|
Escalating situation in (country of) Georgia (pg. 33)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
Sometimes I think that the reason why Russian society, culture are declining today is because it has been too dam long since the last big conflict shook the country. WW1 and WW2 kept the Russian people busy. Today things are so damn boring and hopeless that the population is drinking itself to death, killing each other instead of the Americans! Country is declining by about half a million people a year since mid-1990s - thats worse than during the Purges and the famines of the 1920s and 1930s!
So dont you worry, Russians will be more than happy to fight the Americans, if needed. With great sacrifice, come great victories. Victories are never easy for Russia. Plus, the easy ones have proven to be quite expensive in the long run ...
Russians are very fierce and patriotic people. Some of them have such big attitudes I cant even deal with them myself. Russian history has been bloody and brutal, but the country has been strong and determined throughout ... |
:tongue2
funny post. Russia may be the only 'enemy' of the US (and yes, russia is not a friend of the US) that we are unwilling to battle. Not because we think you would kick our ass, but because there would be zero net gain, only massive body counts and billions (maybe trillions) of dollars spent. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
"Appeasement" is not a dirty word, as some Americans seem to believe. The case for it:
| quote: |
Appeasement gained such a bad name in the 1930s that it is sometimes forgotten, especially by Washington's neoconservatives, that it is often indispensable. It can be defined by more honourable names. Most of the world's problems cannot be "solved", least of all by force of arms. They must be managed or endured, in the hope that better times will come, as they often do.
In a world which has seen within the past 20 years the peaceful transfer of power to the black majority in South Africa, as well as the peaceful collapse of the Soviet European empire, it seems absurdly pessimistic to suggest that current difficulties with Russia can be resolved only through confrontation.
America must stop pretending that democracy is, of itself, the answer to all the world's ills. Washington is already learning painful lessons about this in the Muslim world. Few people doubt that, even if Russian elections are flawed, Putin's policies command overwhelming support among his own people.
|
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis.../russia.georgia |
|
|
| The17sss |
Interesting analysis of an article from The Times of London today:
Vladimir Putin apparently ordered the Russian Army to drive Georgians out of the city of Gori, as soldiers forced the evacuation of the strategic Georgian city. Russian soldiers told Gori residents that they had orders to kill anyone who remained — and demonstrated their seriousness by randomly shooting residents, according to the Times of London:
“The soldiers told us they had an order from Putin - leave or be killed.” Manana Dioshvili showed no emotion as she described how Russian troops forced her to flee her home. Her former neighbours nodded in agreement, huddled together in a kindergarten whose windows had been blown out by a Russian bomb. “That’s how they explained themselves to us,” she recalled of the moment they fled the ethnic Georgian village of Kurta, near the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali. “They said, ‘Putin has given us an order that everyone must be either shot or forced to leave’. They told us we should ask the Americans for help now because they would kill us if we stayed.”
Vardo Babutidze, 79, was not lucky enough to be visited by Russian soldiers. Her husband Georgi, 85, was shot twice through the chest by an Ossetian paramilitary who came to their house to demand weapons."
Tony Halpin reports that refugees from Gori tell the same story, over and over again. The Russians committed a war crime in Gori, driving Georgians out of the city and even now not allowing the police to return. They murdered unarmed civilians for not complying with these orders, and one has to wonder whether the Russians fear the police will start producing evidence of their crimes.
Meanwhile, the Georgian government claims that the Russians have expanded their presence in Georgia since the latest cease-fire agreement was signed. Armored patrols have come closer to Tbilisi, and they have given no assurances that Russian tanks will not enter the Georgian capital. However, later the Russians claimed to be exiting Gori and Georgia altogether:
"Russia said its troops began withdrawing from the conflict zone in Georgia on Monday, including the strategic central city of Gori, “according to the peace plan” that sought to end fighting has reignited Cold War tensions.
The statement by Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn came amid uncertainty about whether Russia was fulfilling its promise to begin the pullout Monday. He said troops were pulling back to South Ossetia — the breakaway region at the heart of the fighting — and to an unspecified security zone.
Earlier in the day, Russian forces around Gori appeared to be solidifying their positions."
When they do finally withdraw — if they finally withdraw — the international community needs to catalogue the crimes of the Russians in Georgia, in order to show the world the real face of Putin, Medvedev, and the Russian Army. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Don't forget it was Georgia who initiated the conflict by attempting to capture South Ossetia. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Don't forget it was Georgia who initiated the conflict by attempting to capture South Ossetia. |
Capture part of their own country? |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | Originally posted by nchs09
Capture part of their own country? |
Haha exactly. Come on Krypton, you're a deeper thinker than this! Do you think for a second that Russia was simply minding their own business in all this, and Georgia just decided to attack? The amount of armor and military response Russia had available to pounce in that difficultly maneuverable geography was pretty coincidental. What possible reason would Russia have to hand out free passports to all those people in S. Ossetia? It gives them the perfect excuse to say "we need to protect our citizens amidst this agression" and stake claim to that territory (which happens to have the only major pipeline that Russia doesn't control around that region). They are tricky, long term thinkers and Georgia stupidly took their bait man.
You know what I just read too? Russia is handing out passports in the Crimea region of Ukraine now. From the article:
"Yevgeniya Latynina, a columnist, wrote last week that when the South Ossetian President, Eduard Kokoity, received his passport, he opened it to find that it contained the picture of Abraham Lincoln from the $5 note instead of his own photograph."
Kind of makes you wonder huh?
It’s a "Sudetenland" strategy, in other words based on reunification of ethnic citizens with the mother country. Hmmmmmm... I'm sure none of this has anything to do with the fact that Russia wants it greedy little hands on the Black Sea port of Sebastopol that is vital to its shipping, that Ukraine banned Russia from using once the Georgia conflict got underway. Coincidental? Ukraine has openly offered the U.S. this week to help use an ex-soviet satellite facility as part of their european missle defense shield, after a Russian General put Poland on it's nuclear hit list too. Never underestimate the Russians man... they are a clever, kiniving bunch (trust me I live with one) and not just reacting to evils being done to them. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
Haha exactly. Come on Krypton, you're a deeper thinker than this! Do you think for a second that Russia was simply minding their own business in all this, and Georgia just decided to attack? The amount of armor and military response Russia had available to pounce in that difficultly maneuverable geography was pretty coincidental. What possible reason would Russia have to hand out free passports to all those people in S. Ossetia? It gives them the perfect excuse to say "we need to protect our citizens amidst this agression" and stake claim to that territory (which happens to have the only major pipeline that Russia doesn't control around that region). They are tricky, long term thinkers and Georgia stupidly took their bait man. |
Perhaps, but if Georgia did not anticipate this reaction by Russia, they seriously miscalculated the military strategic situation. History has shown that in very few instances is a central government able to prevent a separatist state from succeeding, especially when that separatist state is supported by a more powerful regional superpower like Russia. If the Georgian General Command was trained by the Americans, obviously it doesn't show. Firstly, they built a conventional army. Secondly, as I said, they miscalculated the strategic scenario. Yes, Russia may be involved in Georgia's internal business, but it is the Ossetians who want Russia to help them, just as South Vietnam came begging to the Americans to help them. |
|
|
| The17sss |
Good article on the subject from Slate today called "What's Russia Afraid Of? check it out:
| quote: | Forty years ago this week, on the night of Aug. 20 and early morning of Aug. 21, 1968, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of soldiers rolled into Czechoslovakia. The goal of the invasion was straightforward: to prevent a Soviet satellite from carrying out democratic reforms, which, if they had been allowed to succeed, could have threatened the legitimacy of the governments of the other Soviet satellites and, indeed, of the Soviet Union itself.
Superficially, it has to be said that the events of August 1968 do bear some resemblance to the events of August 2008, as the American secretary of state has already observed. For yes, not only are there again tanks with Russian commanders rolling over the territory of another sovereign country, some of the invaders' intentions are similar. Once again, Russia is punishing a former satellite whose reforms, if successful, could challenge its own political system.
True, Russia is no longer Soviet. But its ruling clique, led by former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, remains steeped in the paranoid, highly controlled, conspiracy-obsessed culture of the old KGB. He and his entourage are not Communists, but neither do they believe in free markets or free societies. Instead, all important decisions must be made in Moscow by a small, unelected group of people who know how to resist sabotage organized from abroad. Events cannot be allowed to just happen; they must be controlled and manipulated. Elections cannot just take place; they must be determined in advance.
The Russian state's open hostility, not only toward Georgia but also toward Ukraine and the Baltic states, is, in this sense, partly ideological. Genuine elections have taken place in all these countries; people who have not been preselected by the ruling oligarchy sometimes gain wealth or power. Georgia's Rose Revolution and Ukraine's Orange Revolution even involved street demonstrations that helped unseat more-oligarchic regimes. Thus it is not pure nationalism, nor mere traditional great-power arrogance, that makes the Russian leadership disdainful of Georgia and Ukraine: It is also, at some level, fear that similar voter revolutions could someday challenge Russia, too.
Nevertheless, the word superficial is worth repeating here: As I've written before, I don't really like historical analogies, which can conceal as much as they reveal. For one thing, the ethnic conflict that sparked the Georgian president's foolhardy response and the Russian invasion two weeks ago has been twisted and manipulated, but it nevertheless involves real people. Any long-term solution to the current crisis has to find some accommodation for the South Ossetians whose homes and livelihoods have been destroyed in the exchange of fire.
More important, though, the international situation is utterly different. Despite some misty-eyed memories of alleged Cold War decisiveness, we had, back in 1968, neither the will nor the ability to help its victims. Our only real response to the Soviet invasion was a bit of public spluttering. Most of Europe was still recovering from the "events of 1968," the student uprisings celebrated across the Continent earlier this year in a haze of post-radical nostalgia.
Today's Russian leaders, despite the paranoia they learned in KGB training, have far more profound relationships with Western institutions, not only the G-8 and the Council of Europe but the Western banks and companies that invest their money and manage their property. Today's Europe is theoretically better prepared to engage Russia, though it has not done so until now. On Aug. 8, I wrote that the West, which failed for many years to address the security vacuum in the Caucasus, would have no influence over Russia, and in the short term this has proved true. Despite a cease-fire brokered by France, Russian troops are withdrawing very slowly, if at all. We have no military means to force them out and should not pretend otherwise.
But if this turns into a long-term conflict, if the Russian military remains in Georgia proper, if this proves to be only the first of more incursions into other neighboring states, there are relationships we have and meaningful levers we can use, whether over Russian membership in international institutions or Russian leaders' luxury apartments in Paris—if, of course, we are willing to use them. The critical question now is whether the West is prepared to behave like the West, to speak with one voice and create a common trans-Atlantic policy. In recent years, Russia has preferred to deal with Western countries and their leaders one by one. Just last week, an affiliate of Gazprom, the Russian state-dominated gas company, added a former Finnish prime minister to its payroll—which already includes former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder. If we hang together instead of allowing Gazprom to pick us all off separately, there is at least a chance that this minichill won't last another 40 years. |
|
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
That article is as bad as it can get. First it insinuates that the Russian ruling class is a clique that was not elected into power through legal means, then it claims Russia is a paranoid country worrying about surrounding regimes getting true free elections, and finally it concludes we should be paranoid because the Russians are trying to divide us and take us down one by one.
First of all, Putin has a huge approval rating. Why would he need to have elections that are not free or fair? People trust him implicitly, if he says someone is a good person to take some position, people will support him. No need for cheating or any shady business.
Secondly, Russia is not paranoid about surrounding regimes being pro-democratic, it is paranoid by surrounding regimes being anti-Russian and pro-missile-defense.
Finally, while accusing the Russians of paranoia, the author suggests that we should be the ones who are paranoid. Because the Russians are ones who are doing stuff behind our backs and trying to screw us all. Really, as bad cold war propaganda as it gets. |
|
|
| CGRumler |
| quote: | Russian soldiers take prisoners in Georgia port
By BELA SZANDELSZKY, Associated Press Writer 10 minutes ago
Russian soldiers took about 20 Georgian troops prisoner at a key Black Sea port in western Georgia on Tuesday, blindfolding them and holding them at gunpoint, and commandeered American Humvees awaiting shipment back to the United States.
The move came as a small column of Russian tanks and armored vehicles left the strategic Georgian city of Gori in the first sign of a Russian pullback of troops from Georgia after a cease-fire intended to end fighting that reignited Cold War tensions. The two countries on Tuesday also exchanged prisoners captured during their brief war.
However, Russian soldiers took Georgian servicemen prisoner in Poti and commandeered the U.S. Humvees. An Associated Press photographer saw Russian trucks and armored personnel carriers leaving the port with about 20 blindfolded and handcuffed men riding on them.
Port spokesman Eduard Mashevoriani said the men were Georgian soldiers.
The deputy head of Russia's general staff, Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, said Russian forces plan to remain in Poti until a local administration is formed, but did not give further details. He also justified previous seizures of Georgian soldiers as necessary to crack down on soldiers who were "out of any kind of control ... acting without command."
An AP television crew has seen Russian troops in and around Poti all week, with local port officials saying the Russians had destroyed radar, boats and other Coast Guard equipment there.
Russian troops last week drove Georgian forces out of South Ossetia, where Georgia on Aug. 7 launched a heavy artillery barrage in the separatist Georgian province with close ties to Russia. Fighting also has flared in a second Russian-backed separatist region, Abkhazia.
The short war has driven tensions between Russia and the West to some of their highest levels since the breakup of the Soviet Union, but Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has icily defended Russia's actions. |
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080819.../georgia_russia |
|
|
| The17sss |
| quote: | | First it insinuates that the Russian ruling class is a clique that was not elected into power through legal means, then it claims Russia is a paranoid country worrying about surrounding regimes getting true free elections |
That's not true? It's just a coincidence that they butt heads with former soviet satellite states that have pro-western elected governments, instead of a soviet puppet who's strings they can pull, a la Belarus?
| quote: | | Why would he need to have elections that are not free or fair? People trust him implicitly, if he says someone is a good person to take some position, people will support him. No need for cheating or any shady business. |
Are you serious? When the Kremlin controls the media, and pretty much crushes anyone that speaks out againt them, does it surprise you they are "trusted implicitly" and have an overwhelming amount of support for who they say should be the next president? I don't know about you, but I'm having a hard time trusting a guy who's bank account inflated by at least $500 million while being president of Russia. Kim Jong Il also has an overwleming amount of support and is trusted implicitly by his people, by the way... and he doesn't even allow cell phones and computers in his country! What you are saying is that if the Kremlin can effectively use it's absolute authority over media and television information to get the majority to believe their message, then ... there's no need for free elections. They can just run a poll (state sponsored of course) and say "see, the majority wants us in power... so it shall be done!" Wake up man. There can't be free elections there anyway if the state controls the information.
| quote: | | Secondly, Russia is not paranoid about surrounding regimes being pro-democratic, it is paranoid by surrounding regimes being anti-Russian and pro-missile-defense. |
It's not? Call me crazy, but Putin hasn't been high on any of the democtratically elected heads of state in any former soviet satellites... well before any talk of a missle defense shield came about. The article is dead on when it explains how pro-democratic states threaten the legitimacy of they tightly controlling style Russia governs by. Of course they are paranoid about it.
| quote: | | Really, as bad cold war propaganda as it gets. |
I love when someone has a differing point of view than what Russia wants, and they immediately get called out for using "cold war propoganda" by the Putin kool aid drinkers. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The17sss
That's not true? It's just a coincidence that they butt heads with former soviet satellite states that have pro-western elected governments, instead of a soviet puppet who's strings they can pull, a la Belarus? |
The problem is not with elected governments, the problem is with pro-western, or in other words anti-Russian governments. I'm sure they wouldn't have any problem with pro-Russian democratic governments, just like the US doesn't have any problem with pro-western non-democratic governments like Saudi Arabia. As for the elections in Georgia and Ukraine, they were free, but not really fair, as the US did give out huge financial resources to the pro-western parties.
| quote: | | Are you serious? When the Kremlin controls the media, and pretty much crushes anyone that speaks out againt them, does it surprise you they are "trusted implicitly" and have an overwhelming amount of support for who they say should be the next president? I don't know about you, but I'm having a hard time trusting a guy who's bank account inflated by at least $500 million while being president of Russia. Kim Jong Il also has an overwleming amount of support and is trusted implicitly by his people, by the way... and he doesn't even allow cell phones and computers in his country! What you are saying is that if the Kremlin can effectively use it's absolute authority over media and television information to get the majority to believe their message, then ... there's no need for free elections. They can just run a poll (state sponsored of course) and say "see, the majority wants us in power... so it shall be done!" Wake up man. There can't be free elections there anyway if the state controls the information. |
Kremlin does control media to a degree (although they're mostly not more biased than CNN for example), but that's not the reason why people vote for Putin. They vote for him because he's a good leader. If I were Russian, I'd vote for Putin. Considering how he pulled Russia out of total anarchy, most Russians probably don't mind about those supposed 500 million, even if the accusation is true. You may like him or not, but you must admit that turning a collapsed and beaten country back into a world power within 8 years is something that very few leaders could do.
| quote: | | It's not? Call me crazy, but Putin hasn't been high on any of the democtratically elected heads of state in any former soviet satellites... well before any talk of a missle defense shield came about. The article is dead on when it explains how pro-democratic states threaten the legitimacy of they tightly controlling style Russia governs by. Of course they are paranoid about it. |
Again, you confuse democratic elections with anti-Russia sentiment. Just because the two often coincide, it doesn't mean they correlate. For example, South Ossetia had free elections that the west doesn't recognize.
| quote: | | I love when someone has a differing point of view than what Russia wants, and they immediately get called out for using "cold war propoganda" by the Putin kool aid drinkers. |
Suggesting to pull the ranks of western countries together into an anti-Russian military alliance, confiscating Russian national's property, and economically boycotting Russia is exactly cold war propaganda. Not every point of view that disagrees with Russia is cold war propaganda, but this particular one is. |
|
|
|
|
