News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[WmLambert]

The cyber attack was launched before supposed assault by Georgia. It is no wonder communication within Georgia was so difficult, and the Russians claimed it was the Georgians who would not return their attempts to communicate.

The KGB-style disinformation as de facto Putin policy seems illustrated once again here.

The "big lie" strategy requires enough circumstantial events to cloak it in doubt, so that the continued promulgation of it begins to stick. No one questions that the Georgians moved into South Ossetia before the Russians opened up. The question is: if the Separatists staged the atrocities that emptied the Georgian enclaves and brought the Georgian peacekeepers in. The few civilian casualties reinforce the clearing of the enclaves, even though the initial Russian reports claimed "thousands of civilian dead at the hands of Georgian monsters."

 

[meopemuk]

I also note the "recaptured military vehicles that Georgians took from our peacekeepers,:" which were shown to be U.S. Humvees taken from containers ready to be shipped back to the U.S. and not part of any action.

You seem to be completely disoriented. The incident with U.S. Humvees happened in the port of Poti, which is more than 100 miles away from Tshinvali. Moreover, this incident occurred several days after the events described in the piece.

 

[quadraphonics]

It is not necessarily about whoever spends the most wins.

Well, in this case, it's more like "whoever can't spend enough can't even play in the first place."

Just as a handful of fanatics can cause America to spend trillions of dollars counteracting whatever they may do then I imagine for a relatively small sum Russia could cause America and her allies to spend a hugely disproportionate sum in counter-measures.

That asymmetric argument doesn't apply to conflicts between established nation-states. What's to stop NATO from spending a relatively small sum that requires Russia to spend a disproportionate amount on countermeasures?

It's a pity that after the end of the cold war Russia's request to join NATO was rejected and IMO also a pity that Russia wasn't invited to join the EU as that would have guaranteed peace on the European continent for generations.

As long as we're dealing in fantasies, it's also a pity that everyone didn't join hands in peace and brotherly love 1000 generations ago, thereby creating perfect world peace.

 

[Oberst Villa]

As long as we're dealing in fantasies, it's also a pity that everyone didn't join hands in peace and brotherly love 1000 generations ago, thereby creating perfect world peace.

There are different levels of fantasies.

For example, there are very fundamental differences between the west and significant parts of the muslim world, in this case perfect peace is really a fantasy in my book.

However, I do not see any such differences in the way people in Russia on the one side and people in western Europe and the US on the other side think. Why should there be no peace ? Less than 100 years ago people have been talking BS about an Erbfeindschaft (traditional enmity) between France and Germany, in WW I millions of our people died fighting each other. Nowadays we are best friends !

 

[meopemuk]

Here is another testimony from a firsthand eyewitness published in "Nezavisimaya gazeta".
This guy is a Russian official, so you can dismiss his words as a Kremlin propaganda, but something
tells me that his description of events is authentic.

http://www.ng.ru/courier/2008-09-01/13_razlom.html

"On the Caucasian faultline"
Yuri Popov: "We never set the goal to conquer Georgia"

2008-09-01/ Marina Perevozkina

Events in the Caucasus is one of major themes discussed today by politicians, journalists and
other citizens, and not only in our country. Therefore, the opinion of an eyewitness of the events is especially
interesting. One such eyewitness is the special task envoy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Yuri Popov, who answered questions posed by "NG".

-- Yuri Fedorovich, on the August 7th, just on the eve of tragic events in South Ossetia, you went to Tbilisi and
Tshinval for negotiations. Apparently, they were successful, because after your visit a moratorium on military
actions was declared, and negotiations were scheduled to take place the next day with you as an intermediary between
the state minister of Georgia on reintegration Temuri Jacobashvili and the vice-premier of South Ossetia Boris Chochiev.
How did the events develop on that, without doubt, historic day?

Y.P.: On the August 7th at 2:00 pm I went from Tbilisi to Tshinval to discuss with South Ossetian partners the
agenda of the meeting that has been planned for the Friday [August 8th]. I drove in the car of Russian Embassy.
On the way I got a flat tire, and the spare tire was not good either, and I was waiting for another car for two
hours. During my wait (it was 10 kilometers from Gori) I watched with great interest as Georgian armored vehicles
and transports with soldiers passed me in the direction of Tshinval. I reached my destination point after 6 p.m.

-- Some say that Jacobashvili also came to Tshinval on that day?

Y.P.: He went there on his own program separate from me. Before that we had a contact in Tbilisi, discussed the forthcoming
three-side meeting. Then, after arranging all issues with the Georgian side I went to discuss them with
South Ossetian leadership, because earlier they expressed their doubts about the usefulness of such a meeting.


-- What was the reason for you arrival in Georgia, which was, as I understand, unexpected - you flew at night?

Y.P.: I arrived in Tbilisi early in the morning of August 7th. The Russian side was very worried about increased
tensions in the conflict zone. It was necessary to break this trend immediately. For this reason, though we
remained principal backers of the continuation of negotiations in the framework of SKK [joint Georgia-Russia-South Ossetia
commission for peace], the decision was taken to assist an urgent meeting between Georgians and South Ossetians.
We started to prepare the agenda at the end of July, however a massive mortar-artillery shelling of residential
blocks in Tshinval on August 1st has hardened the negotiating position of the South Ossetian side.

-- When did you leave Tshinval?

Y.P.: I left the city after 10 p.m. after reaching the final agreement with both Georgian and South Ossetian partners about
three-party Georgian-Ossetian-Russian meeting planned for the next day in Tshinval. The talks were supposed to start
at 1 p.m. on August 8th in the headquarters of SSPM[?] with the participation of Boris Chochiev, Temuri Jacobashvili,
the commander of peacekeeping forces general Marat Kulahmetov and myself. By the way if I hadn't have some urgent
tasks for the morning of August 8th in our Embassy [in Tbilisi], I would have remained to spend the night in Tshinval.
Interesting, if that would deter the Georgian attack on the city? I doubt very much, but still I have a bad feeling.

-- But the facts confirm that the operation was well-thought and prepared. The choice of the day was not accidental - the
beginning of Olympic games. Apparently everything was decided long before...

Y.P.: The preparation for the aggression was conducted methodically and long in advance. Though, there is a version that
Saakashvili took this decision impulsively under the influence of something, which scared him very much. I.e., the decision
about the military operation could be induced from outside. At the same time it is obvious that the strike was planned
for the night August 7-8, when the attention of the whole world was focused on the opening of Olympic games. By that time
a striking military group of Georgian army was already pulled to the southern outskirts of Tshinval.

-- Did you have any doubts about the reliability of your partners? Were you sure that negotiations will take place?

Y.P.: There was an absolutely clear agreement about the place, time and the format of the meeting. On the other hand,
the Georgian partners never firmly stuck to their promises. But their unwillingness to negotiate grew into betrayal.
When I drove from Tshinvali late at night I saw opposite movement of Georgian military columns entering the conflict zone.
There were tanks, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, trucks and buses with soldiers. First, I reported this to the commander
of SSPM on the cell phone, then I lost the count. I called Jacobashvili and asked what is the reason to move such hugh forces to Tshinval?
My Georgian colleague calmed me down - this is a defensive measure and the President who promised not to open fire will
never break his word. An half an hour later, when I approached Tbilisi, general Kulahmetov called me and told that
Georgia has declared a war on South Ossetia and Tshinval is being bombarded from land and air.


-- There is an impression that Georgian aggression took Russian leadership off guard, though it was not so difficult to
predict this development of events.

Y.P.: We were caught off guard not by the aggression itself but by the choice of time of the attack. Perhaps this was
pre-calculated in Tbilisi, because, in principle, we expected this line of development. We all saw the military
preparations of Georgia. I can't understand another thing: how could Georgians agree with South Ossetians about the meeting
if they new that the war is going to start in an hour? This is incomprehensible from the ethical point of view.

I don't want to believ that my negotiations partner Mr. Jacobashvili lied to me on purpose. I am inclined to think that
he was not aware about the coming attack on South Ossetia. It is interesting that when in the evening of August 7th I told
Jacobashvili about the reached agreement with Boris Chochiev and the South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity about tomorrow's
meeting in Tshinval, he immediately contacted Saakashvili and informed myself that "President has approved" this idea.
I can admit the possibility that the invasion was planned for the near future, but something forced Saakashvili to speed it up
and to give the order to start in the night of August 7-8. Here again a thought comes to mind about an external influence.

-- Did you see Georgian peacekeepers in the headquarters?

Y.P.: When I arrived to Kulahmetov, the headquarters of Georgian peacekeepers were empty. I was told that they left
SSPM during the day of August 7th.

-- You are saying the leadership of Russia was informed about military preparations by Georgia. Was there any reaction
plan in the event of attack? Why peacekeepers were so slow to respond?

Y.P.: Georgians were preparing for the war. They pulled in striking groups from the South. At the same time Georgian troops
tried to occupy strategic heights in the conflict zone. Set up new checkpoints equipped by all rules of military-engineering
science. South Ossetians, naturally, reacted and this led to the avalanche of military stand-off. Our peacekeepers, due to
their small numbers, could not quell these problems physically. There were only 500 peacekeepers most of whom were on
stationary positions. They did what they could: separated sides which entered in armed contact, stood between them. We reserved
the right to increase the sizes of Russian and South Ossetian batallions to 800 people each in the case if the situation
goes out of control. However, we didn't expect that it would go out of control and end up in such a bloodshed.


-- Just before the war started, a serious military force was concentrated on the Russian territory near the border with Georgia.
Previously, army came close to the border in times of increased tensions, but such an armada with a lot of armament has not
been seen there before.

Y.P.: Georgians also have not pulled so much forces and weapons to Tshinval before. The action creates counteraction. The question
is different - why Saakashvili's friends, first of all in Washington, decided to put in hands of such an impulsive leader
this deadly machinery? The quantity transforms to quality, sooner or later. The shotgun hanging on the wall is destined to shoot.
It is true that our American partners tell us that Saakashvili didn't discuss with them his decision to attack South Ossetia.

-- Many analysts now say that the operation was not finished. Why did our troops stop so abruptly? Why didn'd we force
Saakashvili to sign a capitulation act?

Y.P.: We never set the goal to conquer Georgia, remove Saakashvili, enter Tbilisi, hang the Russian flag there and put our
general-governor. We have conducted a peace-enforcing operation. The peace is restored, the aggressor retreated, the justice
prevailed. Nobody wanted to force proud Gergian people on their knees. Russians and Georgians are not enemies.
Regarding Saakashvili and his political career, I don't have the right to give recipes. I can only tell one thing: if I was
guilty in deaths of thousands of people, I would act according to my conscience.

-- What are further prospects for negotiations?

Y.P.: To renew the negotiations right now is very problematic. It is not clear, with whom? what is the purpose? The peacekeeping
operations will be conducted by enhanced Russian contingent without participation of Georgians. We will also change the
configuration of the peacekeeper's responsibility zone.

 

[quadraphonics]

However, I do not see any such differences in the way people in Russia on the one side and people in western Europe and the US on the other side think. Why should there be no peace ?

The issue is not with "the people" (it almost never is), but with the fact that Russia, as a polity, has yet to give up its imperialist conception of security based on the violent domination of its neighbors.

 

[Borek]

Strong words, but seems to me like they make a good point.

 

[Art]

Well, in this case, it's more like "whoever can't spend enough can't even play in the first place."

I think when you bring 6,700 nuclear warheads to the table you are guaranteed a seat at the game.

That asymmetric argument doesn't apply to conflicts between established nation-states. What's to stop NATO from spending a relatively small sum that requires Russia to spend a disproportionate amount on countermeasures?

as above

As long as we're dealing in fantasies, it's also a pity that everyone didn't join hands in peace and brotherly love 1000 generations ago, thereby creating perfect world peace.

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

The cold war was a battle of ideologies. The Russian held ideology is gone, finished, kaput and so there is no longer any need for any enmity between Russia and the West as the causa bella is gone.

 

[Borek]

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

French and British changed their attitude which made new balance possible. Russia tries to keep to old tricks.

 

[Art]

French and British changed their attitude which made new balance possible. Russia tries to keep to old tricks.

Yes, France and Britain reached an accord in 1904 (The Entente Cordiale) whereby they agreed not to threaten each other or interfere in each other's spheres of influence. Russia was then included in this accord in 1907.

It sounds very like what Russia is looking for now.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think when you bring 6,700 nuclear warheads to the table you are guaranteed a seat at the game.

For the time being, yes. But a serious case can be made that the era of MAD is nearing its end:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Note that this power differential is driven by precisely spending power. I.e., any attempt by Russia to close the (growing) gap in nuclear capabilities can be easily outstripped by NATO.

as above

So... the fact that Russia has a few thousand warheads means they can take inexpensive measures (what, exactly?) that require exorbitant countermeasures (such as..?). Okay... what's to stop the United States, which also has thousands of warheads, from taking similar inexpensive measures that will require Russia to pursue exorbitant countermeasures?

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

I note that Britain and France only stopped fighting and got along once a larger common threat arose (first Germany, then the USSR). I see no such unifying pressure pushing Europe and Russia together.

The cold war was a battle of ideologies. The Russian held ideology is gone, finished, kaput and so there is no longer any need for any enmity between Russia and the West as the causa bella is gone.

The Cold War was a battle of interests, heightened by differences in ideology. While the one ideology has disappeared, it does not follow that the other ideology took its place and, in any case, the divergent interests remain. Russia views the independence of its neighboring states as a threat to itself; this conception is irreconcilable with peaceful relations.

But, yes, it is within Russia's power to pursue a different, more benign, more productive approach, and it is within the power of the Russian people to bring this about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes, France and Britain reached an accord in 1904 (The Entente Cordiale) whereby they agreed not to threaten each other or interfere in each other's spheres of influence. Russia was then included in this accord in 1907.

It sounds very like what Russia is looking for now.

The difference being, of couse, that Russia's "sphere of influence" includes several sovereign countries in Europe, and not just some distant colonies full of unwashed heathens as was the case with the Entente Cordial (and a unified Germany was breathing down both their necks, not to mention a surging America across the pond). "Noninterference is Russia's sphere of influence" means exactly the consignment of the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucusus to a status of Russian vassal states. I say if they want their empire back, they can damned well fight for it. Crushing the freedom and sovereignty of the millions who inhabit those states in the hopes of appeasing Russia's appetite for domination is the worst idea I've heard in ages.

By the way, it absolutely astounds me to hear someone use the phrase "sphere of interest" with a straight face in this context. Usually the only people who would be caught using that turn of phrase are self-avowed "hard-nosed realists" that openly support the use of force to achieve geopolitical aims. Not really the sort of people that I imagine you want to be cribbing notes from.

 

[meopemuk]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate! Previously, such a luxury was allowed only to the United States (perhaps, also Israel?). Now there is Russia too. Deal with it.

 

[WmLambert]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate! Previously, such a luxury was allowed only to the United States (perhaps, also Israel?). Now there is Russia too. Deal with it.

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking. The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

 

[quadraphonics]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate!

Right, like in Chechnya, where Russia killed tens of thousands of Russian citizens. It's hard to have much sympathy for Russian actions considering that the "citizens" in question were endangered exactly by a crisis that Russia deliberately created. Especially considering that the designation of these people as "citizens" was one of things done to deliberately provoke a crisis in the first place.

I put "citizens" in quotes because it's not clear to me that these people actually carried the responsibilities and privileges that are associated with citizens. Were they able to vote in Russian elections? Did they pay Russian taxes? Serve in Russian juries? It's not even clear that they enjoyed freedom of travel inside Russia itself. The whole thing seems like little more than a pretext for invasion of Georgia. That so many people seem to fall for it is sad.

 

[baywax]

The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

Did they use Shock and Awe?

 

[meopemuk]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

I respectfully disagree, the people we are talking about refused Georgian citizenship, because they were brutalized by the Georgian government in the early 1990's. So they turned to Russia for protection. When a country grants you its citizenship it (among other things) promises to protect you wherever you are to the best of its abilities. This idea was invoked by the U.S. on many occasions in order to overthrow non-conforming regimes, even though no U.S. citizens were actually killed. The examples of Grenada in 1983 (no US citizens were killed prior to the invasion, as far as I know) and Panama in 1989 (1 U.S. marine was killed) come to mind.

But even if we assume that no Russian citizens were harmed during the Georgian invasion, Russia had an internationally recognized peacekeeping agreement with Georgia and South Ossetia. So, legally it was responsible for the lives of people living in S.O. and had the right to interfere.

 

[Art]

The difference being, of couse, that Russia's "sphere of influence" includes several sovereign countries in Europe, and not just some distant colonies full of unwashed heathens as was the case with the Entente Cordial (and a unified Germany was breathing down both their necks, not to mention a surging America across the pond). "Noninterference is Russia's sphere of influence" means exactly the consignment of the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucusus to a status of Russian vassal states. I say if they want their empire back, they can damned well fight for it. Crushing the freedom and sovereignty of the millions who inhabit those states in the hopes of appeasing Russia's appetite for domination is the worst idea I've heard in ages.

By the way, it absolutely astounds me to hear someone use the phrase "sphere of interest" with a straight face in this context. Usually the only people who would be caught using that turn of phrase are self-avowed "hard-nosed realists" that openly support the use of force to achieve geopolitical aims. Not really the sort of people that I imagine you want to be cribbing notes from.

I suggest you research the difference between a 'sphere of influence' and a 'sphere of interest' then get back to me

 

[quadraphonics]

I suggest you research the difference between a 'sphere of influence' and a 'sphere of interest' then get back to me

There is no substantiative difference between the two terms, which is why I used them interchangeably. I suggest that you develop a more graceful, less condescending way of retreating from poorly-considered positions.

 

[Art]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking. The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

You do know after Britain's withdrawal all citizens of the former British Empire were eligible for British citizenship don't you? An exception being Hong Kong because they feared they might have trouble accommodating 10 million or so immigrants in England so they only issued Hong Kong millionaires with British passports

So to clarify, are you saying all these people from former members of the British Empire have acted illegally in taking British citizenship and their adopted citizenship is invalid under international law?

Care to cite a source to support your assertion??

 

[Art]

There is no substantiative difference between the two terms, which is why I used them interchangeably. I suggest that you develop a more graceful, less condescending way of retreating from poorly-considered positions.

A sphere of influence is a stronger tie where the dominant power exerts a strong indirect control over the economy, culture, military etc of countries within the sphere. The old USSR being a good example.

A sphere of interest is a weaker tie whereby a major power expresses a special interest in states (normally neighbouring states) which they believe could threaten their own security and so resist the encroachment of other major powers into that territory. The US and Cuba for example, or Russia and Georgia if you like.

At the moment in Georgia we are seeing America's ever expanding sphere of influence (NATO being the vehicle) clashing with Russia's sphere of interest.

 

[quadraphonics]

A sphere of influence is a stronger tie where the dominant power exerts a strong indirect control over the economy, culture etc of countries within the sphere. The old USSR being a good example.

A sphere of interest is a weaker tie whereby a major power expresses a special interest in states which they believe could threaten their own security and so resist the encroachment of other major powers into that territory. The US and Cuba for example, or Russia and Georgia if you like.

Am I to understand that you do not consider the US to exert strong indirect control over the economy and culture of Cuba, or Russia on those of Georgia? In the real world, strong countries (i.e., the types that have "spheres" outside their own borders in the first place) tend to make a point of extending their influence to be coterminous with their interests. How else are you supposed to resist the encroachment of other major powers into said territories? Which is why the two terms are used interchangeably.

Anyway, this is a diversion. The exact same criticism applies to your rosy depiction of the Entente Cordial, and Russia's current geopolitical aims, regardless of which term of art is employed. Any way you cut it, you're talking about a deal between big powers to divide up the smaller states among them, with no consideration of the rights of said smaller states.

 

[Minich]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law.

Russia recognizes international law, if international law doesn't contradict Russian law )

Does USA recognize international law, if international law contradicts USA law?

Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

If USA gives somebody a paper, that he is now the citizen of USA, is it wrong, that he is the sitizen of USA?

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking.

Is it the old Strategic Defence Initiative and Chirchil old Fulton's paranoia speaking ?.

The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

Why does NATO circle around Russia's borders with military bases? Does NATO afraid of Russia?

And finally. Is Saakashvily the CIA agent? Why does he bevave as provocator and does everything to involve NATO countries to military conflict with Russan nuclear power?

Is he mad?

Don't You know, that in Caribbian crisis USSR and USA agreed:
USSR withdraw missiles from Cuba. USA withdraw missiles from Turkey.
Now USA missiles will go to Poland, do You want russian missiles in Cuba again or in Venezuela?

Does USA want to balance with nuclear power?!
Mad politicians are going to power!

Where was the international law, when USA's military planes regularly flight over USSR territory until 1961 when U-2 plane was fighted down with our missile near Ekaterinburg? Ekaterinburg is in the MIDDLE of USSR territory! Why to flight over Kiev and even Moscow in 1961 was lawfull?

Does USA have the right to teach others? If racism oficially existed recently. What Kennedy was killed for?
Was Dallas racist free then? What Marthin Luter King was killed for?

Why georgian young boys and russian young boys must kill each other?

If Gamsahurdia (1st president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins, if Shevardnadse (2nd president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins and abhasians, If Saakashvily (3d president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins, using USA money, USA technics, USA military advisors WHERE do ossetins go then?

If West Germany and East Germany is now united, why is South Ossetia can't unite with North Ossetia?

They always lived together except after USSR Greate Criminal Revolution of 1991 when extreme nationalists came to power in USSR fragments and began ethnic clashes.

 

[quadraphonics]

So to clarify, are you saying all these people from former members of the British Empire have acted illegally in taking British citizenship and their adopted citizenship is invalid under international law?

The kicker here is not the validity of the citizenships per se, but the validity of subsequent actions based on citizenship status. As you say, England didn't issue passports to everyone in Hong Kong because it couldn't resettle that many people in England. But this brings up the crucial point: by accepting British citizenship, and refusing Chinese citizenship, those people would have been giving up their right to live in China, and so it would have been perfectly legal for the Chinese government to arrest, imprison and deport them, and Britain would have had to accept them as residents. It would not have been legitimate for Britain to issue all those passports, and then invade China when Beijing rightfully, lawfully began rounding up all those non-citizens, and then annex Hong Kong. It also would not have been legitimate for said British citizens to resist Chinese efforts to expel them.

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

 

[Art]

For the time being, yes. But a serious case can be made that the era of MAD is nearing its end:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Note that this power differential is driven by precisely spending power. I.e., any attempt by Russia to close the (growing) gap in nuclear capabilities can be easily outstripped by NATO.

So the advantage of being able to wipe out all life on the planet 10 times over whilst your adversary can only do it 3 times over is what exactly??

So... the fact that Russia has a few thousand warheads means they can take inexpensive measures (what, exactly?) that require exorbitant countermeasures (such as..?). Okay... what's to stop the United States, which also has thousands of warheads, from taking similar inexpensive measures that will require Russia to pursue exorbitant countermeasures?

America can't launch a ground offensive into Russia whereas the Russians can launch a ground offensive into the countries of America's European allies. See Georgia for a recent example. Which btw will cost the American taxpayer $2.3 billion if the US gov't accedes to Georgia's request for monetary aid.

I note that Britain and France only stopped fighting and got along once a larger common threat arose (first Germany, then the USSR). I see no such unifying pressure pushing Europe and Russia together.

It may surprise you but a lot of Europeans feel they have a lot more in common with Russia than they do with the US. Which might explain why the US appears to be so keen to drive a wedge between them. A unified Europe which included Russia would be a serious challenge to American hegemony.

The Cold War was a battle of interests, heightened by differences in ideology.

The cold war was totally about different ideologies or every politician who breathed during that time lied. Not impossible but unlikely

While the one ideology has disappeared, it does not follow that the other ideology took its place and, in any case, the divergent interests remain. Russia views the independence of its neighboring states as a threat to itself; this conception is irreconcilable with peaceful relations.

I don't believe Russia has any problem whatsoever with former members of the USSR being independent, as I understand it the problem arises when these states abrogate their independence to the USA through NATO.

But, yes, it is within Russia's power to pursue a different, more benign, more productive approach, and it is within the power of the Russian people to bring this about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO Russia has shown great restraint under great provocation for some years now.

 

[Art]

The kicker here is not the validity of the citizenships per se, but the validity of subsequent actions based on citizenship status. As you say, England didn't issue passports to everyone in Hong Kong because it couldn't resettle that many people in England. But this brings up the crucial point: by accepting British citizenship, and refusing Chinese citizenship, those people would have been giving up their right to live in China, and so it would have been perfectly legal for the Chinese government to arrest, imprison and deport them, and Britain would have had to accept them as residents. It would not have been legitimate for Britain to issue all those passports, and then invade China when Beijing rightfully, lawfully began rounding up all those non-citizens, and then annex Hong Kong. It also would not have been legitimate for said British citizens to resist Chinese efforts to expel them.

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

That's exactly what Idi Amin said when he kicked out 50,000 British citizens from Uganda. You are in good company it seems, though unfortunately, for your argument, the rest of the world did not see it that way.

 

[mheslep]

...They always lived together except after USSR Greate Criminal Revolution of 1991 when extreme nationalists came to power in USSR fragments and began ethnic clashes.

Makes one want to burst out in http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20070929kldcg/anthem-sovietunion-1977-redarmy.mp3" .

Unbreakable union of freeborn republics
Great Russia has welded forever to stand!
Created in struggle by will of the people
United and mighty, our Soviet land!

CHORUS:
Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
Bulwark of people, in brotherhood strong!
Oh! Party of Lenin! The strength of the people.
To Communism's triumph lead us on!

I thought they were just kidding about the 'unbreakable union ... forever' part, just a catchy verse and all that. Silly me.

 

[quadraphonics]

So the advantage of being able to wipe out all life on the planet 10 times over whilst your adversary can only do it 3 times over is what exactly??

Nothing. But if you'd read the article, you'd understand that there's a great advantage to being able to wipe out your adversary's nuclear arsenal before he has time to use it against you. The measure of a nuclear arsenal is not so much the scale of its destructive power (pretty much all sizeable nuclear arsenals are sufficiently terrible), but its stealth, survivability and speed. That Russia might have a mountain of warheads sitting around does them no good if their ICBMs, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile subs have already been destroyed. They are at that point at the total mercy of a hostile power with the ability to demolish their cities and infrastructure with total impunity.

America can't launch a ground offensive into Russia whereas the Russians can launch a ground offensive into the countries of America's European allies. See Georgia for a recent example.

And what are the exorbitant costs to America of this action? A few shiploads of ammo and guns for Georgia? The embarassment of having to admit that, indeed, we are presently tied down in Iraq? The costs to Russia don't seem particularly insignificant to me either.

A unified Europe which included Russia would be a serious challenge to American hegemony.

It's no secret that it has long been a basic plank of US foreign policy that the domination of either Europe or Asia by a single power is unacceptable. But in this instance, America isn't having to work terribly hard to push Europe and Russia apart: the whole blitzkrieg on Georgia pretty much accomplished that.

The cold war was totally about different ideologies or every politician who breathed during that time lied. Not impossible but unlikely

Please produce a single example of a politician that doesn't lie constantly. Viewing conflicts in ideological terms is great for mobilizing public opinion, and maintaining solidarity. But there is no war without conflicting interests. There still would have been a Cold War if the USSR wasn't communist; it's just the America might not have won.

I don't believe Russia has any problem whatsoever with former members of the USSR being independent, as I understand it the problem arises when these states abrogate their independence to the USA through NATO.

It is the prerogative of independent states to freely sign whatever type of treaty they wish, with whomever they wish. The difference Russia cares about is not independence, but vulnerability to Russian aggression.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO Russia has shown great restraint under great provocation for some years now.

I must not have noticed the restraint between the rape of Chechnya, the assassinations of dissidents in foreign countries, the energy blackmail and the invasion of neighboring states.

 

[quadraphonics]

That's exactly what Idi Amin said when he kicked out 50,000 British citizens from Uganda.

Comparing people to Idi Amin is something Hitler would do.

 

[Art]

Comparing people to Idi Amin is something Hitler would do.

Tut tut ... I said your argument was the same one Idi Amin used when he expelled his Asian population; that is simply a fact, and it is also a fact the rest of the world did not agree with his policy of forced repatriation.

The US ambassador at the time, Thomas Patrick Melady, described Amin's regime as "racist, erratic and unpredictable, brutal, inept, bellicose, irrational, ridiculous, and militaristic", so that's what he thought of your argument.