Russia invades Georgia - WW3 on it's way?

[galraen]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Hmmm. I admit, that was somewhat poorly worded. However, spheres of influence is a key political concept that tends to harm the countries under the sphere, but at the same time avoid wars between different spheres - if you know what I mean.

But you're right, it has caused a lot of nastiness in the former Soviet-Union and South America, amongst other places. I was mostly thinking of - say - the way the political concept has helped alleviate major wars over such places as Cuba. Likewise, recognition of Eastern Europe as the Soviet sphere of influence helped stop "internal" issues from escalating into international war, though they certainly did not benefit the local populace.

Still, you're right, and I certainly don't mean to approve of the concept wholesale. As I said, while I do think Georgia has to gain from holding to good-neighbour policy, I realise sphere of influence-thinking will likely just bring it under the fold and make it hold to Russia-first policies. That's the reality, but I certainly don't approve of it.

I thought I'd deleted the text in my previous post as it was written in anger, for some reason the edit didn't take.

The reason I was angry was that I'd come to the conclusion you knew what you were talking about, even though I disagreed with you on some points. In light of that the piece I quoted came across as sheer sophistry. One has only to study the leadup to World War One to see where Sphere's of Influence, or drawing lines in the sand can get us. Certainly they may cause the nations intent on belligerence to hold back for a time, whilst they tool up, which leads of course to arms races and the resulting conflict is even worse than it might have been had the SOIs not existed.

However I'm the last person to critisize others or prolong an argument over unintended conclusions being taken from ones words.

My real concerns, beyond the immediate repercussions are about where this is all taking us. At the moment Russia (in my view) saw this as an opportune moment to push it's luck. The US and it's pet puppet are still bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan so couldn't respond even if they wanted too, and because of that don't have any moral grounds to critisize Russia for doing what they're doing themselves. Although that hasn't stopped them bleating of course, and unfortunately the chance of any meaningful progress on nuclear disarmament, or any disarmament has been well and truly kicked into the long grass.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by galraen

My real concerns, beyond the immediate repercussions are about where this is all taking us.

The smoke will have to clear before that is clarified, but it's certainly Russia "scored a point" - to use crude parlance - over the West. And that's not a good thing, Russia should not be given the impression they can do whatever the hell they want militarily any more than any other country ('cept the US, they're the biggest, so who's to stop 'em?)

Georgia will not enter NATO now, and its candidacy for a pipeline has taken a hit. If that was all Russia wanted, they've got it, but perhaps they will not stop there.

That said, it was a mistake of the US to do what they did in involving itself with Georgia and arming/training its military forces. The end to that folly is at least a positive footnote to this.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Brother None

<snip>
Obviously Russia's claims are dubious. However, that doesn't mean they did not prevent genocide in 1991/1992. More importantly, I ask you again: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia? That is the third time I've asked that question, and I would appreciate an answer.
<snip>

I've answered that twice already, plus many times in previous posts.

[Xandax]

Originally Posted by Brother None

<snip>

Georgia will not enter NATO now, and its candidacy for a pipeline has taken a hit. If that was all Russia wanted, they've got it, but perhaps they will not stop there.

That said, it was a mistake of the US to do what they did in involving itself with Georgia and arming/training its military forces. The end to that folly is at least a positive footnote to this.

I doubt anybody would have thought Georgia would be included as a full member into NATO soon anyway, the pipeline issue is in my view an important one and I think you are correct in that.
It'll halt further development of new investments in Georgia from companies because of the volatile nature of the powder keg.

I certainly think that is part of Russia's goals, because it makes Georgia more dependent on Russia again and serves as a "lesson" for other similar regions/nations.

However I'm not so certain that it'll indeed work quite as intended, because both EU nations, the US and East European countries have all expressed "moral" (worthless) and "diplomatic" (also worthless) support.
But there are also starting to provide humanitarian support and in this country our government is saying "we" must continue to support the democracies "we" help create. Currently it looks as if these nations select Georgia over Russia to the degree that they do not want to go to war with Russia (which Russia of course counted on when they performed as they did)

Where I think Russia have had most success in their mission, was with creating a disappointment with the US within Georgia itself. From news reports and blog reports/forum reports etc - they feel abandoned by the US and the West. That could easily cause internal issues now.
However because the US was only trying to expand its sphere of influence and contain Russia's, it is understandable that they'll try to keep good relations with Georgia.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Xandax

I've answered that twice already, plus many times in previous posts.

Well, pretend I missed it. All I'm looking for is a yes or no answer: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia?

[GawainBS]

Originally Posted by Brother None

Well, pretend I missed it. All I'm looking for is a yes or no answer: Are you saying Russia's defence of South-Ossetia was a bad thing? Should Russia not have stepped in to protect South-Ossetia?

We all know it's more than a Yes or No answer.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by GawainBS

We all know it's more than a Yes or No answer.

Of course it is, but it can still be answered as such. I'm not asking if he approves of Russia's actions wholesale, I'm simply asking that given the situation, is it a bad thing Russia stepped in?

I'm not trying to set anyone up for a clever rhetoric trap or anything, I'm just curious whether or not there really is much disagreement to be had here or are we just talking past one another.

[Xandax]

Well, looks like Russian troops still push around close to Tblisi, and that villages get looted and burned down "behind" the Russian troops by amongst other Ossetia-based looters. (So much for peace keeping troops)
And now Russia have threaten Poland with military retaliation, due to the missile defense issue, where Poland changed stance after this conflict. Looks like Georgia-conflict will also push Ukraine closer to the missile defense program amongst other things. Will be interesting to see what happens with the Russian naval bases in Ukraine now and the effect that will get.


@BN: No I do think Russia should help defend S.O if Georigan troops attack.
But I do not think they should have escalated the conflict, and have invaded and started occupation of Georgian territories because then they are no longer peace keeping force, but performing an act of war becoming an invading army - and they should not portray themselves as noble defenders, when their hands are so bloody in the entire conflict.
From both military strategical, political and economical perspectives, this runs much more complex then a simple "but they should defend S.O." that it makes it naive to focus purely on that point.


edit: Seems like both Russia and Gerogia have signed the peace treaty now ... will be interesting to see further development regarding the Russian troops location and attitude towards Poland (and likely soon Ukraine)

[Lady Dragonfly]

OK, since everybody wants to be serious and dig deeper, I would like to present a little more background information on the Georgian government and its political affiliation.

First, let's look who is who:

By now, everybody knows that President Mikheil Saakashvili is a "US-educated lawyer" noted for his aggressive language (made Amnesty International cringe) and emotionally charged speeches;

His Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze is UK national who holds dual citizenship.

His 29-years old Defence Minister Davit Kezerashvili is Israeli.
According to Wikipedia, Shalva Natelashvili of the Georgian Labour Party criticized Kezerashvili's appointment, arguing that he "has never served in the army... doesn't even have the title of sergeant and has no clue about the armed forces."
As chief of the financial police, Kezerashvili received criticism for heavy-handed tactics in raiding businesses.

His Vice President Temuri Yacobashvili is a UK-educated Geogian Jew.

Before you accuse me of antisemitism, let me explain. I tend to think that the strong ties between Georgia and Israel is one of the factors destabilizing the region.

According to DEBKAfile (a well-informed Israeli website):

DEBKAfile discloses Israel’s interest in the conflict from its exclusive military sources:
Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel, Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.

Aware of Moscow’s sensitivity on the oil question, Israel offered Russia a stake in the project but was rejected.

Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel.

These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.

In recent weeks, Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was “defensive.”

This has not gone down well in the Kremlin. Therefore, as the military crisis intensifies in South Ossetia, Moscow may be expected to punish Israel for its intervention.

(Add to that 100 American military personnel and American weaponry I mentioned in my previous post).
Now, let's follow the stinking trail further. It leads to a steamy pile of manure in McCain's camp. Cover your nose, Boo.

According to PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer,

John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.
The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.

McCain warned Russian leaders Tuesday that their assault in Georgia risks "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm.

"Scheunemann's work as a lobbyist poses valid questions about McCain's judgment in choosing someone who — and whose firm — are paid to promote the interests of other nations," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "So one must ask whether McCain is getting disinterested advice, at least when the issues concern those nations."

"If McCain wants advice from someone whose private interests as a once and future lobbyist may affect the objectivity of the advice, that's his choice to make."

McCain has been to Georgia three times since 1997 and "this is an issue that he has been involved with for well over a decade," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.

McCain's strong condemnation in recent days of Russia's military action against Georgia as "totally, absolutely unacceptable" reflects long-standing ties between McCain and hardline conservatives such as Scheunemann, an aide in the 1990s to then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Scheunemann, who also was a foreign policy adviser in McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, has for years traveled the same road as McCain in pushing for regime change in Iraq and promoting NATO membership for Georgia and other former Soviet republics.

While their politics coincide, Russia's invasion of Georgia casts a spotlight on Scheunemann's business interests and McCain's conduct as a senator.

Scheunemann's firm lobbied McCain's office on four bills and resolutions regarding Georgia, with McCain as a co-sponsor or supporter of all of them.

In addition to the 49 contacts with McCain or his staff regarding Georgia, Scheunemann's firm has lobbied the senator or his aides on at least 47 occasions since 2001 on behalf of the governments of Taiwan and Macedonia, which each paid Scheunemann and his partner Mike Mitchell over half a million dollars; Romania, which paid over $400,000; and Latvia, which paid nearly $250,000. Federal law requires Scheunemann to publicly disclose to the Justice Department all his lobbying contacts as an agent of a foreign government.

After contacts with McCain's staff, the senator introduced a resolution saluting the people of Georgia on the first anniversary of the Rose Revolution that brought Mikhail Saakashvili to power.

Four months ago, on the same day that Scheunemann's partner signed the latest $200,000 agreement with Georgia, McCain spoke with Saakashvili by phone. The senator then issued a strong statement saying that "we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty."

Rogers, the McCain campaign spokesman, said the call took place at the request of the embassy of Georgia. And McCain campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace added that the senator has full confidence in Scheunemann. "We're proud of anyone who has worked on the side of angels in fledgling democracies," she said in an interview.

McCain called Saakashvili again on Tuesday. "I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain told a cheering crowd in York, Pa. McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, had spoken with Saakashvili the day before.

In 2005 and 2006, McCain signed onto a resolution expressing support for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia; introduced a resolution expressing support for a peace plan for Georgia's breakaway province of Ossetia; and co-sponsored a measure supporting admission of four nations including Georgia into NATO.

On Tuesday, McCain told Fox News that "as you know, through the NATO membership, ... if a member nation is attacked, it is viewed as an attack on all."

Scheunemann's lobbying firm is one of three that he has operated since 1999, with clients including BP Amoco, defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. and the National Rifle Association.

Scheunemann is part of the community of neoconservatives who relentlessly pushed for war in Iraq.

You've probably heard that when Bush sent his delivery girl Condi Rice to Tbilisi, McCain dispatched his own envoy (Lieberman and Graham). The question is why.

This could be the answer:

The war that's broken out between Georgia and Russia is just the international incident that McCain needed to switch the discussion from the economy and healthcare onto national security. Now McCain is dispatching Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman to Georgia (ostensibly as members of the Armed Services Committee).

The Bushies insist they knew nothing about what the Georgians were planning, Condi Rice phoned it in despite the fact that she's a Russia specialist who met with Saakashvilli on July 9, and Karl Rove was suspiciously in the area with Saakishvilli shortly thereafter. Throw in McCain's lobbyist ties to Georgia and you've got quite a constellation of events that just happened to play to McCain's perceived strengths.

As Greg Sargent notes, at the very least it looks like "McCain's announcement of his key campaign allies' trip abroad also seems designed to shoulder Bush aside as the primary GOP leadership figure here."

Meanwhile, Bush issues stern warnings from his Texas ranch (he is always on vacation during crisis, that is a hallmark of his Presidency. Along with Stupidity and Hypocrisy) but nobody is paying particular attention. Except bloggers exersising their wit at Dubya expense.

Comments? (Preventive strike: anyone implying that I consider Russia "noble defenders" will be nuked, disintegrated and... and... well, you get the idea).

[GawainBS]

I don't get the particular relevance. So, the Americans are meddling in the whole affair. I think we concluded that 3 pages ago.

[Xandax]

Come now - we know better then this?
I've deleted a number of posts, because they were spinning out of control.

We can still disagree while being mature about disagreements without it turning into a bickering match.


__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[Xandax]

Sweden appears to break off military cooperation with Russia over this incident. Wonder how far this'll roll on.

[Brother None]

Lady Dragonfly: I've seen quite a few conspiracy theories about Israel/US involvement, I'm not buying it beyond the obvious extent: US involvement and arming of Georgia was an attempt of the US to gain leverage over Russia by having an armed deployement zone on its border, just like the pipeline was an attempt at economic leverage.

Speaking of goading people into war, I don't know what that is if not provocation. A serious blunder in international politics by the US, and maybe when the outcries die down the media will start realising how the West messed up once again.

Originally Posted by Xandax

And now Russia have threaten Poland with military retaliation, due to the missile defense issue, where Poland changed stance after this conflict

Aye, no surprise there. Poland knew they'd be put under pressure when accepting the missile defense thing. And no small wonder, Russia simply does not want a missile shield on its border. And who's to blame 'em? Considering the viable alternatives, the US has no excuse for pushing through this plan

Originally Posted by Xandax

No I do think Russia should help defend S.O if Georigan troops attack.
But I do not think they should have escalated the conflict, and have invaded and started occupation of Georgian territories because then they are no longer peace keeping force, but performing an act of war becoming an invading army - and they should not portray themselves as noble defenders, when their hands are so bloody in the entire conflict.

Cool, then we're in basic agreement.

Though I should footnote that the peace agreement between Russia and Georgia contained a clause allowing Russia to station soldiers in Georgia if they felt it was necessary for pacification reasons. Russia being in Georgia does not violate the peace agreement, but their holding and looting of towns and roads does.

Originally Posted by Xandax

Sweden appears to break off military cooperation with Russia over this incident. Wonder how far this'll roll on.

I don't think it matters. This has already been an enormous victory for Russia, both in military pacification of the Caucasus (again) and international politics. This has been a huge embarrassment for both the US, the EU and NATO, and they're trying to cover it up with strong condemnation, hastening on the missile defence treaty or meaningless things like Sweden breaking off military cooperation with Russia.

Not that Russia has any reason to be happy over any of that, but they're not impressed by it either. The West completely failed to do anything about Russia policing its own back yard while sternly disagreeing with it and has set a dangerous precedent by doing so. Besides, there's an inconsistency of the West towards South Ossetian self determination compared to the West's attitude towards Kosovo plus the West's odd attitude of condemning civilian deaths caused by Russia, while Western politics is ignoring that Georgia opened the war by spread-bombing Tskhinvali and caused a big whop of unnecessary civilian deaths in the first few days). The Kosovo-South Ossetia comparison is basically one of "no you are"-equal blame, but both these cases are raising a lot of ill will in Russia, making it easier for their politicians to sell both this war and consolidation against the West. Considering how the first Chechen crisis was so unpopular that it almost toppled Jeltsin, the fact that this war can so easily be turned to consolidation is a serious loss to Western lovers of democratic ideals.

If you're interested, here's a good scorecard showing how this is a victory for Russia in every sense of the word. Another thoughtful one - though obviously a bit outdated.

Simply put: short of blocking a new EU-RF agreement or kicking Russia out of the WTO, there's nothing the West can do "in response to" Russia's actions in Georgia that will make a dent of an impression, or change this from simply reading "score: Russia".

The only thing Russia lost is the media war, but with Georgia being the democratic pet project it is they never had much of a chance on winning that one. That is a shame, because it means that understanding of this conflict is blocked by skewed media coverage, and it may mean that Saakashvili will remain in power, which would be pretty bad for the Georgians. However, it's nothing but a childish blame game, a bit of PR, and it does not change the impact this has on the arena of international politics.

EDIT: this NATO response is interesting. Putting relations on hold until Russia withdraws is pretty standard fare, but I find it interesting that they're going to push through advance cooperations with Georgia. Probably not full membership (duh), but it's still a strike against Russia. Pretty smart from an international politics viewpoint, but a bit stupid on the internal politics of NATO-side as Georgia is still as unstable as it was before now, and advanced cooperation between NATO and an unstable state is always a bad idea.

[Xandax]

Of more interesting development, then Abkhazia is requesting of Russia to acknowledge them as an independent nation. What is interesting will be what Russia's reply to that will be, seeing as Russia went into Georgia because they consider especially South Ottesia to be populated with Russian citizen.
I think Abkhazia was just there for convience of adding more pressure on Georgia, but it is the interesting after match of what happens to the regions now.

[galraen]

What baffles me is why the political Neanderthals like Putin decided to reopen the cold war and why the Russian people voted for them.

What's with this infantile attitude toward Poland for example, it seems to be built on completely irrational paranoia.

Which is why I viewed Russia's antics in Georgia with such alarm in the first place, the current leaders of Russia are clearly mentally unbalanced. With us having loony toons in charge of the US and the UK the last thing we needed was a bunch of nutcases with their fingers on the nuclear button in the Kremlin.