10
   

Russia mulling break with NATO--Watching the Former USSR

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 10:11 am
According to spiegel-online (will be in Monday's print edition of Der Spiegel ) officials of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have said, acts by the Georgian government had contributed to the outbreak of the crisis with Russia. Spiegel said OSCE military observers in the Caucasus had described preparations by Georgia to move into South Ossetia. It said the OSCE report also described suspected war crimes by the Georgians, including the Georgians ordering attacks on sleeping South Ossetian civilians.

(In German) http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,575396,00.html
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:35 am
@Walter Hinteler,
The report in English: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,575041,00.html
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 11:40 am
@Derevon,
Derevon wrote:

I think Russia considers itself a great and powerful nation, but I don't think they have any particular desire to take over all Georgia, or any other of the former Soviet republics.


That's what everybody thought as one by one, country after country was sucked into the old U.S.S.R. Also, I think when Hitler began his aggression against Poland and then others, most of the world was thinking well, let him have that country and then he'll be satisfied. He wasn't.

While you very well may be right and probably are, I think it prudent to not pretend that all is well, look the other way, stick our heads in the sand, or whatever other cliched metaphor might apply this time. It is often far too costly to underestimate a dictator's intentions.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:00 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
That's what everybody thought as one by one, country after country was sucked into the old U.S.S.R.


Not the Irish Republic (they were the first country to recognize the Soviet Union) and the British Empire (they recognised the USSR in 1924).

Of course you may call that "suck" - but actually such might be said about the German Empire as well ... Bismarck/Prussia "sucked 24 countries" ...
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:19 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
That's what everybody thought as one by one, country after country was sucked into the old U.S.S.R.


Not the Irish Republic (they were the first country to recognize the Soviet Union) and the British Empire (they recognised the USSR in 1924).

Of course you may call that "suck" - but actually such might be said about the German Empire as well ... Bismarck/Prussia "sucked 24 countries" ...


That's what I meant though Walter. Getting 'sucked in' voluntarily is one thing. I have no problem with countries forming alliances or joint ventures for mutual benefit or deciding to be one country together.

Having it forced on your country through military or economic threat is not good. Nor is getting sucked in on false promises or phony agreements.

In other words, those little countries 'sucked' into the old USSR were quite happy to regain the ability to determine their own destinies once they had that opportunity.

Much of the international community decided they would not let Kuwait become part of Iraq against its will. But the international community also supported those countries or parts of countries that wished to do their own thing apart from some 'empire' too.

So which situation exists in Georgia? Does part of Georgia wish to unite with Russia? Or not? I don't think the rest of the world knows for sure.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:28 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
That's what everybody thought as one by one, country after country was sucked into the old U.S.S.R.


Yeah.... but Russia today isn't the old Soviet Union, and Germany isn't the Third Reich.

America has a history of land grabs as well, and of course people were talking about American imperialism when the United States occupied Iraq...

It's not the same thing, though.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:36 pm
@Foxfyre,
Well, those SSR's which finally formed the USSR in December 1922 with the Treaty of Creation of the USSR and the Declaration of the Creation of the USSR, well, those countries already existed as parts of the former Russia. (The Baltic States became independent after WWI.)

Georgia certainly can be seen quite differently as well.


Actually, I'm a big supporter of 'regionalisation', you might even call it "Balkanisation" ...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:38 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Quote:
That's what everybody thought as one by one, country after country was sucked into the old U.S.S.R.


Yeah.... but Russia today isn't the old Soviet Union, and Germany isn't the Third Reich.

America has a history of land grabs as well, and of course people were talking about American imperialism when the United States occupied Iraq...

It's not the same thing, though.


Yes, there is a comparison of sorts during the era when the U.S. made territories of occupied islands, etc. in our past history. But every one of those territories that has since wanted total autonomy has been granted that autonomy without them having to fight for it, and those remaining as U.S. territories or protectorates do so 100% voluntarily. The 50-states each have certain autonomous rights, but they are all part of one country and I think should one decide to leave us, the other 49 would be unanimous in strongly resisting that. Especially since we all have heavy investment in everybody.

There is and has never been any intention for the United States to make U.S. property out of any part of Iraq. Our President is being soundly condemned right now for allowing Iraq to keep the proceeds of their own oil.

And it is true that Russia is not the old Soviet Union and Germany is not the Third Reich. But they weren't before they became part of the USSR and/or the Third Reich either.

All I'm saying is those who refuse to learn from history are often condemned to repeat it.

(If Blatham was around I'm sure he would pounce on that cliche, but some cliche's are the pure truth whether or not cliched.)

old europe
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
There is and has never been any intention for the United States to make U.S. property out of any part of Iraq.


I know that this is your point of view. You're American.

I'm also fairly sure that the majority of Russians would say that there isn't any intention for Russia to make Russian property out of Georgia. That Russia is merely protecting Russian citizens in South Ossetia, and stopping Georgian genocide in Abkhazia. That Russian troops in Ossetia aren't occupation forces, but merely peacekeepers. That Georgia, not Russia, started the hostilities. That Russia's recognition of Ossetian and Abkhazian sovereignty is exactly the same thing as Western nations recognizing Kosovo as a nation.

Apart from WMD and support of Islamic terrorism, Russia is using all the same arguments that America was using to invade Iraq.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:45 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
And it is true that Russia is not the old Soviet Union and Germany is not the Third Reich.


I was responding to the German "Empire" (between 1871 and 1918) - compared to the USSR (which was formed in 1922, and -mostly- was identical to the previous Russia).
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  3  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:50 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Quote:
There is and has never been any intention for the United States to make U.S. property out of any part of Iraq.


I know that this is your point of view. You're American.

I'm also fairly sure that the majority of Russians would say that there isn't any intention for Russia to make Russian property out of Georgia. That Russia is merely protecting Russian citizens in South Ossetia, and stopping Georgian genocide in Abkhazia. That Russian troops in Ossetia aren't occupation forces, but merely peacekeepers. That Georgia, not Russia, started the hostilities. That Russia's recognition of Ossetian and Abkhazian sovereignty is exactly the same thing as Western nations recognizing Kosovo as a nation.

Apart from WMD and support of Islamic terrorism, Russia is using all the same arguments that America was using to invade Iraq.


The difference is that the America people have representative government and a free press and free speech. We KNOW our government does not intend to own any part of Iraq nor is there any evidence in our recent history to believe that our policies have changed.

Russia's not that distant history is quite different, however, and the Russian people probably don't have as much access to their government's intentions.
rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 12:58 pm
@Foxfyre,
And you think that we as "common" citizens have access to government intentions and are given acurate information. Where exactly have you been liveing the last 7 1/2 years.
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 01:04 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
We KNOW our government does not intend to own any part of Iraq nor is there any evidence in our recent history to believe that our policies have changed.


Really? How do you KNOW that?
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 01:05 pm
@rabel22,
There has to be secrecy, rabel. After all, these are matters of national security. You don't want to let your enemies know what you're really planning, right?
Foxfyre
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 01:19 pm
In certain situations of national security and defense, of course the government does not telegraph all their intentions or activities or they could not do either effectively. But our government is absolutely wide open when it comes to things like annexing somebody else's territory. No way they could keep that quiet and no way could they avoid severe reprisals from the people should they even attempt such a thing.

That's how I know.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 01:24 pm
@Foxfyre,
I haven't seen "severe reprisals from the people" when McCain said that, for all he cares, America could have troops in Iraq for the next 10,000 years.

I'm sure you trust your government. I'm sure you think the invasion of Iraq was necessary. I'm sure you think that America was only acting in self-defence. I'm sure you think that the American administration is acting in the interest of the Iraqi people.

That's what many people do when their country goes to war: they stand behind their government, rather than questioning the motivation or ascribing sinister motives to whatever it is their country is doing.

I'm sure many Russians don't respond to this in a different way than many Americans responded to the American invasion of other countries.
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Sat 30 Aug, 2008 09:34 pm
@old europe,
I dont think that most of what the government claims is something that is for the security of the country is true. Most times it is to cover the ass of someone who has screwed up. All countries have spies and they all know so called government secrets. Governments keep secrets in order to keep the citizens in the dark. Remember the comunists and our keeping the atom bomb seceret.
0 Replies
 
talk72000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 05:02 am
@Lash,
W ignored Global Warming so he is responsible for Gustav and good timing too - just when the Republican National Convention... Bushoscience has come home to roost.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 11:13 am
@old europe,
I do not trust my government at all in many things. That is why I am so grateful that we have our Constitution and the means to change elected officials when they abuse their duty to defend it. I think many of our elected officials are corrupt, dishonest, self serving and are far more interested in feathering their own nests than they are interested in being noble, honest, unselfish, or doing anything real that will honestly make things better rather than just looking or sounding good at the time.

I do trust my government in the sense that it is a rare politician who would think he or she can commit treason and get away with it.

But maybe you "haven't seen "severe reprisals from the people" when McCain said that, for all he cares, America could have troops in Iraq for the next 10,000 years" is because he intended and said nothing like that, at least as you seem to intend for it to look. Those with intellectual honestly know that he meant it in the sense that we still have troops in Germany. How sinister is that?

Some of America's critics are too often like some of our politicians that I hold in the least regard. They manufacture or repeat lies over and over trying to pretend they are true. And that is quite contemptible.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  0  
Reply Sun 31 Aug, 2008 11:18 am
@talk72000,
So you are saying that global warming is responsible for the hurricanes?
Then how do you explain the hurricanes before man invented the internal combustion engine?
How do you explain the hurricanes before man started polluting the air so much?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

WHAT'S IT LIKE LIVING IN RUSSIA TODAY? - Discussion by Mapleleaf
Russian appeal to the peoples of Europe - Discussion by gungasnake
Flavors of terrorists - Discussion by gungasnake
ISIS burning - Discussion by gungasnake
Putin's UN speech - Discussion by gungasnake
Putin Documentary - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/14/2019 at 11:29:39