago. may I ask you why? or you are not interested! possible.
Nikolay Tzvetkov
you don't even know that Abhazia is not Abhazi, it's name is AbKHazia. how can you unbderstand the difference between Abkhazia and Kosovo?! you don't want to understand!
all these is very much painful. people are discussing very seriouse issues without having any idea about histiory, rule of law, or the other very important values.
Complain about this comment
busby 2
you know that borders of georgia was fixed by STALIN. but I understand that you don't know that at that time when he fixed georgian borders he forgot to fix SOCHI inside it. SOCHI is geirgian name of a tree and this territory up to Tuapse was original georgian territory. ok I will tell you. Another horrible georgian, Ordjonikidze presenetd it to you, russia. probably he pittied tiny russia and beeing a kind man presnted this wonderful peace of lan to you And you are so proud of iT at present, that you want Olympic Games there. I consider that you should be ashamed. But..........
Complain about this comment
And the third,
I want to remind you that this is not georgian-russian conflict or georgian crises.
This is WAAAAAR in Georgia!!!!!!!!!!!
Russians and pro-russians! In such sircumstances, showing your wit here is mildly said embarrassing.
Georgia will be followed by Ukrain, then another tiny country, and then another and........... This is how all ahd happened not very long ago. Europe will be nervouse about it's gas and oil. and food, and air to breath and lots of many other things....... This ia again and again how everything had happened just 50, 60 years ago. DO YOU REMEMBER?! if not, take a book and read.
Complain about this comment
@elengeo
I'll try to be brief.
1.Stalin has made a lot of good to Russia by evil means. I personally cannot accept it without certain reservations.
2.I am currently abroad to get education and meet people from other cultures for the following reasons. Firstly, I don't want to blindly believe all the stories and myths about other countries, which I may here at home in Russia. Secondly, knowledge of other cultures lets me better understand my own. I will return at some point later.
3.You're right about the importance of history in Georgian case. Nevertheless, it is not as simple as you depict it. As far as I can tell, before the formation of USSR there was no single year without a war in Caucasus, and it also goes for what is called Georgia nowadays. I am really sorry about this, but it seems Caucausian people are too emotional to stay in peace for a long time. We both know that yet in 1992 Abkhazia and South Osetia were fighting for their autonomous status in Georgia, which Georgian government has refused to give them. That was a historic mistake, in my opinion.
4.You are wrong regarding Sochi, it used to be a part of Abkhazia in 1882 (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Russia_Caucusus_1882.jpg), whereas Georgia was much smaller those days, and it didn't include Kutais region, which was completely autonomous. It also didn't include Abkhazia, since abkhaz people are well... not Georgian, at least, according to Wikipedia. So, don't call for history unless you know it very well.
5.“Georgia followed by Ukraine and other tiny countries” is a groundless statement, which is a product of your emotions. Ukrainian people are too close to Russian to wage a war against each other. Compare to a US attack on UK...
Complain about this comment
nordic person, hm, why not russian person, I'd never think you were russian,
now let me be brief:
1. evil or not, nobody is asking you, the entire russia accepts whatever they are told on Putin governed TV.
2. why don't you get education in your own country, you claim it is the best in the world. then, why don't you alow other cultures in you country, are you a bit much xenophobic? yes, you are. at least this is obviouse how these small nations if not an entire EU are scared and try to evoid your great state.And you are already blind because you went through russian school I guess.
3. If you are learning history in (see [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]), you are already done. My advice, find better reliable sources, it is not difficult. of course if you want to learn something. not understand different cultures which you have a lot in your own country and you learn nothing. What do you know about Ingushs? nothing. you consider them not to be culture at all. but they were a culture already when you were swinging on the trees.
Abkhazia, do you know how many georgians and others lived there, or does wikipedia tell you all of them went to live there after stalin included it in georgia. what about Abkhazs living in Sochi, (you say Sochi was Abkhazia) do they still live there, or kind russians exterminated them?!
Don't play good boy, you have ordinary russian mentality, above all you try to pick the frouts of the west, but I know in heart you envy and hate them because you see that they are better then you.
5. wasn't that Ukrain, you closed gas in winter??????????
Enough dropping crocodile tears!!!!!!!!!!!
Everyone shoul learn who you are!
Complain about this comment
elengeo, your personal attacks are and will countinue to be fruitless. Now, if we omit all the emotions, what is left?
1. When I am speaking for Russian people, I am speaking for myself, my relatives and friends. Who are you to tell me what they think?
2. Please, refer to any source you trust just to discover that there are about 170 ethnic groups in Russia. Moreover, there are numerous students from Africa and CIS studying in Russia. What kind of xenophoby are you speaking about?
3. Wikipedia is not authorative for me, but it is a good place to start from, especially if you pay attention to the references.
4. Ukraine used to pay inner Soviet prices for gas. The Soviet Union has gone. Why do we have to sponsor another country? Now it is paying market prices.
Finally, stop speaking for me. I can do it on my own. You'd do much better argumenting your viewpoint then trying to troll anyone.
Complain about this comment
busybee2,
Wow, Rooskies really don't like it when you call them out. Who doesn't like American foreign policy? People who make lots of money off dictators the US might overthrow like Russia, China, and in 2003 France and Germany. Countries which are not a threat to the US have nothing to worry about. Iran has something to worry about, a lot to worry about. North Korea might soon have a lot more to worry about. Russia and China can't protect them any more than they could protect Saddam Hussein. Russia can be punished severely without firing a shot if the US wants to. The US won the last cold war by bankrupting the USSR and it can do it again if Russia wants to go for round two. It's going to be a long time before anyone with any real money to invest is dumb enough to put it into Russia again anyway. BP and Shell learned their lessons the hard way but I could have told you that in 1991. Russia has no rule of law except to steal anything that isn't tied down. Why would anyone think the West is stupid enough to believe that Abkhazia and South Ossetia is anything except a land grab? Well planned for a very long time and well executed.
Russia can see whatever it likes in NATO expansion. All it means is that once a country is inside NATO, Russia attacking it will be war with all of NATO. It would be the end of Russia. Remember when Ronald Reagan joked' "I just signed legislation outlawing Russia. We begin bombing in five minutes." Now why do you suppose Americans found that so funny?
Elengeo, Stalin did good? He killed 80 million people, maybe more than any other mass murderer in the history of the world. Many were Russians. He killed far more Russians than Hitler did. Read the Gullag Archipelligo. Learn from someone who knew more about the KGB and the Russian prison system than the KGB probably knew itself.
Not only was Stalin a mass murdering psychopathic paranoid schizophrenic maniac, he was stupid. He signed the Malinkov Von Ribbentrof pact with Hitler and assumed the USSR would not attack him. Wrong. Operation Barbarosa was Hitler's plan to take over the Bolsheviks he hated and believed inferior to the Ayrian race. What defeated him? The same Russian winter that defeated Napoleon and almost a billion dollars in US loans for arms and other material for fighting the war. Not one cent was ever paid back to America. The job of the Soviets was to keep feeding bodies to the Nazis to keep as many of them tied down as possible while the US defeated them in the western and southern fronts. And it worked. When I was young, the Soviets claimed that 18 million Soviet citizens died in what they call the great patriotic war. Then it was 22 million. Now I think they've got it up to 26 million. By the time I die, I won't surprise me if the myth is up to 100 million. Now that's what I call inflation.
Complain about this comment
It would be simple to punish Russia severely. Just prohibit any banks from doing business with any Russian based company including Gazprom the way we lock out Iran. Oil and gas are fungible. It means that the total supply and total demand is what governs price although if it is not delivered in the most efficient way, the price might go up some. If Iran and Venezuela won't sell oil to the US, they have to sell to someone who will stop buying from someone else who will sell it to the US. In the case of Russia, the problem is lack of adequate offloading terminals and storage capacity in Europe to make up for what is piped in. Well it boils down to finding a better way. In the mean time the EU had better learn to freeze or eat humble pie. I've never known Europe to make any sacrifice or stick to principle before, I don't think they will start now. The US is a different matter.
Complain about this comment
MAII, you were going so well, right up until you stuck in your usual anti Euro nonsense.
We all know the USA is perfect and it's foreign policy a shining beacon of brilliantness, you don't need to rub our noses in it.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You failed to answer my points in #242 but decided instead to push the warmongers line that "Russia can see whatever it likes in NATO expansion. All it means is that once a country is inside NATO, Russia attacking it will be war with all of NATO. It would be the end of Russia".
Yes Marcus that is really funny, just like Ronald Reagan's joke which tou mentioned. Only it wouldn't mean just the end of Russia, it would mean the end of the USA and the western hemisphere as well, wouldn't it? Presumably, if you survived , you will regard that as yet another success, like the invasion of Iraq!!!
You claim that "The US won the last cold war by bankrupting the USSR and it can do it again if Russia wants to go for round two". You need a reality check: the USA is in deep financial deficit as my post 242 pointed out. I'm sure that the American people would just love to pay the cost of that folly, and run the risk of a nuclear war brought about by American expansionist policies in Russia's backyard.
I think Christopher Meyer was right in his article in the Times. He wrote
"Most important of all, Russia and the West need to draw up rules of the road for the 21st century. Mr Miliband and others have condemned the notion of returning to the geopolitics of the Congress of Vienna which, in 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars, divided Europe into spheres of influence between empires and nations. They perhaps forget that what was agreed at Vienna held at bay for almost a century a general European war.
Something similar is needed today, based again on spheres of influence. Nato must renounce the provocative folly of being open to Georgian or, worse, Ukrainian membership. This strikes at the heart of the Russian national interest and offers no enhanced security to either Tbilisi or Kiev. As for Russia, it must be made unambiguously clear where any revanchist lunge westwards would provoke a military response by Nato".
Complain about this comment
crosseyes, on its own Europe is helpless. That's how I would prefer America leave it.
BusyBee, the best way to be sure that Russia understands that it cannot go around invading other countries anymore is to make them part of an alliance which is bound by its charter to defend them from a Russian attack. BTW, war with Russia would likely escalate to nuclear war and that will be the end of the world. Is Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and the Crimea worth it? Never forget that the people who have their fingers on the nuclear buttons in the United States believe firmly in an afterlife, heaven, and hell. They will not hesitate. I promise you some who see Armageddon as necessary for the second coming of Chirst are looking forward to a world war. They think it is written in bible prophesy. Their insanity is the surest guarantee that Russia will have no doubts that the US will strike first if it feels it has to. They will do it for god and country.
Complain about this comment
aha, the outrageously witty name calling. A sure sign MAII has lost an argument (it's usaually that or zero response).
Complain about this comment
I really love how Murrell and the BBC cover all their topics. Every topic is sui generis. Thus every topic is discussed in a void, with the West, obviously, taking a very moral and consistent position throughout.
Killing civilians in Afghanistan is never discussed except in passing (never as the main news), and there is, of course, always lots of fog about what really happened. Those who killed people (often children) and parents of those who got killed get the same say, with the former, speaking obviously English and being more "reasonable" (according to BBC), having upper hand. The parents are made to appear cheaters and lyers.
In the piece oin Russia and Georgia, not a word about (most of) the EU recognition of Kosovo. Kosovo-Abkhazia-Ossetia, dig it? Relationship? Humanitarian intervention" Selft determination? Nope...
Complain about this comment
An interesting development yesterday in an otherwise extremely intelligent piece of writing - it used the phrase 'When Russia counterattacked ...'
Interesting use of language.
RUSSIA WAS NEVER ATTACKED
You cannot 'counterattack' to an attack which never happened.
RUSSIA INVADED A FOREIGN SOVEREIGN STATE.
Let us not fudge or lose sight of this fact.
Complain about this comment
hamurabi
Welcome to BBC where their so called journalists write their so called news not only in a vacuum but in the most superficial supermarket checkout stand tabloid style for the masses. It has degenerated that far.
Why should the killing of Afghan civilians be news? It's never been before. Not when they were kililng each other and certainly not when the Russians were doing it. The only difference when the Soviet Russians were killing them was that the placed was closed tighter than a drum so that the outside world couldn't see what was going on. That's how Soviets and their tyrannical bretheren the Nazis did it, in secret. Now how many Polish military officers did the Soviets murder in cold blood?
Complain about this comment
bretorne, #256
Where have you found the phrase "When Russian counterattacked" ? I've searched through this article and a couple of others, but was not able to spot it.
A side question: would an attack on US peacekeepers, resulting in their death equal to an attack on US?
Complain about this comment
Marcus
You wrote that "the best way to be sure that Russia understands that it cannot go around invading other countries anymore is to make them [ie those countries] part of an alliance which is bound by its charter to defend them from a Russian attack".
Ah, the hypocrisy! If only the USA understood that it cannot go around invading Serbia and Iraq, then the USA might be in a position to lecture Russia on their actions.
You admit that "war with Russia would likely escalate to nuclear war and that will be the end of the world". The way to avoid this possiblity is NOT to extend NATO membership to Georgia and the Ukraine, as this would certainly increase the likelihood of nuclear war. NATO membership for these countries would be akin to Mexico joining the Warsaw pact in the days of the old Soviet empire. The USA would not have tolerated this so why should Russia tolerate NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine?
BTW, in the Eurovision Dance Contest shown last night on TV, Russia and the Ukraine each gave other maximum points. Russia gave the next highest points to Poland, the eventual winners. A small sign perhaps of the close ties and good relations that naturally exist between Russia and the Ukraine. I rather think however that you would much prefer to sour relations between the Ukraine and Russia to further US interests as you see them.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS