Reply
Thu 28 Aug, 2008 10:01 pm
Quote:Moscow has issued an extraordinary warning to the West that military assistance to Georgia for use against South Ossetia or Abkhazia would be viewed as a "declaration of war" by Russia.
The extreme rhetoric from the Kremlin's envoy to NATO came as President Dmitry Medvedev stressed he will make a military response to US missile defence installations in eastern Europe, sending new shudders across countries whose people were once blighted by the Iron Curtain.
And Moscow also emphasised it was closely monitoring what it claims is a build-up of NATO firepower in the Black Sea.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23545668-details/article.do?ito=newsnow
No surprise there. What would be the response if Russia were to put missiles in Cuba, Nicaragua, Venezuela, ... ?
@Robert Gentel,
What do you expect?
Bush said "I looked into his eyes and saw a good man".
McCain said "I looked into his eyes and saw KGB".
@JTT,
I suppose it would depend on what kind of missiles. Offensive ballistic or cruise missiles would cause quite a stir. It's hard to find a legitiment objection to defensive batteries - except from a country contemplating an attack.
Should we take the Russian stance as an intention to invade Poland?
@roger,
Quote:I suppose it would depend on what kind of missiles. Offensive ballistic or cruise missiles would cause quite a stir. It's hard to find a legitiment objection to defensive batteries - except from a country contemplating an attack.
Should we take the Russian stance as an intention to invade Poland?
There's no reason that Cuba or any South American country couldn't/shouldn't ask Russia for defensive missiles/troops stationed to protect from a US invasion. It's happened before, the US is extremely hostile towards Cuba and some other countries.
It's no different than the US's presence in eastern European countries. It's all about controlling the flow of oil. The bullshit about democracy is just that, bullshit.
@roger,
I disagree that defensive missiles are not a cause for concern for a non-aggressive party.
If nuclear weapons are a deterrent, the defensive weapons against them effectively take away some of the deterrent power. Doing so means countries like Russia need to enter an arms race if they want their military status quo. And it doesn't really matter if they plan to use it aggressively or not, the defensive missiles are a game changing introduction.
The US withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty and are starting the next arms wars. Nations like Russia and China seemed more content to have the treaties limit the US militarization of space and to limit the nuclear arms race. But by making a game changing defensive system the nuclear balance of power changes, and the qualm is that an arms race is the only way to keep up, not that they need to invade Poland.
@Robert Gentel,
Well, conceded that a perfect shield would permit unlimited offensive action, no missile defense system has ever been perfect. I doubt one ever will be. A somewhat effective system will clearly remove the certainty from an agressor's calculations. Deterrants are good. I'm recalling that the old Soviet civil defense system put them in the position of being able to survive, though not enjoy, an exchange of nuclear weapons.
I've sneaked in a couple of obvious assumptions, there, but I think they're good ones.
@roger,
I agree about the system likely never being perfect, but I do think that the Russian's qualms aren't about their ability to instigate aggression, but the changing of the balance of power. I think they rightly see the projection of power by the US during the Bush administration as a dramatic and
aggressive military build up that they are forced to respond to or to accept the "New American Century".
@Robert Gentel,
Holy crap. But, I can't say I'm surprised. I'm really concerned about this.
@Lash,
I'm not too concerned, and see this as a big reality check for NATO. NATO is now doing some soul searching and they know damn well that they aren't going to go to war with Russia over a country like Georgia.
So why are they considering accepting countries like Georgia into military treaties if they can't or won't back up the treaty with action? That will be the lasting result of all of this. It was a pivotal point where advancing US military strategy was responded to in the same vein and a decision between peace and economic stability versus a new cold war needs to be made. The talk of a new cold war isn't something I worry about because the US would have to be very stupid to keep pushing back toward scenarios it can't accept.
The US warned Russia in no uncertain terms not to recognize the independence of the breakaway regions of Georgia that their parliament had voted for. Russia came back within 24 hours to stick their thumb in America's eye and the US faces the choice of continuing to pursue the "New American Century" of military and geopolitical supremacy or not.
The West unilaterally recognized the self-determination of Kosovo and I predict that Russia just did the same with at least South Ossetia and the US should think long and hard about whether they want to continue the projection of power, rewriting of maps and regime change it has subscribed to for nearly a decade.
The US has to blink and it will. The military aggression this administration subscribed to is not tenable.
@Lash,
Looks like this is the beginning of "the cold war" again.
@CalamityJane,
I'm wondering what would happen (will happen?) in an area in which the US can project some power. Like a place accessible to naval power, with agreeable countries willing to provide a staging area.
An interesting comment in The Guardian (
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/03/dickcheney.georgia )
Quote:Did neocons start the second cold war?
Putin claims that Washington is to blame for the Caucasus crisis.
Does he really think Dick Cheney's that clever?
Simon Tisdall
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday September 03 2008 18:10 BST
Dick Cheney's whirlwind Caucasus tour, which began today, will be interpreted by conspiracy theorists, Kremlin apologists, and by the Russian government, as further "proof" of their contention that the hawkish US vice-president and his neocon buddies deliberately provoked last month's Georgia crisis for American presidential election campaign purposes.
[...]
Cheney and Putin deserve each other. At bottom, both men are backward-looking holdovers from the past. Describing Putin, Paul Quinn-Judge writes in Christian Science Monitor, "he can best be characterised by the term 'sovok' … In this case, it can be summarised as someone who embodies the dark and circumscribed world view of the Soviet man in the street, suspicious of the outside world, resentful, who holds a grudge and remembers a slight. Putin speaks passionately about the 'tragedy' of the Soviet Union's collapse, a personally scarring time when he found himself unemployed."
[...]
All the same, the suggestion that Cheney, making one last throw of the geo-strategic dice, actually engineered the South Ossetia crisis by effectively luring innocent, unwary Russian armed forces into a Georgian bear-trap does not bear close examination. The fact that Putin, and his front man, President Dmitri Medvedev, continue to claim that the whole plot was hatched in Washington to boost John McCain's campaign does not make it true.
The sobering truth is, the bumbling, blinkered Cheney is not that clever.
[...]
In short, cheerleader trumped war-maker. Faced by Miss Congeniality, "Commie dude Putin", as columnist Maureen Dowd calls him, had no chance. Palin is probably a better shot, too " certainly better than Cheney.
Saakashvili may be a hot-head. But he has not survived as long as he has in a tough neighbourhood by acting stupid at the behest of people like Cheney. "Some months ago I was warned by western leaders to expect an attack this summer," he told Melik Kaylan in a Wall Street Journal interview last month.
As related by James Traub in the New York Times, the months leading up to the August conflagration saw escalating provocations by South Ossetian forces and the Russian air force to which the Georgians responded, usually proportionately. During this period the US state department, anxious to avoid an escalation, repeatedly told Saakashvili to keep his cool.
But in hindsight, it seems Putin was just biding his time until the moment came when Georgia overreacted. When it eventually did, in early August, his military plan of campaign was ready, the troops, marines, planes and ships were on alert and within easy call, and he immediately flew back from the Olympics to take charge.
Saakashvili went on: "I ask everyone to consider, what does it mean when hundreds of tanks can mobilise and occupy a country within two days? Just the fuelling takes that long. They were on their way. Would we provoke a war while all our western friends are away on vacation? Be sensible."
@Walter Hinteler,
Cheney ramps up the rhetoric, as US flagship docks at Georgian port:
US-Russia tensions deepen over Georgia
Posted 59 minutes ago
United States-Russia tensions over Georgia have deepened with US Vice President Dick Cheney casting Moscow as a brutal regime that aims to recapture its Soviet-era dominance.
In the US administration's most hawkish remarks since Russia's five-day war with Georgia last month, Mr Cheney reminded the West of its "responsibilities" and criticised Russia for its "chain of aggressive moves."
Mr Cheney's tough talk came hours after Russian President Dmitry Medvedev warned that Moscow was a "force to be reckoned with," as tensions between Russia and the West soared to heights unseen since the Cold War.
Mr Medvedev accused the United States of rearming Georgia under the guise of humanitarian aid, after Friday's (local time) arrival of the US Navy's Mediterranean flagship at a key Georgian port close to where Russian troops are patrolling.
"I wonder how they would like it if we sent humanitarian assistance using our Navy to countries of the Caribbean that have suffered from the recent hurricanes," Mr Medvedev said.
Moscow has questioned why Washington chose one of its most sophisticated warships, the USS Mount Whitney, to transport aid to Poti.
The vessel is the floating command post for the US Navy's Sixth Fleet, based in Italy.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/07/2357594.htm?section=world
In an tv-interview (see
report in today's Independent) Putin explains, why Russia had to invade Georgia.
And Sarah Palin proposed NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, at risk of putting the U.S. in conflict with Russia ...
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:And Sarah Palin proposed NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine, at risk of putting the U.S. in conflict with Russia ...
Putting USA in conflict? I am afraid all the NATO member-states would have to be involved militarily, not only the US. Does somebody else advocate the idea of inviting countries with unsettled ethnic conflicts and/or unregulated territorial disputes to join military alliances? Or is it possibly better to help sort out the existing issues first?
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:
the US should think long and hard about whether they want to continue the projection of power, rewriting of maps and regime change it has subscribed to for nearly a decade.
The US has to blink and it will. The military aggression this administration subscribed to is not tenable.
How is it the US that has engaged in "rewriting [the] maps" in Transcaucasia?
How is it the US that has engaged in "military aggression" in Transcaucasia?
@nimh,
nimh wrote:
How is it the US that has engaged in "rewriting [the] maps" in Transcaucasia?
How is it the US that has engaged in "military aggression" in Transcaucasia?
I never gave the qualifier of "in Transcaucasia" so why are you trying to make my comments fit under a qualifier I never gave?
The first part of the sentence that you cut off in your quote contains my example of rewriting maps, and for an example of regime change see: Iraq and Afghanistan.
I dont get this reaction on the part of some Americans on the liberal side.
The Georgian government has applied for NATO membership, and while being rebuffed still on that, entered into strategic partnerships with the US and the EU. As is the right of any independent country. So over the past couple of years, there have been common military exercises, there has been training, and funding - though still nothing like as much as Georgia wanted.
The Russian government, meanwhile, have launched a hostile invasion of Georgia. Whatever you think of the folly of Saakashvili's government suddenly opting for a violent clampdown of South-Ossetian separatism, this is a hostile invasion of an independent country - and not restricted to South-Ossetia either, of Georgia proper.
The invasion is not all black and white, triggered as it was by Saakashvili's move to suppress South-Ossetia - but seriously, how can you look at that comparison and conclude that it's America who should be chided for being the bad, aggressive guy in the game?
To me, it all sounds perilously close to declaring the independence of the former Soviet states meaningless and declaring them, Yalta like, Russian vassal states regardless of their own feelings in the matter. It's a little alienating for me, and for many East-Europeans too, to see people over there basically just embrace Russia's notion that it has the right to do whatever the F it wants in those countries. And to consequently declare that any move on our part to establish a partnership with any of them, regardless of it being at their own pleading, is our "aggression".
It's especially alienating to hear such hardcore realpolitik concepts of blithely assigning states to the "zones of influence" of a couple of superpowers from liberal voices. Leftists rightly decried the vagaries of US politics in Latin-America, justly demonstrated against this notion that because El Salvador or Chile was in America's backyard, the US could do whatever it wanted, human rights, democratically elected governments and territorial integrity be damned. But when Russia aggressively stakes out the same claim on its near abroad, they readily assent that, well, that's just how things work, what can you do?
There's a shameful history of the West selling independent East-European countries out to Russian and German imperial claims. I'd expect liberals to be the last to just repeat the logic of Munich and Yalta about far away countries we're not really ready to help out anyway.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace