So what is NATO up to in Georgia?
The shooting war in Georgia seems to have ended, thank God, but the war of words shows no sign of abating. I reckon it's time to go back to basics.
So here are two, inter-related questions, which might help us to understand how and why this nasty, and potentially dangerously destabilising, crisis erupted. One: why is NATO apparently so determined to go ahead with the applications for membership from Georgia and Ukraine? And two: why are Georgia and Ukraine so determined to join?
Ask NATO why it wants to expand its membership to include an ever-growing number of countries in central and eastern Europe, and you'll be told it's by far the best way to encourage peace and security in the region. The preamble to NATO's founding treaty, which was signed nearly 60 years ago, says its members "seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area."
True, Ukraine and Georgia are quite a long way from the North Atlantic, but the view seems to be that peace, security and democracy easily trump geography. Nations that feel confident about their own security are less likely, so the argument goes, to indulge in reckless military adventurism.
In Moscow, however, for obvious reasons, you'll get a very different answer to the same question. Look at a map of Russia's western borders: along the Baltic coast, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all members of NATO. As far as the eye can see, with the exception of Belorus, just about all the European countries that used to be in the Soviet bloc are in NATO. And now, to make matters even worse, to the south-west, along the Black Sea coast, Ukraine and Georgia are both hoping to be members of NATO soon. To many Russians, it looks suspiciously like encirclement.
NATO was Russia's enemy for half a century. Over the past decade, there have been attempts to convert enmity into partnership, but not with any conspicuous success. (Yesterday, Russia announced that it's suspending all cooperation with NATO, which could affect an agreement to allow it to transport through Russia non-military supplies for use in Afghanistan.) Russia doesn't like playing second fiddle in someone else's orchestra: you may have heard the senior Russian politician Mikhail Margelov on last night's programme: "We are not children who can be seen but not heard ... Russia is a player on the world stage."
So how about the answer to my second question? Why do Ukraine and Georgia want so badly to join? Well, perhaps because being in NATO would make them feel safer. It's never comfortable living next to a big and powerful neighbour - and the angrier that neighbour becomes, the less comfortable you feel. If I were a Georgian, I think I might have looked at how the world has changed over the past 20 years and concluded that I may well be a lot safer sheltering under the NATO umbrella.
Mind you, not all Georgians - or all Ukrainians - share their governments' enthusiasm for NATO membership. There are substantial minorities (as there are in some of the Baltic states as well) who hanker for the days when they looked to Moscow for protection. What's more, there are many millions of ethnic Russians, and Russian-speakers, scattered throughout what used to be the Soviet Union - and many, like Vladimir Putin, still mourn its passing.
So a final two questions for you. If democratically elected governments express a considered wish to join NATO, and if they fulfil the membership criteria, are there any grounds on which they should be refused? And is extending NATO membership in a way that risks increasing Russia's sense of insecurity a good way to "promote stability and well-being" in the region? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~38~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"It's never comfortable living next to a big and powerful neighbour - and the angrier that neighbour becomes, the less comfortable you feel."
A patently false statement. Neither Canada nor Mexico feel in any way militarily threatened by living next to the US. Quite the opposite, the US is being invaded from the south by hordes of illegal immigrants and US border guards are outgunned by their corrupt Mexican counterparts who allow drug smugglers and illegal economic migrants to pass freely. Canada is seen as an easy route for infiltration of terrorists into the US. Nobody in the US has ever suggested that these are reasons for any stronger action than building a wall.
Complain about this comment
The key to this is, to quote your text 'and if they fulfill the membership criteria, are there any grounds on which they should be refused?'
Membership criteira should, it seems to me, include two additional considerations.
1. The territorial integrity of the applicant country should not only be legally sound but apparent on the ground. Georgia would have failed this test even if there had been no war because of the Abkhasia and S. Ossetia impasse. The paradox is that, if these provinces either achieve independence or are absorbed into the Russian Federation, the 'rump' Georgia would comply.
2. The democratic credentials of applicant nations should be evident not merely on paper but by a track record of durability. There is absolutely no point in NATO absorbing members immediately after a 'soft' revolution only to find the democratic experiment failing. The stand off between Tymoshenko and Yushchenko in Ukraine, the Prime Minister and President pursuing different and opposed policies is a case in point. There are elections in about 18 months which might break the impasse but, for now, by my rules, admission would be premature.
I would accept qualification by geographical location is irrelevant. What have Greece or Turkey have to do with the North Atlantic? NATO should, however, take into account whether Article 5 commitments are realistic or desirable in more distant countries, especially if the prospect of conflict in the short to mid term is real when deciding on enlargement.
Complain about this comment
NO ABSOLUTELY NO. THERE CAN BE NO DENIAL IN ACCQUIRING THE NATO MEMBERSHIP. EVERY DEMOCRATICALY ELECTED PRESPECTIVE GOVERNMENT HAS ALL THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE AND JOIN ANY ORGINISATION
Complain about this comment
#3 - SIMRANJITDHALIWAL
So anyone who plays cricket can join the MCC? Yes, they have the right to choose to join if invited. There are rules and there are security implications.
Complain about this comment
If, there wasn't bias on the part of the "west reporting," only little snips of stories of Georgians ... initiating the "war" in this conflict. I would feel pretty confident in saying, NO.
If NATO is to support democracy, or "freedom" whatever that means, It should not accept a Georgia that initiated a conflict -with potential to become far much more- because Georgia is not allowing "free" people making "free" choice of being independent, and there by driving the region further into Russian control.
Number 2, what has been done in the region to promote stability that is working? "We are in NATO! --Fear us?" Is that the message we are trying to drive?
Fear of this, fear of that. More and more of this old ideology. When are we going to realize and act upon the facts that we need to advance our ideals as well as our cellphones, video games, and computers. "Terrorists use fear," are we not in-fact trying to incite fear into Russia with "NATO?"
I don't see very many people making their way around and about with horse drawn carriages. There has to be a better way to promote stability other than schemes or strong words, stone throwing, and turning a blind eye when it suits us. Truth, honesty, and "frankness," I fear ... will always remain noble concepts, and all we will be left with ... are puppet shows for power stratagem. Old ideologies need to give way to new ones.
-------------------------
The Stupid American.
Complain about this comment
#5 - Pharbin77
Absolutely - but did anyone stop to ask what the South Ossetians and Abkhasians wanted? No, of course not. Were they ever offered devolved power within a federal Georgia? Which is precisely why I made my point at #2. Any country can say 'Look at us. We are a democracy'.
OK, prove it!
Complain about this comment
NATO was created against Russia.
The encirclement, from the Russia point of view, is evident.
Worse, stripped of the false pretexts, Iraq and the attempts at Syria and Iran were obvious further moves to extend the encirclement and cut off access as needed.
Immediately after a joint exercise with US forces, Georgia launched an invasion. Georgia was the aggressor.
So much for reality.
International peace has always been well served by "status quo" and "spheres of influence".
Bringing what could be buffer states into a military alliance certainly changes the status quo. To what needful purpose?
Complain about this comment
#7 - Xie_Ming
NATO was created against the Soviet Union. Both NATO and Russia have been looking for a role ever since the collapse of the USSR, neither with much success. Since we appear to be moving back to confrontation mode after a period of relative calm, it is difficult to see what else the buffer states can do but choose sides. Georgia is proof, if any were needed, that they cannot go it alone.
Complain about this comment
'International peace has always been well served by "status quo" and "spheres of influence".
It doesn't always have to be this way. In order for it to change, it has to be confronted ... from within. The more people from "the west" voicing objective and conflicting ideals, the more leaders we will have that will be forced to listen to what .. "we the people have to say." If it carries on well enough, for long enough, just maybe ... it could start real change.
Complain about this comment
--Georgia is proof, if any were needed, that they cannot go it alone.--
I have a hard time believing that they were alone. I thinking more along the lines now, that real democratic attempts, largely on the NATO side, were not made in order to let a conflict erupt so a hard-line stance could be taken. Ploys, plots, schemes ... "we knew Ivan was crazy all the while," I don't think the west is more innocent with apparent stratagem than Russia. In fact, it seems to me that we have been caught with our hand in the cookie jar.
Complain about this comment
#10 - Pharbin77
We know that the US was aware of Russian forces massing near the border and shared that intelligence with Georgia. In that sense, they were not alone. But we also now know that the US counseled against any preemptive military action. Georgia chose to ignore that advice, so they did in effect go it alone.
Complain about this comment
#11 -Threnodio
"advising" against something is different than making a statement, NO. I heard nothing of this till it happened.
I could almost picture it coming from GW himself...
"Well, we don't think it's a good ideer' for you all to pick a fight with Russia, (frivolous eye winking takes place at this point, accompanied by that stupid smug grin) but if you chose to do so, we would understand and back you."
"Yeeehaww!"
Complain about this comment
As far as Mother Russia is concerned, do you think any Russian, and most especially Putin,
will see NATO as against the USSR and not against Mother Russia?
Georgia blew the status quo by acting as an aggressor.
______________________
Consider Lithuania and other such states- the only way they can be defended is by nuclear means
the Russian land armies can run through them and the Fulda Gap in Germany at will.
Softly, softly, should be the policy!
Complain about this comment
#13 - Xie_Ming
I could not agree more. I simply make the point because had there been no USSR, there would have been no Iron Curtain and the world would have developed in an entirely different way with no need for NATO.
Complain about this comment
#14
Ok.
My point is that NEWSNIGHT should grow up and stop pandering to popular views, and deal with facts.
This is a disgusting aspect of NEWSNIGHT, despite Robin Lustig's efforts.
Complain about this comment
As I see the Georgia/Nato question it is analogous to the proxy war that took place in Afghanistan when it was under the control of Soviet forces.
The unreconstructed elements of the US State Department are doing the same things in Georgia that they did in Afghanistan. (That is: the setting up and arming of the Taliban.)
These elements of the State Department have a long (and ignominious) history of persuading 'freedom-loving' countries to attack either their neighbours or elements within their own countries. This has happened since at least the 1930's throughout Latin and South America and also included the puppet regime in South Vietnam. (And of course the funding (and supply of nerve gas) of Saddam in Iraq in the hugely costly war against Iran.)
The rest of the World should be extremely careful of being suckered into a war, by the State Department. Their policy of proxy war has been a long and sorry history of failure in attaining its stated objectives and they really should grow up!
Complain about this comment
#16 - John_from_Hendon
I have a suspicion that it is the Defense Department which has the problem. There was a time during the Rumsfeld regime when it appeared to be following a totally different agenda from the State Department.
# - Xie_Ming
This blog has nothing to do with Newsnight. It is Radio 4's news service. Completely separate editorial team.
Complain about this comment
#17
Is Lustig involved or not?
Can we fault the BBC or restrict it to the particular team?
Complain about this comment
#14
"I could not agree more. I simply make the point because had there been no USSR, there would have been no Iron Curtain and the world would have developed in an entirely different way with no need for NATO."
If there had been no USSR it is very possible that many more Europeans would be speaking German today- it is the USSR that took on the brunt of the Nazi war machine and flung it back to the gates of the Reichstag.
Complain about this comment
#19 - Olegious
Fair point. I could have phrased it better.
Had the western allies and the USSR cooperated instead of opting for confrontation after 1945, there would have been no need for either alliance. Will that do?
Complain about this comment
#20 threnodio
They didn't and there was (NB past tense). Does Europe still need the alliance with Imperialist America?Complain about this comment
A lot of you make interesting points, just to add.
I hear USA have built some kind of platform just off Japan and their biggest warship is circling that area - which would prove the literal encirclement idea.
Complain about this comment
If people living in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have Russain passports then they are Russians. Nations can only issue passports to their own citizens. In that case, the Georgian government should tell them to leave and give them 48 hours to comply. If they don't they should be arrested and deported back to the nation that they are citizens of. This is a right all sovereign nations have.
NATO was created to prevent expansion of the USSR. Communism was Russia's ideological cover for its ambitions for worldwide territorial conquest and hegemony. It had an appeal to the ignorant who thought it could make poor people rich by making rich people poor. In the end, it went bankrupt. Now with a few bucks made in gas and oil revenues recent years, Russia wants to again create an empire by swallowing up its neighbors under the pretext that its nationals whose ancestors colonized these nations with the idea of creating a presence and then a sufficiently large demographic mass, justifies military intervention.
It is remarkable that there are some who defend this practice while condemning the Israelis who are colonizing the West Bank of the Jordan River as being there illegally. They argue both sides of the same argument depending on which side they favor in a particular case. They want it both ways. In the end, they will have neither.
Should nations like Ukraine and Georgia actually gain entry into NATO, their sovereignty would have to be defended in exactly the same way NATO would defend other member states like Germany or Great Britain, with nuclear weapons if necessary. NATO had better think long and hard before making that committment. If it does, it will be a signal to Russia that continued efforts to expand abroad again will result in a third world war.
Complain about this comment
#23-
What evidence do you have that Russia seeks to swallow up it's neighbors? What would be the motive of swallowing up countries that are poorer, are often times debt plagued and have little to offer to Russia? What is the difference between the USSR's expansion of communist ideology and the USA's expansion of capitalism? Both are ideologies and both put puppets under the control of the puppet masters....
Complain about this comment
"Both are ideologies and both put puppets under the control of the puppet masters...."
Painful truth.
Complain about this comment
#24 #25
If the BBC were to start reporting with such clear-headed scepticism, it could help us all to a better World!
________________________________
The BBC is now making great efforts to present both sides re Georgia. Bravo!
Complain about this comment
I think a better question is If Georgia was in Nato, would US and Europe really go to war with Russia for just 70000 people in a strip of land?
Complain about this comment
#23 MarcusAureliusII
I wonder if you have given adequate consideration to the Ossetians, or Alans? This people can trace its ancestry back to Samaritan tribes and have their own language (that shares a common base with Persian).
Do the Ossetians whose ancient kingdom was taken over by the Czars and their successors have any rights to once again to a reunited people? Perhaps not. Like the many tribes and peoples of the areas (e.g. the Kurds). But perhaps they do. (and as indeed may the Kurds.)
I think you attitude towards the complex and legitimate concerns of the native peoples is possible over simplistic. So they have Russian passports like the Ossetians in North Ossetia, but to ignore their historic rights in the name of maintaining the very new 'international borders' of Georgia is extremely unwise. The same argument applies to the Abkhazians, but not in quite the same way and their nation is not divided in two.
I take the attitude that people matter and not the petty jumped up popinjays who run nation states from time to time within to relatively recent concept of 'international borders'. I believe that the right attitude to take is that of working towards a unification of Ossetia and that the historic 'rights' of the people should be paramount and that the West should not be promoting or encouraging any (imported) leader of a new state to take actions that ignore this situation.
Nato can be an extremely destructive force in the region, as it is proving, and a less hotheaded and garrulous position is called for as, in my view, and this is the most sensible course of action
Complain about this comment
NATO was originally created to fight with Russia, and was supposed to have North Atlantic countries originally, with the peacekeeping meaning after the Cold War. But with more and more Ex Soviet countries joining NATO, it looks like encircling of Russia. NATO has lost its original meaning as of now and more and more resembles a tool to support US to "bring democracy into non-democratic countries" and show its power against Russia.
In the West Georgia is considered "democratic" country with the opposition of the ruling president being in jail for the last several years and georgian mass media broadcasting Saakashvili's ideas only. So why would the states want so badly this "democratic" country joining NATO??? The location of Georgia is within 300-400 km away from Iranian border that would make it perfect playground for US air force. That's why in the current situation with Georgian-Russian conflict, Georgia is just a small player in geopolitical world with georgian army completely financed by the states. America has its own interests in that region, that's why currently humanitarian aid is being provided by the means of Pentagon via Air Force and Navy and not by humanitarian organizations.
Entering economically unstable and non-democratic countries in NATO will destabilize geopolitical world balance and will lead to WWIII. I don't think that this is what we all want.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
Suppose the French Government started issuing passports to the Welsh, sent troops into Wales to foment revolution, and then when the British government attacked those French armed Welsh forces killing both the rebels and large numbers of civilians, France invaded England? If the South Ossetians and Abkhazians are Georgians, then only the government of Georgia can issue them passports. If the Russians issue them passports, then they are Russians. Georgia and Abkhazia are not part of Russia...yet. If those people want to be Russians, then let them go to Russia and apply for Russian citizenship and live there. The borders of Georgia are internationally recognized. Reconsider your argument the next time the Basque demand independence from Spain.
Russia has large numbers of colonists and their descendants in neighboring countries. Their so called peacekeepers are invaders sent to protect them. Do we stand by while they invade every one of them, cut them up, take them over piecemeal one by one. Your government made that mistake in the 1930s and it led to world war II.
Cat Begemot
The US Air Force air lifted humanitarian aid to the Georgians because they have the best capability and organization to move vast quantities of material systematically over long distances in a short time. The US Navy delivered much of the aid to the victims after the Tsunami. Did they have an ulterior motive of military conquest in nations around the Indian Ocean as you imply also or are you just jealous that other governments don't have that capability or generousity? Perhaps you are thinking in terms of the British or French Navy whose only purpose in going to places like the Indian Ocean a hundred and fifty years ago was imperial conquest.
The projection of American military power to regions that would otherwise succumb to Islamic militants or to nations with imperial designs like Russia, and as forward bases in regions that are also vulnerable is not necessarily a bad thing. There's no one else to do it. While Europeans clearly haven't learned the lessons of history, at least some Americans have.
Complain about this comment
NATO is a collective security organisation and it has a strong record of promoting democracy and security in aspiring countries and members alike. Georgia has exposed itself to international scrutiny in this regard, both in terms of International monitoring via the OSCE and also media access. Unlike Ukraine, not only the government , but the vast majority of Georgians have expressed their desire to join NATO through democratic referendum. Contrary to some comments ,Georgia is largely democratic and like him or not ,its leader has a popular mandate. There is also a credible opposition and this is surely in stark contrast with Russia.
Surely the challenge is the issue of international consensus and collective security, set against unilateral action by Russia. This applies also in Kosovo where one could reasonably (and Russia does) question the outcome. However, the methods used in Kosovo (through EU, OSCE , UN , monitoring etc) demonstrate a willingness to achieve a majority consensus under the rule of law. Sadly neither Russia itself, nor any dependent republics are exposed to such accepted international mechanisms. Russia is a member of OSCE yet refuses OSCE monitors where it feels their findings might raise difficult questions. In recent years this has meant everywhere under its control.
Surely we should continue to engage with and try to work with Russia, but we should also continue to encourage the Rule of Law, civil society and democracy in all countries. If such states aspire to join collective security and economic groups, then it is no bad thing. My question back to you Mr Lustig and fellow readers is ; are we more or less likely to achieve positive change in Russia through acquiescence to its demands?
Complain about this comment
#30 - MarcusAureliusII
Regarding the issue of passports, there is a technical issue in that dual nationality is permitted under Russian law but not under Georgian law. I don't think this negates your argument but it may be relevant.
#31 - Im32Speak_Ur32Differ
One should clearly differentiate between 'promoting' democracy and attempting to impose it. The western allies have no interest in 'promoting' democracy in friendly states because they value the cooperation far more highly than democracy - for example in Saudi. There are regions where they are powerless to promote democracy - for example Tibet. This leaves countries where democracy is 'home grown' and should of course be encouraged but also places like Iraq and Afghanistan where there has been direct intervention. It is far from clear that in these non-western cultural environments democracy is either desired or desirable.
Complain about this comment
threnodio, how could it possibly be relevant? I pass a law in my country that affects the laws in yours? You can choose to obey the law I passed even though you are a citizen of another country which did not pass such a law? This is precisely what intrusion on another nation's sovereignty is about. It may not make much sense in the EU where it seems all nations are willing to cede theirs to a superstate but in many others including the US, it still is regarded as very important.
Complain about this comment
It's true that the US did advise Georgia not to attack South Ossetia, but, they went ahead anyway, why?
I think that cancels Georgia out.
Gorbachev and Shevardnadze have apparent differing views on this question.
The B-T-C pipeline was constructed to by-pass Russian and Iranian control of oil in the region, as luck would have it, there's a proposed Ceyhan-Ashkelon pipeline which will make it's way to Eilat and then to the Far East; is this why the Syrians are welcoming the idea of Russian military base back at Tartus?
Are the oil companies going to cut their losses or continue being part of this chapter of "the great game"?
The oil reserves of Azerbaijan rumoured to be exaggerated.
Complain about this comment
When I see assertive stupidity,
I think of the caution:
"Hell is getting what your pray for".
Complain about this comment
Xie_Ming....don't look in a mirror. It could confirm your worst fears.
Complain about this comment
#30 MarcusAureliusII
Your French/Welsh analogy is inchoate. For if it were pertinent then the Welsh and the Breton's (I assume) would have to have had a recent common culture, and language and history. Ossetia has an ancient culture and language and was a single entity in near history. (Conquered by the Czars and then by their successors Russia as indeed was Georgia.)
It is only since the decline of the USSR that Ossetians have found themselves split asunder by an international border. Georgia's recent borders are like the result of dividing North and South Dakota. - in essence the making of an international border where there was none before.
I also give no credence to the Sudetenland argument that I assume you are referring to. As to the Basques I see it as their cultural 'right' to be recognised as a people and to have their culture and language respected as I do that of the Catalans in Spain.
One of the most pernicious of evils in international policy is, and has been, for the powerful to ride roughshod over the legitimate rights of minorities and to promote, as you seem to suggest, that one minority should do the same to a smaller minority. Your nation, (you appear to think of Europe as not your county in the way that your write) has caused entirely unnecessary suffering to millions of peoples by waging war by proxy. You have failed to achieve either your stated aim or even a positive result on most occasions. Perhaps you should look to the treatment of your aboriginal native peoples, before you criticise others. You are at this time apparently unable to reach agreement with the Iraqi government to extend your stay in their country - so I guess you are looking for another puppet state (Georgia) to pointless swagger in to the general detriment of yourselves, the local inhabitants and the World in general.
The main sticking point in Iraq is that you are refusing the reasonable and legitimate stipulation of the Iraqi government that your forces should be subject to the laws of Iraq. Like the school-yard bully you will ultimately fail.
I think that perhaps you need to develop a more nuanced and subtler view of the World, a humbler view of your place in the World and realize that there are no longer any Super Powers. Get to know and understand foreigners, and their culture, history and language and learn to respect and value difference.
Complain about this comment
The fact is that NATO brings instability to this region. Replacing Russian peacekeepers by NATO will just change “+“ to “-“, pushing people to run in the opposite direction (e.g. Georgians to Ossetia). Today people need something different than military alliances.
Complain about this comment
John_from_Hendon
If you are trying to be deliberately obtuse about the Welsh example you have succeeded but it does not invalidate my argument. If not the Welsh, then the Scots. They seem ready to dump their participation in the UK even if they are the same ethnicity.
Ethnic commonalities straddle all of the borders of former Soviet Republics and Russia. In the Balkins, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine, just to cite a few. Does that give Russia the right to do to the others what they did in Georgia? If it does, then the last shred of meaning of international law, whatever it is supposed to mean is out the window and its might makes right.
The US will remain in Iraq under its own terms. Otherwise it will leave. However, if instability resulting from the folly and fall of Iraq's government becomes a threat to US national security again, there will be another invasion. Or maybe just a return to American rule until the rest of the insurgents are killed off however long that takes and however brutal the process is.
You think there are no super powers anymore? Listen to BBC's six part series, America, Age of Empire. They didn't get much right but one thing they did get "spot on" as you Brits would say is that they came to exactly the opposite conclusion you did. It is a great mistake for anyone to underestimate what the USA can do both constructively and destructively if it has a political mind to.
Complain about this comment
NATO needs to extend right up to the border of Russia and allow for any applicants that wish to enter to at least be considered.
Having said that a NATO that borders on Russia must take into consideration Russia's needs as any neighbor should.
NATO should make it clear to Russia that it will not tolerate any nuclearization of its member states which border Russia and what's more that no unilateral action taken by border states will be tolerated by or with the consent of NATO if Russia's concerns are to be taken seriously.
Russia needs to know that with a NATO presence, nukes stay out, without a NATO presence, nukes most likely will be the substitute, to the benefit of none.
Complain about this comment
NATO does not need to emplace nuclear weapons on territories bordering Russia to destroy it. Russia could be nuked into oblivion in any number of ways. By MX and Minuteman III missiles in silos in the heartland of the US. By nuclear submarines prowling the depths of the oceans undetectably. By US long range bombers carrying bombs or ALCMs (air launched cruise missiles.) And by intermediary range missiles in other areas. The only difference is that the job would take an hour or two instead of fifteen to thirty minutes.
The 10 ABMs that will be emplaced in Poland cannot effectively blunt a Russian attack on the US or even Europe. They would be overwhelmed even if they work. They are being located in Poland because it is on the intercept trajectory of missiles launched from Iran at the US.
The Russian government and military knows all of this, it's actually a non issue for them from a military standpoint. It's all about political posturing at home and saber rattling abroad. They have the power to blow up the world, to freeze out Europe and shut it down and little else. They are a primintive backwards nation with a broken spirit and wounded pride. I for one do not think there is any advantage to be gained by soothing their ego. That has already been tried and failed. On the contrary, I say "tweak the bear's nose, let him know who is boss." Maybe he'll smarten up, go back in his cave and start taking care of the real business of Russia, turning it from a 19th century society into a 21st century society like China is trying to do.
Complain about this comment
#39 MarcusAureliusII
I maintain that there are now no super powers. Swaggering and bluster dose not make a super power. Your small country may believe it has the ability to rule the World but in reality the World gets on much as it wants.
The economic reality is that even you cannot afford to wage too many real or proxy wars. (I will not list the many financial troubles of your country.) You cannot afford to remedy the situation, you to a large extent created, in Afghanistan because you are too committed to Iraq. Let alone do much about Dafur and I will not list the very many places where you have intervened and failed.
Your electorate will not pay the price, in body-bags or dollars. If you will not see this as a huge limitation on your role in the World and end of you status as a 'Super Power' then there is something wrong with your perception.
Crossborder ethnicity 'issues' exist and they have always existed, but that does not make it right for the, US educated, Mikheil Saakashvili to inflame the rivalries that exist in the region with the objective of...? When he started to move troops into South Ossetia he surely did not think that the Russians would stand by and do nothing. Someone must have led him to believe he could succeed - who? Was it you, or one of your countrymen? Did he think that the US army would come to his aid?
Mikheil Saakashvili seems to think, like you, that your country is a 'Super Power'. Events have proved both him and you wrong. Nobody will send the US Army into Georgia. Nobody in Washington would be that insane (particularly in an election year!) Not even the most insane Republican hawks would be that silly - and if they did the Defence Department and the State Department would stop them. McCain is not worth another war!
Complain about this comment
As the military episode in Georgia ends, it seems Russia have done exactly what they said they would do - repel the Georgian assault on South Ossetia to protect civilians and then withdraw.
The claims that Russia was "expanding it's borders," "re-drawing the lines in Europe," and "trying to restore the former Soviet Union" can now be seen as completely false. Whether it was deliberate scaremongering or simply irrational fears, it was completely false. Instead, it's clear that as a member of the UN Security Council they intervened quickly to extinguish the fire that ignited between SO and Georgia.
Their stated aims have been achieved in less than a fortnight. Contrast this with Britain's objectives for Iraq "to remove the threat of WMD" and the US declared intention for "regime change in Iraq." Both these objectives were achieved by summer 2003 yet more than five years later the foreign troops remain on Iraqi soil.
Now that Russia have brought an end to the "war,war," the UN should organise the "jaw,jaw." The SO problem is not going to fade away, so it needs a solution acceptable to the people of SO who have have been seeking formal recognition to self determination for a long time. Maybe this time the UN, EU and RF will take their request seriously.
Meanwhile, I am still wondering what the media reaction would have been had Russia failed to act two weeks ago?
Complain about this comment
#43 - Richard_SM
I take it you regard the 15km 'buffer zone', which leaves a fortified checkpoint just 2km from Gori, a patrol zone which crosses the main east-west highway (how convenient) and the RF's stated intention to remain in Poti as irrelevant?
Complain about this comment
#43 #44
One used to talk of "reparations", or even "spoils of war".
Georgia attacked and lost.
What will change as a result?
It is well to point out that another USA proxy effort appears to have gone sour.
Complain about this comment
To Threnodio
As I said, contrast this to the Iraq war!
Complain about this comment
I think this article answers the question:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/95713d6c-6966-11dd-91bd-0000779fd18c,dwp_uuid=70662e7c-3027-11da-ba9f-00000e2511c8.html?nclick_check=1
Complain about this comment
Georgia was attacking an internal rebel stronghold which was organized and armed by Russia. Russia violated international borders to defend the rebels and has not left. It has attacked and invaded a foreign country without a Security Council Resolution. Where are all the America bashers now? Silent hypocrites trying to justify this time what they criticized last time. Russia's so called withdrawl is a sham. The US will not confront Russia militarily right now. But superpowers have other ways to inflict pain, some of them very much as effective.
The US is hardly a small country. It's about as far from New York City to LA as it is to London. The US comprises over 2 million square miles and is one of the largest countries in the world. It has over 300 million people. Only a handful are larger or have greater population. I don't think any has both more land and more people. It takes all of Europe combined to equal the GDP of the US. It is European nations who are the peewees of the world. Like Lilliputians, a bunch of them put together as a so called European Union is still no match for the American Gulliver.
If the US were truly intent on fighting a war of survival anywhere, it would find the wherewithall to do it even if it meant pulling out of lots of other places. I think the US should start with a pullout from Kosovo followed by a pullout of all of its troops, equipment, and bases in Western Europe. Europe can fight and pay for its own battles. It says it's rich, good. If the US pulled out it would have to put up or shut up. What Europe does most, in fact almost exclusively is talk.
Complain about this comment
The more NATO presence around Russia, the higher chances of WWIII. We should take in account (1) the very young president, (2) the current composition of the Duma, as well as (3) the general Russian attitude to live. In fact, I recently bought a lot of tinned food. This make sense for me - I am currently in Sweden. But really do not know what to recommend to you guys in UK ... I heard iodine helps ...
Complain about this comment
Yes, another thing to suggest - start learning Chinese
Complain about this comment
CCCP2008
Why? The best educated and most ambitious Chinese are learning English.
Complain about this comment
Re:51
After the war things will be quite different. I guess US and most of Europe will survive (possibly even UK) but these countries will never again be economically significant. The "west" is already loosing to the game.
Complain about this comment
2 MarcusAureliusII
"The projection of American military power to regions that would otherwise succumb to Islamic militants or to nations with imperial designs like Russia, and as forward bases in regions that are also vulnerable is not necessarily a bad thing. There's no one else to do it. While Europeans clearly haven't learned the lessons of history, at least some Americans have."
Yes, MarcusAureliusII, that would be a good thing it it were true. But it looks like projection of American military power to Georgia by means of remilitarization and reequipping of a Georgian army led to the SO-Georgia-Russia conflict. Do you remember the saying "evil comes from evil"?
I'm very surprised that most western mass media does not give a vast coverage of the conflict. Luckily I can speak several foreign languages and can refer to other sources to get other opinions and views. At the same time from reading cnn I'm surprised how little americans know about russia and georgia. I'm surprised that the there is still a stereotype has been living since the Cold War portraying Russian nation as a "bullying nation that wants to invade the whole world". I think that we are not in Cold War times anymore and we have internet, right? So everyone can read different sources and create his/her own opinion, right? The stereotype of a Russian as a drunk man with "shapka" on his head carrying a bottle of vodka and standing long lines to get toilet paper still exists but isn't that because western mass media keeps telling you that? Georgia is not only a state in America, there is a repubic of Georgia south off Russia, how many Americans knew about that before the conflict started? Maybe we will just start engaging our brains and make it work a little bit tossing away stereotypes?
Complain about this comment
Cat_Begemot, I knew all fifteen SSRs and their Capitals. I knew something about their histories. I can't say I knew a lot about all of their approximately 200 Oblasts but I knew something about many of them. I also knew Stalin came from Georgia. I also know Russia's imperial ambitions go back centuries and I know that it wants to control the "near abroad" because it has been invaded so many times in the last thousand years. It's current obsession with having a strong man who will re-establish it as a large militarily powerful empire won't fly the way it did in Soviet times when its malignant doctrine of Communism brought it large numbers of naive allies around the world who apologized for its aggression because to them in their own demented Robin Hood mentality the end justified the means. This time it is strictly about Russian nationalism. It is undisguised. As a result, it will be isolated and cut off from foreign investment and technology it desperately needs. It may have won this battle but in the larger sense of becoming a fully fledged member of the first world in the twenty-first century, it just lost the war. It will remain a backwards primitive place in terminal decline. It's a banana republic, its banana being oil and gas. It has that and enough hydrogen bombs to blow up the world and little else.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
"As a result, it will be isolated and cut off from foreign investment and technology it desperately needs. It may have won this battle but in the larger sense of becoming a fully fledged member of the first world in the twenty-first century, it just lost the war. It will remain a backwards primitive place in terminal decline. It's a banana republic, its banana being oil and gas."
You know, it's so funny to hear these words from a citizen of America, the country that is famous for invading "stone age" countries and trying to bend the whole world to fit its needs and desires. If Russia is a banana republic by producing oil and gas, then what is America producing green bills known as a dollar?
Complain about this comment
to 55
All this is becoming irrelevant now. There will be no bananas, oil, dollars pretty soon. 10 NATO war ships are in the region already, while Russian "Moskva" is off from Sevastopol. When it comes to NATO, Russians without doubts will use nuclear weapons, as this is the only possibility to keep the balance.
Complain about this comment
America produces consumers.
and CCP, everyone likes to talk this and that. the simple fact is, unless some totally drastic happens, America will remain a VAST economic power for a long time coming. China might be growing, and they might be this, and they might be that, but if Americans, don't buy anything at Walmart, guess what happens in china?
The number one position on the economic totem pole cannot be usurped, it has to be built on. China's economy is largely built on supplying people with cheap goods. What happens when people stop buying? in order for them to really get that number one slot, they need to have a wide ranging economic "umbilical." If we are the mother their umbilical comes from, what does it serve to bite the hand that feeds you?
ccp
"after the war"
A 3rd world war of the type you make innuendo at, the entire world would never be the same. You're simply a foolish agitator that doesn't have anything better to come to the table of discussion with, other than fist pounding and inane babble.
Complain about this comment
Cat_Begemot, What is America producing? Much of the food to fill the gap around the world between what many countries produce and what they need to keep from starving. Most of the new technologies in just about every area. And believe it or not, according to the Secretary of the Treasury just a few months ago in an interview on C-Span, two and a half times the manufacturing economy of China. Remarkable. Of course, for the most part, the things America manufactures are high technology where cheap labor is far less important than highly skilled labor.
CCCP2008, Russia and the USSR before it always had the power since around the late 1960s to 1970 to bring all human life on earth to an end. So does America and several other countries (including Israel.) Now what good will that do? Is Russia having an empire worth committing suicide for? If it uses nuclear weapons against NATO, the world will come to an end for everyone.
Complain about this comment
Medvedev also raised an important threat:
"protect Russians in other countries".
Now, the Baltic countries have a particular problem with Russian minorities.
The game could get rough.
My idea is to put NATO troops into such countries, now.
Complain about this comment
2MarcusAureliusII,
"What is America producing? Much of the food to fill the gap around the world between what many countries produce and what they need to keep from starving. And believe it or not, according to the Secretary of the Treasury just a few months ago in an interview on C-Span, two and a half times the manufacturing economy of China"
You must be living in american dream. Look at the current statistics, look at the national and foreign debt of the country and the ratio of export and import and compare them to the previous years. Try to analyze raw numbers and you will get the picture.
It's all irrelevant to the current discussion as somebody mentioned. Going back to humanitarian aid by means of NATO warships, that's what I read this morning "the NATO warships that have entered the Black Sea carry over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles and Harpoon anti-ship missiles between them" Hmmm... I'm starting getting curious about "humanitarian" mission from now on. And I don't really believe the US had no clue about georgian attempt to take over SO and Abkhazia considering the presence of more than 100 US "military advisors" in Georgia by the time the conflict started. So going back to question "What's NATO up to in Georgia, I would say, pursuing american interests to weaken increasing russian geopolitical influence.
Complain about this comment
American is both the largest importing and exporting nation in the world. Its number one export is agricultural products. It buys more than it sells to support its usually growing economy. Those who have the responsibility for exercising as much control over it as the government can manage try to keep it like Goldilock's porrige, not too hot, not too cold. It isn't easy. At 28% of the world's GDP and two thirds driven by consumers, the US is teh main engine and drive wheel of the world's economy. When there is recession in the US and the Ameican consumer is unwilling or unable to buy imported consumer goods, the world's economy slows down with it. It's already happening again.
The US Navy and Air Force are the most effective and efficient organizations in the world to bring large quantities of aid to foreign countries quickly. Nobody else has comparable resources. Fortunately they come well armed to prevent piracy and any form of intimidation. If needed, even greater backup is on call.
I wouldn't worry too much about America's foreign debt. Most econmists and financial experts are not that concerned.
The Russians would be making a big mistake to militarily engage American war ships. The US Navy is not the Royal marines. Their commanders will definitely shoot down what are perceived as threats. Remember the mistake when an American war ship accidentally shot down an Iranian civilian plane because it would not respond to radio inquiries and was believed to be a hostile aircraft? It could happen again.
Complain about this comment
These great navies may engage pirates wherever found
Yet we have three ships taken by pirates in one day in the same place
quite close to the Mighty War Fleet.
!!
Complain about this comment
Just one point regarding the accuracy of post number 61.
The US is only the 3rd largest exporting nation. Both Germany (No.1) and China (No. 2) export more.
The source of this information? The CIA - hardly an organisation biased against the US. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2078rank.html
You're all doing very well !!
Complain about this comment
Now, Putin says US people were in the area fostering military actions.
Presumably, this comes from English communication intercepts.
There is a report that the Israelis armed and trained the Georgians.
and that the Georgian attack began immediately after the termination of joint Georgia/US military exercises.
OK, BBC, what are the FACTS?
Complain about this comment
The report that there were 1000 US trainers in Georgia up until a week before the flare-up has been reported by a number of sources. (see my post under Robin's recent Winners and Losers article)
Ralph Peters commented on their presence in the New York Post (search Ralph Peters/Georgia/NewYork Post/9Aug08).
Ralph Peters is ex US military and supported the Iraq war.
I also note that Pat Buchanan is also suggesting that US influence in Georgia before the conflict is suspicious.
Complain about this comment
The Associated Press reports:
"At a briefing Tuesday, the deputy chief of Russian military general staff, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, showed off a color copy of what he said was a U.S. passport found in a basement in a village in South Ossetia among items that belonged to Georgian forces.
"We found a passport for Michael Lee White," Nogovitsyn said. "He's a Texan."
The U.S. Embassy in Georgia said it had no information on the matter.
Complain about this comment
As a Russian citizen I see that the West has been awfully misled by some people with militant ambitions like the Bushes and pro-military propaganda.
Russia is not threatening anyone around it, we just want to live in peace and have friendly neighbours.
We are not claiming our neighbours lands and wouldn't have used force if Saakashvili had not attacked innocent Osetian civilians.
My son has Georgian blood although I am a native Russian from Siberia, over 1 million Georgians live in Russia, we share the same religion and have lived in harmony until somebody decided to create a militant Saakashvili regime that has ruined our multi-century relationship which Georgia has always riped benefit from.
Europe has to finally see that NATO is being used as cover for Bush's criminal blood-thirsty policy disguised under slogans of "democracy". Georgia also needs to see that they are going to lose much more as a country by having aggressive and militant S. as their leader. Some guy blamed Robin Lustig for giving pro-Russian propaganda in his article. I, on the contrary, consider it as fair and not biased.
Sorry, if I have hurt somebody's feelings, but I just see that Russia is wrongfully treated as a hostile enemy because of cold-war stereotypes.
Complain about this comment
#67
When Saakashvilli organized his revolution,
I got the impression that there was a CIA-type of orchestration in the street demonstrations.
If that were to happen again, I believe that we could count on the BBC to expose it.
It is always helpful to hear an honest presentation of both sides to a dispute.
Co-operation, not confrontation!
Complain about this comment
Ming;
All you left out was "peace in our time."
Complain about this comment
I want to comment on the snide reply by MarcusAureliusII to Xie-Ming, "..you left out 'peace in our time'." Secy of State Condi Rice famously remarked on the current Russia-Georgia conflict that this is not like the Czechoslovakia invasion of 1968. I would add that this is not like the 1938 Munich (appeasement) agreement either.
Complain about this comment
expertseptic
Snide remark? It seems to me the similarities are remarkably striking. In both cases, a large powerful militarily agressive nation invaded another country to capture territory on the pretext of defending its nationals in that country while the only response on the other side was to talk about how through negotiations we are not in a shooting war with that country. Is post Soviet Russia Nazi Germany? In many ways it's becoming a dead ringer for it, it moves closer every day.
Complain about this comment
....a large powerful militarily aggressive nation invaded another country to capture territory on the pretext .........
..............that it had weapons of mass destruction ? ?
If comparisons are asked for:
In 1940, Nazi Germany held people without trial for years. Modern day USA still does - Russia does not.
In 1940, Nazi Germany practiced systematic torture. Modern day USA still does - Russia does not.
In 1940, Nazi Germany practiced torture by waterboarding. Modern day USA still does - Russia does not.
In 1940, Nazi Germany practiced the death penalty for civilians. Modern day USA still executes civilians - Russia does not.
Russia has, however, signed up to the International Criminal Court designed to deal with such Nazi horrors. The USA has not.
Complain about this comment
Richard SM, your posting is irrelevant.
Russia invaded Georgia on the pretext of defending its nationals and now it has annexed their territory, same as Nazi Germany did in Czechoslovakia, the USA has not.
Russia's government controls the press and assassinates dissenting journalists just like Nazi Germany did, the USA government does not.
Russia's government sends assassins to foreign countries like Britain to murder its opponents who are not combatants against it just like Nazi Germany did, the USA does not.
Russia will not allow any political dissent nor any truly free elections or campaigning just like Nazi Germany did, the USA does not.
And yes Russia still uses torture, still imprisons its enemies without a trial, and still kills civilians. Only it's all done surreptitiously by the KGB. Why do you suppose all those journalists were killed? Do you think it is a coincidence that they were all critical of the Russian government? Their assassinations were no different than mafia hit contracts only they probably paid less. The chances of bringing the assassins who killed the ex KGB agent in Britain to the ICC are zero. It is against Russian law to even allow him to leave let alone to be arrested and sent to the Hague.
Complain about this comment
So - you don't have a death penalty?
And you don't use water boarding?
And there's no such place as Guantanamo Bay?
And the people held there are as you say, irrelevant?
And as you keep waving democracy above your head, what sort of democracy is it when both houses of Congress vote to ban waterboarding, but their president over-rules them?
Complain about this comment
"So - you don't have a death penalty?"
Yes we have.
"And you don't use water boarding?"
Yes we do.
"And there's no such place as Guantanamo Bay?"
Yes there is.
"And the people held there are as you say, irrelevant?"
Yes they are except for whatever information they can be forced to give up regarding threats to the US and Americans and so long as they don't escape to return to fight the US again. In war there are casualties.
"And as you keep waving democracy above your head, what sort of democracy is it when both houses of Congress vote to ban waterboarding, but their president over-rules them?"
Interesting Constitutional question. Unlike the UK's Parliamentary system, in the US the Executive branch is a co-equal branch with the Legislative. In this regard they have no power over him except if they can bring impeachment charges against him for having committed high crimes and misdemeanors. In this case they haven't seriously tried although there has been some nonsensical talk. Once you get past the partisan political rhetoric, most Americans agree on policy. That is why the suggestion that Congress would withhold funding for the war in Iraq was easily beaten. Believe it or not, even most Democrats including Barack Obama are not ready to walk away from Iraq just yet. How interesting it will be if he is caught next January between his rhetorical promises to his followers and what he knows is correct given his responsibilities as President.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS