A serious summit
It must be serious. There will be no dinner, no welcoming handshake, no family photo. This no-frills emergency summit of the leaders of the European union is the first of its kind since the eve of the Iraq war in 2003. The 27 countries are just as split as then, and along roughly the same lines.
But this time it is about a crisis, not only on Europe's doorstep, but about Europe's ambitions and borders. Should political Europe, in the shape of Nato and the European Union go on expanding into what Prime Minister Putin regards as a "post-Soviet space".
When Georgia's leader gives a new conference, he does so sitting in front of the blue field and gold stars of an EU flag. Should Georgia and Ukraine be encouraged in their ambitions to join the European Union and Nato? And should Russia be forcefully warned off such intervention in the future? Or indeed should the first European war of the 21st century be treated as a one off, a result of Georgia's cack-handed handling of a delicate situation?
Many of those who see this as not only a big test but a big opportunity for the development of European Union foreign policy will stress the need for unity above all else: certainly above punishing Russia. It will be easy for the gathered leaders to promise more money and more help for Georgia. Those overawed by the bigger implications of the invasion will feel that averting their eyes to focus on the humanitarian worries, the state of roads and the ease of access to hospitals is at least worthy and practical.
It seems all but decided that there will no sanctions against Russia. No punishment for the initial invasion, nor for failing to implement President Sarkozy's ceasefire, nor for recognising the breakaway republics. The likely form of words will be that the EU should "keep under surveillance its relations with Russia".
Some will just see this as moral cowardice on the part of countries which are heavily reliant on Russian gas and oil. Gazprom, which strongly denies it would use its muscle for political purposes, issued a statement a few days ago making it clear that "Gazprom depends on Europe as Europe depends on Gazprom. Europe is Gazprom's most important market. Gazprom has been, and will be, a reliable supplier of energy. Gazprom has reliably delivered gas to Europe for more than 35 years. There were not even supply disruptions during the most difficult times such as the Cold War and the break-up of the Soviet Union. The accusation that Gazprom has "turned off the tap" in the past for political reasons is simply not true. "
But the trade opportunities with Russia are huge, and many European politicans and business people salivate at the thought of this expanding, rich market place.
Finland is one country that does an increasing amount of trade with Russia, and its foreign minister Alexander Stubb was deeply involved in the ceasefire negotiations as current chairman of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. What, I asked him, did he want from the meeting?
"First of all, that we get a united position and that means tough language politically. The second thing I am hoping for is to go a little bit easy on the economic sanctions. These two things: tough talk and easy on the economics. Because I think that we are mutually interdependent with the Russians. We need Russian energy and Russian markets, and the Russians need our energy markets. So if you end up fighting against economic liberalism no-one is going to benefit."
I put it to him some would see that as pure cowardice. "No I think it's mathematics. It's not about cowardice but about facts of life. If we want our economies to go down, if we want the Russian economy to go down, yeah lets go for the economic sanctions. Paradoxically, what this crisis will do is get a more united position from the European Union. There's a lot of tough talk from some countries, others are way too soft, some are in-between but this will make us all realise Russia is back and Russia is back with a vengeance. It means we have to sit around the table and have mutual respect. "
As I've tried to highlight on my last post on the subject many see the most obvious punishments, blocking or expelling Russian from international bodies, as counter-productive. If the aim is to get Russia to abide by international rules, they ask, what's the point of throwing them out of clubs that exist to enforce such rules? There is a small chance that the next meeting to discuss trade talks with Russia, planned for the 15th of this month could be called off.
But these are not the only sanctions. One diplomat has suggested to me something like a travel ban on the generals commanding the tanks that rolled into Georgia.
In a masterful and thought-provoking pamphlet for the Centre for European Policy studies, a former EU ambassador to Russia, Michael Emerson, argues there are other sanctions: "If, for example, Russia's actions towards Ukraine became analogous to what has just been seen in Georgia" he writes "economic sanctions by the EU and the US together could include banning Russian direct and real estate investment in the EU, freezing financial assets of Russian companies and individuals, stopping new operations in Russia by the EBRD and the raising of capital by IPOs on Western stock exchanges, etc. Boycott of the Sochi winter Olympics scheduled for 2014 would naturally follow in due course" .
It is worth remembering that for all the hot words, the United States isn't promising any firm action either. If I am right, and the EU backs away from sanctions is this common sense, or craven?
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~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Mark,
Thought provoking and some rational thoughts as to what is required by the EU.
My original thoughts were that Russia was behaving towards Georgia like the Third Reich Germany in 1938 and bullying Czechoslovakia into submission in those pre-war times - all done with the supine connivance of Great Britain and France to their unremitted shame.
The problem is the Ukraine and Russia's next steps which have undoubtedly been already planned.
If the EU turns a blind eye towards the invasion and annexation of part of Georgian territory does this give the green light to Russia to start fermenting trouble with the Ukraine.
We have had Czechoslovakia 1938:2008 - is the Ukraine the next target of Russian domination . . . . viz a viz Poland 1939:2009?
If the EU procrastinates and postures with hot air then it is being as supine as Chamberlaine and Deladier in 1938. As we now know, Aggressor nations are not less than bouyed up by appeasement and weakness they only respond to firmness and resolute determination to resist aggression.
Georgia is not a fight worthy of NATO as it is a lost cause but the Ukraine's independence and freedom is as worth defending as Poland was worth going to war for in 1939 - whatever the consequences for the rest of Europe.
Freedom is worth defending anything less is cowardice in the face of a bully.
If the EU behaves as supinely as I suspect it will in regard to Russian aggression towards Georgia then I will be glad I am not Ukrainian and I would think my current freedom will be not be for much longer.
Complain about this comment
Mendemus (#1) - very well said. I'd like to add that Georgia is in fact worth fighting for if not for higher motives then for purely economical, as they host the only remaining Russia-independent gas and oil pipeline. Europe is like man hooked on drugs, those being Russian oil and gas. Either we start a therapy (a painfull one, doubtlessly) or we will end in a Soviet gutter sooner rather than later. We should be firm and determined, playing dead won't help.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
To answer your question; backing away from sanctions would be common sense, surely.
First of all, Georgia started this whole thing by attempting genocide in South Ossetia (what else can you possibly call opening fire on civilian residences in the middle of the night?).
Secondly, Russia has the right to 'recognize' South Ossetia as an independent state in much the same way the West had the right to recognize Kosovo's independence (remember both Georgia and Serbia opposed those recognitions).
Thirdly, we in the West supposedly believe in the Right to Self Determination. Well then, let the South Ossetians determine where they wish to live; in Georgia, an independent South Ossetia, or in Russia. Many seem to favor the latter. Who are we to deny the South Ossetians the right to join Russia?
More than anything, many in the West seem annoyed at Russia's fearless challenging of Western power. That's not a good enough excuse to risk a (cold) war.
Not that Russia can be trusted, mind. That nation is historically incapable of remaining peacefully inside its own borders. But Georgia is just a little more complicated than that.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark
This is my opinion.
Everyone in Europe should calm down and stop playing the United States Cold War devide and rule game.
NATO is no longer relivant as The West, at least in the old form, no longer exists. Georgia attacted civilan target in South Ossetia with weapons suppled by the USA as the American Government was warned would in all probability happen. Russia has given a good box on the ears to discurrage them from trying it on in future, that is all.
Fortunately, the USA can no longer afford adventures in Europe. We should be looking how we can help them to go back home.
Complain about this comment
Europe never seems to learn the psychology of empire building through military conquest even though many of its largest nations gained much of their wealth in prior centuries that way. Georgia is just the beginning. Equating Kosovo with South Ossetia and Abkhazia is the kind of rationalization and false notion of equivalence on both sides which leads directly down the path to further conquest and war. Now is the time to stand up to Russia. If Europe and the US don't, it will only get harder as Russia becomes stronger and bolder through increasing success. I don't expect more than words out of Europe. It is weak, thoroughtly corrupt, and utterly unprincipled. If the EU doesn't give Russia a stark choice to make right now, it never will until the only alternative will be war or total surrender. I'm guessing it will be the latter and within about ten years we will see the re-emergence of something like the Soviet evil Empire. Ukraine is the next prize for Russia but hardly the last.
Complain about this comment
We can hardly ruin our own an Russias economic future until we actually know what the was going on. Until we actually KNOW if the Georgian military were shooting a civilians- which we can't find out because of the Russian troops in the area. But honestly at the moment there isn't anyone left in the two breakaway provinces who WANTS to be part of Georgia- So my personal suggestion would be- hard talk- low sanctions- push for a referendum (with your pre-war address counting for your votes placement) for the future borders of of Georgia- under international supervision not Russian. And of course give the Ukraine some guarantees of safety pretty soon.
This event is done- we can't undo it and sanctions would make the situation worse- but we should make sure it doesn't set a precedence. Of course there isn't anything that we can do about Russia reacquisition plans if they go for the central asian nations- they are just geographically wrongly placed.
Complain about this comment
Reminds me of the 'Yes Minister' episode where Jim Hacker is talking about defending the rights of democrat nations. When asked why we didn't go into Afganistan to fight the Russians he replied 'some nations are too strong'. Seems not much has changed - the EU states have different foreign policy objectives and as always will not act as one. If they did, they might make a difference to Russia. In practise its divide and rule ..
Complain about this comment
Let's face it USA and friends' "slowly and quietly" encirclement of Russia had gone awry with Georgia's unilateral action of invading South Ossetia.
USA and friends' lost of control of Georgia is now being "tested for validation" by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov's demand of an arms embargo to Georgia until a different government is in place.
If USA and friends are in full control, then, they will acquiese and move on to more serious "horse trading" with the Russians for a more secure oil and gas pipeline.
If USA and friends' refuse, Russia can claim justification for its militrary actions as self-defence against Georgia and her belligerent allies.
If USA and friends' respond neither with an acceptance or a rejection to Lavrov's new demand, but insisted that their ealrlier stated positions be negotiated. Russia can play a delaying game since they have got what the wanted in the current status quo. They are in no hurry.
Any harder responses like trade sanctions, rejection from G-8, etc but not war, will be simply will be treated like an "equaliser goal" by Russians and will be followed by the mandatory turnover or restart on their initiative. And the game goes on.
Complain about this comment
the reported comments of alexander stubb are as disappointing as they are unsurprising.
as are suggestions that it is possible to hold a referendum in an ethnically / politically purged area. as much as 80% of the ethnic georgian population of south ossetia have been forced out through several years of oppressive russian 'peace keeping' in the area. a slow, cold ethnic cleansing. this figure is greater still now, following the invasion of south ossetia and georgia by the russian military.
when populations have been jerrymandered by intimidation, cluster bomb and tank, election / referendum results are worthless.
even without the ethnic restructuring of south ossetia carried out by the russians, the ethnic ossetians would still be a majority. however, they would have a sizable minority of ethnic georgians living within their state, who could then claim a legitimate secession from south ossetia.
there is a parallel with kosovo. for the ethnic albanian kosovars to demand their own self determination and ignore the same request from their serb kosovar countrymen is hypocritical, to say the least.
where do we draw the line, or lines? when does a group of people cease to be a viable nation or ethnic group and become a nonsensical pawn in a greater political argument? look at the area involved in south ossetia, look at the numbers of people involved. compare this to a similar sized town in your own country. 70,000 people (pre war) lived in south ossetia. carlisle in the northwest of england has a population of over 100,000. would the eu and the international community allow them to become a nation state? or become part of eire because the irish had been issuing passports to the residents of the town?
-
... it would seem the war with eastasia is over, in fact we were never at war with eastasia at all. all this time, it was eurasia that was the enemy, the old enemy ... lol.
who we fight does not matter, only that we fight and are afraid.
Complain about this comment
The European Union won't and never will agree on sanctions against Russia. Economical cooperation is not a problem because we have the helping hand of capitalism and the principles of the free-market. Political cooperation is more difficult to accomplish because we actually have to agree on something. This will never happen because we are to divided on foreign policy. The foreign policy of the European Union is a joke.
Complain about this comment
I'll take your 'craven' and raise you an 'appeasement'. Things don't look at all that happy right now from where I'm sitting in Warsaw. The fact that the whole thing is morally complex and that the US is in no shape to take the moral high ground only makes things all the bleaker.
Complain about this comment
That Lavrov is a smart cookie, isn't he?
Just as EC ministers are getting together to figure out a way of sticking their collective finger in the Russian eye without upsetting them, up he pops, saying "That Shaakashvili, he's a right bad 'un. If you're nice to him, there's no telling how seriously we'll take it, more seriously than a serious thing. Ooh, I don't want to think about it."
Let's hope the EC take the hint.
Complain about this comment
Of course the foreign policy is a joke..and will be for a while. Just ask the Irish why..
Complain about this comment
DutchNemo, the EU never agreed to sanctions against Iraq either, no matter what they signed on paper. Corrupt and unprincipled, they place their immediate economic self interest above all else. That is why when they placed it above America's security fears they alienated its people. That damage may never be repaired. The mistake they are making now will reap bitter dividents in a decade or two when Russia is allowed to re-emerge as the largest major political and military entity in Eurasia. Europe will once again be completely dependent on the US for its defense only next time, Americans may not have the stomach for it anymore.
The role of the US will be crucial. It depends on where it sees its own self interests. Keeping Europe warm and lit this winter should not be its concern. Will the US stand up to Russia and risk war against its aggressive expansion the way it stood up to the USSR? That may depend on whether Obama or McCain wins the election. If the US stands up now while Russia is comparatively weak, it may halt the process that looks to be taking form. If Obama wins and the US doesn't, it may one day be backed into a corner from which the only possible response will be nuclear war. The cold war never ended becaue Russia never accepted that it lost. It's just that we in the west didn't understand that. Russia is still waging it against us. We have only two choices, fight or surrender. It looks like Europe has already made up its mind about that.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark
Fellow bloggers should not forget the reaction of the United States to Cuba or Chile and other latin American States that tried to escape its sphere of interests. Comparing Russia with the actions of Nazi Germany is simply incorrect. Russia is not driven my ideological desires to invade and dominate Europe. It would be a mistake to inadvertently strengthen the hand of those in Russia who favour a policy of isolation from the rest of Europe. Russia is no longer the closed society it was during the Soviet years. We should try and avoid anything that legitimates the actions of those who would like Russia to turn in on itself again. Russian history has many examples of this happening. The EU would be best advised to remain very firm and united in articulating its vital political and economic interests and make clear how it will defend them. Linking NATO membership with the EU was and is a mistake as a political strategy to support the UKraine and Georgia. There are States in the EU who are not in NATO so why push that agenda in frontier States that have historically been integral parts of the Soviet Union and the Russian Empire. The UKraine cannot be compared to the Baltics States, Poland and the other States that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. EU membership for States like the Ukraine and Georgia should be the medium to long term priority not NATO membership. The Ukraine and Georgia should be supported by the EU. But national sovereignty and territorial sovereignty should not be a mask for one -the dominant ethno-linguistic group disregarding the rights and aspirations of minority groups. This rule applies in the rest of Europe notwithstanding the right of States to organise there own constitutional formula. It is painful for most dominant groups to accept that minority groups to not share the same sense of identity and loyality but the way to deal with the problem is not through war but by democratic means and years of discussion, even in the face of the use of violence by some groups. That may require a fundamental revision of the constitutional rules in those States. When Georgia decided to attack on August the 7th did its government inform anyone in NATO or the EU? Flying the EU flag is fine but it is not a licence to use force regardless of the consequences and then expect the EU to ride to the rescue. The idea that Russia was simply not going to react or react in a more measured way -whatever that means under the circumstances- is not realistic under the circumstances and historical context. This is a European problem that has to be solved by the EU and Russia with each acknowledging the others vital interests and fundamental values. The EU would make a serious mistake if it allowed its vital interests to be defined by the United States on this matter. As a matter of interest was the US informed of Georgian intentions prior to August 7 ?
Complain about this comment
Mark - "for all the hot words, the United States isn't promising any firm action either. If I am right, and the EU backs away from sanctions is this common sense, or craven?"
I've said before and I'll say it again. Just as in human relations, e.g. marriage, if it doesn't work to the satisfaction of both parties then in the long term a divorce is the less painful option.
If that meant Kosovo should secede so be it, if it means Ossetia secedes so be it, if it means Scotland leaving the UK so be it, if it means the UK leaving the EU so be it, if it means (for example) California leaving the US so be it.
Where is the sense in forcing unwilling partners to stay together? And who has the right to force unwilling partners to stay together?
A forced annexation by Russia would of course be a completely different kettle of fish requiring any country believing itself to support democracy to give whatever aid it could to the victims and to take whatever action it could against the aggressor.
But is Russia's recognition of independent Ossetia and Abkhazia really any different from the EU, UK and US recognition of independent Kosovo?
Complain about this comment
If Russia is to be "punished" in any way , then the best that can be done is : 1. Create a EU wide binding policy for oil and gas pipelines whereby producers cannot own shares in them (which will cut out Gazprom and the like)- this has already been done for electricity. 2. Put a freeze on financial investment by Russian companies in the EU in all strategic sectors eg aerospace, energy, banking, telecommnications. 3. Put a freeze on bank loans and floatations on EU stock exchanges to Russian corporations. Hit them where it hurts : their pockets! Ref implanted Russian passport holders and minorities across Eastern Europe, keep a security control on them! As to Georgia, give aid loans subject to Saakashvili resigning.
Complain about this comment
Old-man-mike"s comments are remarkably naive. They remind me of the arguments for appeasement in the 1930's and look where that got us!
Complain about this comment
Ref Russian foreign policy, the old imperial power had to simply retrench from 1989 to 2000. But its strategic objectives have always remained in place albeit in different packaging. Empire and "areas of strategic interest" are one and the same. The Pacman mentality has simply re-asserted itself in the Caucasus, starting with Chechnia, now Georgia and who's next? The Russians do admit that they see gas and oil as strategic weapons, which is presumably why they have been throwing out foreign investors such as Shell and BP. Thye are simply making the most of the opportunity. Ethnic cleansing or clearing in the Caucasushas been done by the Russians since 1990. They have an old saying : "a chicken isn't a bird, eastern Europe isn't a foreign country"
Complain about this comment
Look at t hings from Russias point of view.Nato and the EU expanding ever closer towards its borders,a missile defence shield set up in neighbouring Poland ,NATO deploying thounsands of miles away in Afghanistan,and bellicose comments by several western leaders.All this bearing in mind that it was actually Georgia who provoked the recent crisis by sending force s into Ossetia.If I was a Russian I would be feeling very very uneasy right now and would want my government to protect me against any Western attack.We may t hink there is no possibility of this but in Russia there must be a very different perception.I think the key qualification to be a dipl;omat is to have the ability to see the world as others see it.
Complain about this comment
Beyond the propaganda, the kind of orwelian style, what is the facts beneath it?
By the way this cheap propaganda of using our EU flag is so awfull, this show Shaakashvili was just a mendacious politician, because he has nothing to do with EU.
Anyway,Shaakashvili was formed in USA and work for the USA, why didnt he use a US "Star and stripe" flag?
And before the real facts emerge from this tragic conflit, i dare to say it is better for us to urgently wait for the truth, before taking any actions. Iraq is a good antidote to believe in anything that the governments said, isnt it?
Complain about this comment
EverCloserUnion @15,
Whilst I agree with much of what you say, Georgia is not a European problem. Georgia is not in Europe - and never will be unless the earth's tectonic plates rearrange themselves sometime soon.
For all the armchair warriors wanting to re-ignite the cold war, I'd like to point out 4 things:
1) Russia is not the USSR;
2) Russia 2008 is not Germany 1938;
3) The EU is absolutely impotent: it is a collection of disparate countries with conflicting interests pretending to be the nascent 'US of E'. Furthermore it is being outclassed at every step by better geo-political chess players (the Russians);
and
4) I'm much more worried about the rise of Radical Islamism. A strong Russia - whether our ally or not - will be a powerful bulwark against that evil.
Oh yes, and I don't want to see British troops dying in the Ukrainian steppes or the mountains of the Caucasus for countries "of which we know little" - and the little I do know I don't much care for.
Complain about this comment
A quote by Russian President Medvedev on Paul Reynolds' analysis:
This statement is nonsensical. If anything, a multi-polar world would bring more instability and conflict into the world because now the 'top dog' has other nations which can challenge it. There is more fighting and violence when there are many teams than when all people are on the same team--then all you have are a few team members trying to undermine the group internally. A unipolar world would clearly bring more peace and stability than a multi-polar one.
Now, a multi-polar world could be more just and fair than a unipolar one because there is competition between powers and people can choose which team to join. But justice and fairness are not the same as stability and peace.
The EU should become more 'unipolar' in the region and find some solidarity to stand up to Russia. Russia should acknowledge that it is trying to become the sole 'pole' in its region.
Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO fast, as within a few weeks. Georgia is too tricky.
And as for your ending question, the EU is somewhat beholden to Russia for energy, but can still put up some sanctions. They should also try diversifying their sources of hydrocarbons. East Asia imports a lot of oil from Southwestern Asia (Middle East) and Africa; if they can do that, then so can Europe. Even natural gas can be frozen and shipped from one far-flung place to another. More expensive, but gives more freedom in terms of energy security.
The above is just opinion, obviously.
Complain about this comment
EU membership for Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey must of course be blocked at all opportunities. None of these countries are actually in Europe. Russia, which I wouldn't approve of joining either, has its own reasons for not joining (they don't want Brussels to make their laws for them).
EU membership for the four countries I mentioned is naturally supported by the globalist crowd such as Miliband ea. It is however not supported by most other people. There should be no immigration or visa privileges for any of these countries either, nor for any other country in the Caucasus, Asia-Minor, Middle-East or North Africa. Sarkozy and his Mediterranean Union can eff-off as far as I'm concerned.
And I don't like it that this unsavory Saakashvili (does he remind anyone else of a used car salesman?) is using the European flag (it is technically not the EU flag, just a flag used by the EU). Makes you wonder whether or not Brussels knew of the Georgian attack in advance and was happy to let that happen so it could have an opportunity to grandstand. The EU is more than willing to use this 'crisis' to further its ambitions, which is removing the last remaining bits of national sovereignty and thus effectively eliminating parliamentary democracy for good. Shame on them.
Complain about this comment
when we say europe, we mean somebody. subject is already too much diluted. there is no such subject in the world. europe is obviously still not able "to do" something.
on the other hand we have countries with efficient governments, like russia. they know what their goals are. it is difficult for europe to adequately respond, if there is no europe as subject. only germany, great britain, france, etc., the same different subjects like for many years before.
unfortunately, the main point of agenda is still the same, only to achieve an agreement about basic principles and reasons which stand behind building one united europe. what we wanted? what were our reasons for going into unification?
in fact, we should get rid of old ideas, prejudices.
in the meantime u.s. is once more heading to one new world. perhaps, as we can almost feel it should happen, future relation between countries will comprise much less differences between nations, races, etc. in such a world, difference between good and evil should be sufficient to recognize the human values, and act accordingly.
Complain about this comment
@Gheryando (13)
What does Ireland have to do with this? Oh I get it, you are still angry that the Irish electorate saved parliamentary democracy in 27 countries for the time being? The EU dreams of an EU oligarchy running the show without needing parliamentary approval, but that will have to be shelved for some time yet, until they can figure out how to scam Ireland into signing democracy's death warrant anyway.
Listen up: I do not want the EU to be a superstate, supergovernment or super-anything. Most decidedly I don't want Brussels to make our foreign policy for us.
Complain about this comment
Max Sceptic
"Georgia is not in Europe"
From Wikipedia.
"Georgia is a transcontinental country in the Caucasus region, partially in Eastern Europe and partially in Southwestern Asia."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)
Georgia is an independent nation now. It is not a breakaway province of Russia. The US has left China guessing about its policy insofar as defending Taiwan from Chinese attack is concerned. Will the US or EU let Russia rebuild its empire from what it considers its rightful sphere of influence (an archaic imperialistic concept.) We'll see but I don't think so. America has much at stake now in having a foothold in areas bordering Russia. It's only encirclement and containment if Russia intends to expand. If Russia wants to be part of the 21st century and not remain a relic of the 19th, it will have to take an entirely differnet attitude. It is already making it clear to foreign investors that it is an unacceptable place to do business or take a risk. For all its resources, it needs foreign capital, technoloigy, and management skill to exploit it. Without that, those resources are just so much more dirt in the ground.
Complain about this comment
I wouldn't use the word mathematics rather a better one is pragmatic. Therin lies the key. If the UK and countries like Poland don't like it they can always add their own sanctions. Not so long ago Poland was weeping over the lost sales of meat to Russia. Hardly a good starting point. Likewise the UK under Brown is trying to talk tough but actions speak louder than words. Stop visas, stop importing gas and stop trade, see who blinks first. Certainly the likes of Chelseas owner would bail out and what would that cost London alone. Imagine all that Russian owned real estate in London being sold off. To those who say Russia needs technology etc I would remind em. Russia manaqed for decades without alot of foreign exchange their trade was usually in barter. Their population isn't all that high, so given what they bring in is enough for their needs. The oligarths have gone so the money stays in Russia anyway.
Complain about this comment
# 27
People's Republic of China(PRC) need not guess. PRC knows if she invades Taiwan: all of Taiwan's foreign reserves will disappear into USA's hands. Afterwhich there will be a technology embargo imposed on PRC by Western Nations including Japan.
USA will not intervene directly on Taiwan's behalf. Taiwan knows this, that is why she is angling for independence from China. Trying to bring the game to a higher level.
Soon the real war with China begins completely financed with Taiwan's reserves.
This war's objective will not be the reconquest of Taiwan but obliteration of China's industrial capability and war making capacity.
Complain about this comment
MAII you do realise that in the end the USA will have to join this game? Because if Russia ever manages to reaquire most or significant parts of Europe, the USA will be next? Frankly at that point even China would come under threat.
Thus USA is already working with countries like the UK and Poland to jump in before it is too late. There is a split forming in Europe, and hopefully enough countries will support blocking Russia's expansion to be effective. Your views of Europe are biased at best, there are many different attitudes there in different countries.
Complain about this comment
it is not even funny, it is just boring to hear what the UE representatives are trying to say! they do not give their opinion who is responsible for the crisis and how they are going to reconstitute georgia's integrity if they voted for this. and they are going to help Georgia but not S. Ossetia just if nothing has happened in Tshinval! I can not catch the idea what did they gather for?
Complain about this comment
Iain at #20, wht is is threatening to Russia to have missile defence in Poland, when Russia has nuclear missiles pointed at Poland and threatens to use them. So, according to you, it is a valid Russian grievance to complain about a small partial defence shield, because it is too close to it... but it is not valid for Poland to be threatened by actual nukes and defend against them?! Such double standards... and why does Russia get to say what happens in independent countries? Just because they border them?! Why doesn't Poland or Lithuania get a say about what happens in Russia... or even worse why do other EU citizens criticise them and favour Russia instead supporting their independence? The appeasment crowd is really blind.
Complain about this comment
@MarcusAureliusII
"its rightful sphere of influence (an archaic imperialistic concept)." I cannot agree more, because trendy guys call it "our core zone of security" (see From 'Tent City' to NATO by Richard Holbrooke) nowadays. Don't you contradict youself when defending US, which is an empire... oh, sorry, superpower, and condemning imperialistic thinking?
It's a pity that you think of Russia as of an enemy and picturesquely describe it so. It's a pity there are own "neocons" in Russia as well. However, a belief in being always right and refusing to compromise is a dangerous thing, especially for big powers.
Instead of an epilogue...
"War, war never changes. The end of the world occurred pretty much as we had predicted: Too many humans, not enough space or resources to go around. The details are trivial and pointless, the reasons, as always, purely human ones. The earth was nearly wiped clean of life, a great cleansing. An atomic spark struck by human hands, quickly raged out of control..."
Fallout 2 Intro movie narration
Complain about this comment
Honestly I would have lost any respect I have for Russia if they did not Responded to the Gorgian provocation.
In the and who does this sakashvili is, atacking Russian troops. Did he realy expected that the Americans will come and start a war with Russia on his belhafe.
Maybe the Russians overdid it a litle bit but they already said that if Gorgia atacks they will responde. So why is Sakashvily crying so loud now.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII @27,
I'm surprised at you. Wikipedia is about as reliable as - er - the EU.
Encyclopaedia Brittanica doesn't mention Europe at all in its definition and description of Georgia.
Complain about this comment
@Rob_Hob
Ok, let me explain you the problem with missile defence system in Poland. The peace in the era of nuclear weapons is based on the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, which states that you cannot use a nuclear weapon against another country possessing it or its ally, because it will strike back. The Polish missile defence system is breaking the balance in favour of one country, which may decide to eliminate its enemies once and forever without a fear of a blowback, if a crazy belligerent person comes to power there, which we cannot guarantee won't happen.
In Polish case, however, 10 missiles are not enough to eliminate the danger, but still US insists on placing it there. What for? By the way, if you look closely, Russia has threatened to point nuclear weapons on Poland in case US missiles are placed there, which means Russian missiles were not pointed on Poland till now, doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
NordicPerson, you, and most westerners still miss my point. The point is that Poland's views have been made subservient to the will of Russia, i.e. Poland can not look to its defence when it threatens the offensive capabilities of Russia. Poland does not have its own nukes, while Russia has nukes on Poland's border. Poland currently is much weaker than Russia militarily. If anything it is Russia which is crowding out Poland and putting even nuclear weapons right up against its borders (literally). Yet it is the Russian point of view we are debating, their feelings of being crowded by potential enemies... What about Poland's concerns? It s right to protect itself from very real Russian threats. Why are not EU citizens supporting a fellow EU member, but Russia by saying that it is true Poland is too close to Russia, etc, i.e. the whole Russian argument about being surrounded by NATO and its "near-abroad" sounds hollow and hypocritical when the Russians are doing much more than what they are complaining against.
Complain about this comment
I do not really understand what the EU means when saying that Russia overdid or responded dispropotionately. Of corse it should have reacted otherwise: to bomb out Tbilissi and to do to Saakashvili the same thing as US did to Saddam Hussein! In that case nobody would accuse Russia of overusing it's power!
and for EU image it would be much better just to keep silence and not to say blah-blah-blah to Russia without any sort of actions!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rob_hob wrote: What about Poland's concerns? It s right to protect itself from very real Russian threats.
Well, do they feel protected now? What's actually safer for Poland, having or not having this shield (and nukes pointed out at Poland in responce)? Personally I believe that if poland people wants this shield, let be it. It's their right to protect themself from anybody. But insted of giving safety and protection I believe it will put them at risk and increase their vulnerability and I doubt that's in poland people's best interests. This shield will not threaten russian offensive capabilities anyway...
By the way shield's supposed to be placed not against Russia, isn't it? At least, officially...
Complain about this comment
In my opinion, for EU image it would be much better to conduct investigation before taking any side. So far, politicians seem to rely on incomplete data.
As for Poland, I believe, nobody in Russia thinks of Poland to be a military threat per se. Nevertheless, when you join an alliance, and start to build up your army, it starts to be viewed as a part of a bigger picture.
Complain about this comment
"If the aim is to get Russia to abide by international rules, they ask, what's the point of throwing them out of clubs that exist to enforce such rules?"
I have a question: what is the point of having Russia in all those organizations if they are not willing to play by the rules anyway?
Complain about this comment
…..Do you all get it? Dogs bark, but the caravan goes on. - Kurdish Proverbs. You all peoples: hysterical European vassals of US, drowning in 2 wars and one catastrophically economical crisis conceited and haughty Americans, do you recognize your part in that saying hahaha and where does my nation stand? During the last two weeks you 750 million glorious westerners vomited out so much worthless dirt and bluff and wasted so much energy doing it, that I guess it would be enough to sustain few refugee camps in Afghanistan for one year straight. Could you dear western establishment do something more useful and positive such as resolving global warming or aid for Africa issues huh, please? You are all doomed to loose playing with us Russians, sorry. Unfortunately it is your infinite burden. This 18 years period of “one polar world” computer program failed and made from you impudent, vain, greedy, voracious pigs. We Russians are smarter, wittier, quicker, tolerant and much stronger and you dears must admit it, whither you like it or not. You have got no other choice. The past two decades we just had a very long sweet slumber contemplating your western self degradation and decaying ….LOL people let’s live in peace, stop panicing, we are not that freaky as your CNN, CBS, ABS, NBC present us, so we suggest let’s sit and talk business…..we are back, please welcome us
Complain about this comment
Pola_Bear3, delusions of self importance notwithstanding, a conflict between the West and Russia would turn out about the same as the conflict between Georgia and Russia if you get my point. Plus, going for similies, polar bears are about to go extinct in the wild. I will give you a Western proverb "You live by the sword, you die by the sword", and a Polish one "The wolf carried the day a few times, but in the end they carried off the wolf" (change the wolf to bear if you prefer).
bcsouth, Poland's concerns are Russian nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, huge conventional military right next door in Poland's near abroad led by a Russian government that is very unfriendly towards Poland constant threatening it with a nuclear or military attack and economic difficulties (Poland does not have any nukes, etc, by comparison). A Russian government that OPENLY feels that Poland belongs in its sphere of influence. Is that enough?
Furthermore the point of the shield IS NOT that it will be used against Russia, as Russian nukes could EASILY overwhelm it, but THE POINT is that it puts Poland in an alliance with the USA, and as part of the deal Poland gets USA help in modernising Poland's defences (Poland still has to pay for it unlike some Americans posting here said that they are giving money away). This is probably the SAME point that annoys Russia, and not the official Russian line that the shield threatens their nuclear deterant (it DOES NOT).
As for the last card Russia has to play, Europe should go on a crash program of creating energy security. Develop nuclear and the renewables that are economic to the point that they are supplying MOST of the electricity. Start building dozens of new nuclear power stations NOW. Start working on new nuclear power station designs for next generation NOW! Find alternate sources for fossil fuels for the applications that still require them. Build a LARGE missile defence shield NOW, if a nuclear exchange is to happen (the constant Russian threat), might as well be ready to shoot the nukes down.
Complain about this comment
Yes, it is clear that europe is agraid of russia. Ans I andmit it should be afraid. everyone loves money!!! And money doesn'T stink, doesn't matter where does it come from.
I don't understand why does it matter where is Georgia located. It is a small country, with long history full of wars as it's location and matters a lot for senturies.
I understand that this time this so called conflict went out of the borders of this small country. Nowadays Immortals of the World are discussing who will be dictating world order ftrom now on. You are funny!
Russian boot is very pleasant, and I don't wish to experience it on your necks, though the menace is quite real.
Complain about this comment
We Russians are smarter, wittier, quicker, tolerant and much stronger and you dears must admit it, whither you like it or not. You have got no other choice.
To polarbear3:
You wish! And you talk of Americans. Do you even know any? The big bad bear may be back but remember theres a fastass eagle that can swoop down and rip the bears heart out and it would be dead before it hit the ground.Is that what you want? I would watch what you wish for and who you threaten! I have nothing personal against Russians but after reading your comment hmm...I hope all are not like you.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
I have been reading your blogs on this conflict for a while now.
Being Russian, it is difficult to stay impartial in my comments but living in Canada makes it easier for me as I not only have immediate access to various sources of information without the need of translation but have a much better understanding of both Russian and Western cultures.
To me, the position of Alexander Stubb is the most sound, reasonable and pragmatic.
The Russia IS back, both economically and as a political power. Not quite a superpower, as the former USSR, yet but is clearly heading in that direction. Russia wants respect which it has been denied flat out... just because it is Russia. No one seems to have a good explanation as to why there is so much antagonism, it seems the westerners are born with it.
Remember, Russia is and has always been part of Europe. Peter the Great who lived in the Netherlands for several years, who pretty much copied the Dutch flag and brought numerous cultural elements back Russia. Ekaterina the 2nd, a born German, contributed greatly to intergrating Russia into the rest of Europe.
Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Chaikovsly, Mendeleev, etc etc etc - isn't it all part of World's (and European's) legacy?
Yes, something tragic happened in early 20th century. The October "revolution" changed many things, the political structure, and attitute towards the West. The new power had to shut itself off to preserve its power. But one thing never changed - the minds of people.
Russians (along with other people from the brotherly USSR republics) paid the ultimate price for making the wrong choice - 20 million dead in WWII, another close to 30 million lost to Stalin's repressions.
The people of Russia knew what was going on but it took 70 long years to find a way to break out of this spell.
And then when that happened and Russia looked towards the West, what did the West do?
The West sat back and enjoyed the demise of the "evil empire". It was fun to watch the drunk Yeltsin pissing on the wheel of his airplane after landing in New York(?) and ruining the country and letting a bunch of thugs close to his family divide and conquer. The West did not extend a helping hand but did help the newly rediscovered country implode. The billions in economic aid ended up in Britain. Look at the Russia's richest. But that's a competely separate story.
Germany, after waging to world wars, was forgiven. Russians, who lost 20 million to Germans in WWII, got over it, have great respect for Germans and have managed to establish good economic and political relationship.
Why can't the West get over the fact that Russia is not what it was 20 years ago?
Then Russia finally got a new leader. Ex-KGB (btw, there is no such thing as "ex" in KGB - once KGB, always in KGB). GREAT! It means we have a young, ambitious, well educated, healthy, well versed leader who brouhgt the country from its knees and now wants to command some respect. The West starts to cry. Why?
And now, as Alexander Stubb put it, Russia is back and back with a vengeance. But fear not the Russian military ambitions. Russians know what a war is and what it means to lose a quarter of its population. Russians don't want a war, they want respect.
Sure, impose economic sanctions. Go right ahead. China is very energy hungry. An alliance, however strong or weak, with China will result that 20 years from now, if you don't speak Mandarin, you're out of luck.
Is that what you're looking for?
What's all this fuss about Ukraine and Georgia. The Western media knows little or nothing about the history of the conflict and the region itself.
Russians saved Georgians from a total extermination some 200 years ago. The Georgians sought Russian protection pleading their eternal allegiance. And things have been great. We've got along just fine (just open a history book and see who actually ruled Russia for over 30 years between 1924 and 1953).
That is until some loon who sold his soul and his people for an "almightry" dollar decided he wanted to be another Bagration.
Ukraine. How many of you know how Crimea became part of Ukraine?
Sevastopol, the naval city born by degree of Ekaterina, has always been Russian. Some heartbreaking events took place there that are a part of Russian history.
You all remember Nikita Khruschev and the Cuban crisis. Was the man sane or even sensible? No one tought so, and he was quickly removed from power. But somehow, he, a Ukranian, managed to make a gift to his own people of Ukraine. Crimea was a gift to Ukraine from a Ukranian.
So, if the man was universally thought of as an idiot, why can't we also agree that giving away Crimea to the Ukraine was also an idiotic decision, and why would it be unreasonable to fathom that Russia would want to reclaim it at one point now that the brotherly Ukraine decided to disown its mother-Russia?
No one seemed to be bothered by it as we were all one big family. I still don't differentiate between the Ukranians and the Russians - they are the same people to me. My father was 100% Ukranian, my mom is Russian, I was born in Belarus, got my education in Russia.
Trust me, the vast majority of ordinary people think the same way.
And I highly doubt that Russia will ever try to reclaim Crimea. It would make a lot more sense to wait until the leadership in Ukraine changes and we settle our relationship as brothers, and there will be no need to go through this painful process that would be devastating to all of us. Lovers quarrel, you know. Just wait another few years.
Russia is already building a new port for its Black see navy to replace the one in Sevastopol currently leased from the Ukraine. Isn't that evidence enough for you?
It's just not logical or reasonable to see a Ukranian leader turning his back to his brother Russia and bowing to the Americans. In hopes to achieve what?
Something is VERY fishy about it.
Though on the other hand, it's pretty clear who is causing trouble in the region. And this topic has been beaten up to death already.
Anyways, I can see two scenarios:
1) The EU finds a diplomatic way to keep its face and extend a hand to Russia as an equal economic and political partner; this would make Russians extatic as they would feel "accepted" and yield countless opportunities in business and in securing Europe from potential "rogue" states;
2) The EU keeps barking to the US tune, playing it "tough" and exposing its rotten teeth, carries new "democracies" (like Georgia who admitted using CLUSTER BOMBS in the recent conflict - NOT A WORD ABOUT IT FROM YOU, BBC), and the rest is nothing new; Russia keeps getting stronger and seeks partnerships with other rising economies (China), and keeps poking back by causing a little trouble here and there (like selling a few MIG's to Venezuela, or helping Iran develop nuclear reactors).
Sorry for the long post.
Complain about this comment
Have you all gone mad? Why are you blind to the fact that Saakashvilli is the aggressor here, his totalitarian regime is anything but democratic, military expenditures in Georgia went up by 3000% in last 4 years, peaceful demonstrations in Georgia are met with sonic weapons, bullets and tear gas. SO and Abkhazia have a right for self determination and Georgia is but a puppet of the Big Oil and neocons in the US, although that must seem ok to Brits since UK is an American puppet as well.
Georgia is just a base for an upcoming attack on Iran while simultaneously providing control over Caspian Oil, that’s why CIA installed Saakashvilli with a staged “revolution”. Why does he never answer when he is asked: “Why did you attack South Ossetia?” If Russia wanted to control Georgia it could have captured entire country in 1 day, so comparing this crisis to 1968 Czechoslovakia when USSR did capture the country in one day is a blatant disregard for facts bordering on propaganda. Some hawks in Russian parliament were calling for capture of Georgia and insisted on trying Saakashvilli for war crimes but cooler heads prevailed and this was a short lived operation to STOP Georgian aggression, nothing more.
Trying to defend the aggressor and to ignore the facts seems to be the game on BBC, perhaps that's why UK economy is crumbling, British press is reminiscent of Pravda circa 1950 and comments posted on this board indicate that people are not aware of what's really going on in the world. Is that because of ignorance or because they are brainwashed with cold-war type propaganda is another question.
Complain about this comment
@oceansapart
Thank you, I've always felt too lazy to write such a lengthly explanation.
@all
In order to avoid marginalisation of Polar_Bear3, I do leave abroad from Russia, and try to listen and understand other people.
@serega13
I agree with your views, but have to remind that Russian media were also caught tinkering the facts. For example, the famous interview with an Ossetian girl was edited by TV "Russia" in order to provoke public outrage regarding "American hypocrisy".
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob
Russians are really concerned about accelerating militarisation of its neighbours. I mean, resignation of US from Anti-ballistic missile treaty, development of SDI by USA, anti-satellite weapon by China, inclusion of more and more neighbours in war guarantee treaties (NATO); let alone Polish missiles. I could have continued the list... A new race of arms is about to start, if it has not started yet.
I mean, where has the Reigan-Gorbachev agreement to end the Cold War gone to? Hell?
Why do we need more weapons in Europe then we used to have during the Cold War? Is Russia more dangerous for Europe now then USSR was 40 years ago?
Complain about this comment
Well NordicPerson, what would you do in Poland's place? (I use Poland here as a general stand in for a similar situation other former Soviet sphere countries find themselve in) Trust Russia? Though Russia quite openly threatens the country and talks of spheres of influence and tries to interfere in their inetrnal politics.
The countries are seeking alliances and militarising because they feel threatened by Russia's actions... NOT because any of them wants to attack Russia.
What can be done judging by Russia's past and present actions? Nothing other than is being done here. In a way Russia is creating its own hell here, making their stated fears come true.
I agree that it is insane to spend money on weapons if you do not have to. The money is much better spent on developing productive parts of the economies of all conerned, developing energy sources alternate to fossil fuels. Do you think anybody wants to get back to a cold war? I doubt it. They are doing so because they feel they have to and not out of hatred, a need for revenge, or paranoia against the Russians.
Complain about this comment
#51, Rob_Hob, What is Poland afraid of?
Why in the living world would Russia seek to invade Poland? For what gain? Poland has absolutely NOTHING to iterest Russia in the least bit.
The way it seems to be, Poland is trying to compensate for its inferiority complex by barking at Russia and stirring up emotions within the EU by this constant counterproductive wining.
USSR fell apart sometime ago. Yes, things were done during that period that Russians are not proud of. But why Poland does not turn its wining towards Georgia? After all, Stalin was born and matured in Georgia, he was driven by what he learned WAY before USSR was even formed, and what Poland doesn't seem to be able to get over (Katyn and the division of Poland at the start of WWII) was committed under his rule. And even now, Stalin is revered in Georgia. Remember, Georgia was part of USSR, and Stalin was right there at the top when that happened. So why, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Georgia is all of a sudden is the "good" guy, and Russia is the "bad" guy?
Poland's actions spupporting Georgia and blaming Russia for everything defeat any and all logic.
Complain about this comment
@Rob_Hob
Well, it's a tough question. If I were to decide for Poland I'd try to achieve two goals. First is not to rise tensions with Russia or any other neighbour. Second is to make it prohibitively expensive to attack Poland.
To start with, you're a part of NATO, which guarantees you support from much more powerful allies in case of a military standoff. It's quite a lot already. Apart from it, you could take an example of Finland, which has successfully resisted to Soviet attack in 1939 for a long period of time. In a similair situation nowadays it would be more then enough to get support from your allies.
Finally, as for nuclear weapons, I believe you shouldn't be building a defense system. During Cold War USA and USSR have agreed to limit ICBM-defence capabilities in order to not escalate the nuclear arms race, and assure a blowback will follow in a case of a nuclear attack. I am not sure if the treaty is in force now, but it was very sensible.
Complain about this comment
senega13,
I hope you have a country of your own and it's president or 2 presidents!
why don't you mind your own business rather than discussing other counry's choice. I suspect you should be russian according to your attitudes towards others.
oceansapart,
let me tell you one secret but half of it, another half you have to discover, OK?
there are rumors about Crimea in between Stalin and Khruschov and and this story is connected with USA. USA and Crimea. if there is a rule of law anywhere Crimes should belong to the USA. WHY?
Complain about this comment
My attitude is based on ideas and attitudes I read here. And I think russians think the same as they thought 200 years ago, at least their doings and speaches were the same since Peter the first put them on their own two legs.ha,ha
Complain about this comment
"Russian... doings and speaches were the same since Peter the first...". I cannot help, if you cluelessly dissmiss 300 years of Russian history.
It is my opinion that If you need an enemy to feel more confident, you are free to make him up yourself, but don't blame anyone else in such a case!
Complain about this comment
Nordic Person #56
If Europe or America needs to find a serious threat to justify a large military force and expenditures, Russia almost invariably provides one. Only for a brief period between 1991 and a few years ago was Russia so weak that much of Europe had forgotten how much it depends on America to defend it from Russia. That it was why it felt so cocky thumbing its nose at the US over Iraq. The delusion is gone and Europe is crawling back to America again to help defend it from Russian aggression.
Until recently, the size of armies, territory, populations were an indicator of strength. Not anymore. Russia has nuclear weapons and fossil fuel to sell and little else. Basically Russia is a weak backward primitive nation with many serious internal problems. As a military power, nuclear proliferation changes everything. Even Israel could be a dire threat to Russia and destroy many of its major cities. It had better think long and hard along very different lines if it does not want to fall even further behind the rest of the civilized world. It is highly dependent on the outside world for much of what it has acquired since the end of the cold war. It's at risk of losing the progress it made.
Complain about this comment
Some interesting comments above (as well as the usual horse pooh).
I'd agree with the comment regarding a unified political response from the EU being diffiicult. Given that the majority of member states see it as a mainly economic enterprise. Member states reserve their right to an individual response (as was the case with Iraq-pity UK got it wrong).
furthermore MAII makes some good points about how Russia comes out of this whole situation in the eyes of the world. He goes on to make some less valid/rational points, but hey, who cares.
Also agree with the idea of helping the Americans out here. This isn't their problem so they need to go home. Of course, this should make everything a little less confrontational. The EU has the population, and the wealth to sort this out. If it comes to it, and the Russians cut off supplies then we have to buy elsewhere. The price goes up for everyone and the Russians lose money, a score-draw situation I'd say.
Worst case the EU has weapons to chuck at the situation and Navies to escort ships. But let's hope we don't go there.
I'd tend to think that the EU repsonse has been about the best we can expect so far. It seems a little early to be talking about sanctions etc, but at least they sound serious in their intent. Let's see what the Russian response is.
Complain about this comment
Ya'll caged a bear, and from what I hear, he swiped his paw, growled and got away free.
From Texas we see the line you have asked/let us draw across the eurasia continent with missle systems and de'fence' bases.
I would think that if you want to be friends, then be friends, if you want an empirical type war, keep trying the containment of an ememy thing. Considering he's bigger, meaner and able, I wouldn't pick the fight.
As I see it, being Texan by placement, Austrian by blood, ya'll standing on the doorstep of his nightclub pickin' a fight and your going to get your @$$ whooped, and not without good cause.
Your Government is doing the right thing, smile, shake his hand and move on.
Complain about this comment
Mr Mardell said: "When Georgia's leader gives a new conference, he does so sitting in front of the blue field and gold stars of an EU flag."
The ring of stars was orignally, and is still, the flag of the Council of Europe. Georgia has as much right to fly it as, among others, Azerbaijan and Russia.
The Council of Europe isn't much more than the political expression of the Eurovision Song Contest - the ability to find Europe on a map of Europe within the first half dozen attempts being the only real entrance requirement.
Complain about this comment
the invasion of Georgia was simply continuation of the Kremlin policy. When russians convinced Germany and France to ban Georgia from MAP, it was obvious they would take some actions. As I read from expert analysts, chances of Georgia and Ukraine were pretty high to acquire membership plan in december.
I agree Mark, Europe was in no shape on punishing russia, and that gives them even more motivation to attack former soviet countries. Europe must work on alternative gas pipelines from Middle East, central asia. that is just another reason to help Georgian people. First of course (IMHO) is to defend free, independent nation.
Complain about this comment
02 Sep 2008, oceansapart,
you missed one very important thing about russian history, which is pretty recent. The collision of Soviet Union brought to russia "democrats", but actually that was more criminal regime than democracy. It'd be a saint to blame Boris Yielcin only, since most russians simply didn't understood what real democracy meant. living under horrible conditions (rich oligarchs, corruption, etc.) forced most of russians think it'd be better to go back to USSR, rather than struggle and really build democratic russia.
suggestion that russia needs to be accepted is too late now. they needed acceptance in the begging of 90's, now they simply wanna rebuild USSR.
Complain about this comment
no 59, dougtexan, right on all accounts, apart from:
We (Europe, USA?) didn't cage USSR. We left them to their own devices.
We do want to be friends, but we can only do that once Russia behaves in a freindly way.
The bear is bigger (only geographically), and maybe he is meaner. He's only more able in some ways (tanks, gas pipelines). In others he's a more Koala than Grizzly (resources).
Mainly though, we're not picking the fight, and I don't see us getting whupped if it does happen (let's hope it doesen't eh?).
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII #57
I haven't thought I would agree with you upon anything, but I was wrong! “If Europe or America needs to find a serious threat to justify a large military force and expenditures, Russia almost invariably provides one.” Don't US taxpayers find it a bit quirky that military expenditures make you find threats, and not the other way round, i.e. a threat from, e.g., Russia makes you spend more on military forces?
As for the nuclear proliferation, it is a separate topic, which requires a thorough discussion.
All the rest statements are mere blabbering of a blinded overly “patriotic” person, for example, “Europe is crawling back to America”, “Russia is a weak backward primitive nation” and so on. I would go further and suppose that precisely this lack of any respect to other countries makes people from all over the world dislike USA.
MetalChester #61, #62
I do agree up to a point with what you say with the following remarks.
Firstly, although an exposure of Georgian authorities' lack of sense and responsibility benefited Russia, I believe that a word “counter-strike” describes the situation *much* better then “invasion”. To back up my claim, I'd say that I regularly check media different from BBC, CNN, or FOX News, which are telling the same story over and over again. Think of RussiaToday, AlJazeera, and Xinhua, and by the way, don't tell me any fairy tales of “completely independent and innocent Western media”. Unfortunately, they also take sides.
Secondly, you are mostly right describing those “democrats”, but wrong regarding the conclusions. Russia was following Western lead during last 15 years, but now it is tired, and wants just to stay neutral and independent. Regrettably, it is seen as willingness to rebuild USSR by the same Western countries, who cannot fancy Russia being a democratic sovereign country, which is not USSR.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS