Reply
Thu 1 Oct, 2009 06:46 am
In summary, the report finds that Russia continuously provoked Georgia until they lost their temper and attacked illegally. Then Russia illegally invaded Georgia and was responsible for widespread atrocities against Georgian civilians. Russian claims of Georgian atrocities against Ossetians were an outright lie.
I find their conclusion that "Russia provoked Georgia" to be reasonable.
I did NOT find their conclusion that "Georgia started the war" to be reasonable. How is it that Russia's provocations don't count as starting the war, and Georgia's response to those provocations does count???
I find their conclusion that "Russia invaded Georgia illegally" to be reasonable.
I find their conclusion that "Russia was responsible for widespread atrocities against Georgian civilians" to be reasonable.
I find their conclusion that "the claims of Georgian atrocities against Ossetians were an outright lie" to be reasonable.
So, the question now is, how do we best protect the Georgian people (and the rest of Eastern Europe) from future Russian aggression. Russia is a deeply evil country, and it is only a matter of time before they are again waging war upon innocent people.
My suggestion is that Georgia be rushed into NATO and the EU, and their military be built up to the point where Russia cannot hope to defeat them.
In addition, we need to have a similar military buildup in Poland and the Baltics to prevent them from being victimized.
It would also be wise to build up strength in Romania, and also be prepared for the day we need to deploy into Ukraine to protect them. Ukraine may want to try the "neutrality thing" now, but sooner or later Russian aggression will push them to ask for NATO protection.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:I did NOT find their conclusion that "Georgia started the war" to be reasonable. How is it that Russia's provocations don't count as starting the war, and Georgia's response to those provocations does count???
Provoking is not the same as starting a war. If I call you ugly and you start shooting at me, you started the fight, not me.
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:oralloy wrote:I did not find their conclusion that "Georgia started the war" to be reasonable. How is it that Russia's provocations don't count as starting the war, and Georgia's response to those provocations does count???
Provoking is not the same as starting a war. If I call you ugly and you start shooting at me, you started the fight, not me.
I disagree. Shooting in such a circumstance would be illegal and would be an unwarranted escalation regardless of legality, but I don't see how it could be considered the start of the fight.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
My suggestion is that Georgia be rushed into NATO and the EU, and their military be built up to the point where Russia cannot hope to defeat them.
There's the NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC) to oversee NATO assistance to Georgia already since some time.
Well, the EU ordered that report, isn't it? That's part of the
relation between the EU and Georgia.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
In addition, we need to have a similar military buildup in Poland and the Baltics to prevent them from being victimized.
Poland and nearly all Baltic states are NATO-members, most EU-members or at least associated, too.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:I disagree. Shooting in such a circumstance would be illegal and would be an unwarranted escalation regardless of legality, but I don't see how it could be considered the start of the fight.
Well when it comes to war, the unwarranted escalation is pretty damn important. There's almost always some kind of silly "provocation" that can be cited for the aggressor to claim they didn't "start it" but that's pretty meaningless.
Georgia started this war, Russia helped create the conditions for it but they simply did not start the war.
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:
In addition, we need to have a similar military buildup in Poland and the Baltics to prevent them from being victimized.
Poland and nearly all Baltic states are NATO-members, most EU-members or at least associated, too.
Actually, Walter, it's not "nearly" all Baltic states. All three Baltic states (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) became NATO members on the same date a few years ago. I had the distinct honor of being the Latvian/English interpreter for the then Prime Mister (whose name I've conveniently forgotten
) in the Oval Office at the White House and afterwards in the Rose Garden when the new NATO members were welcomed by President Bush. I believe that Poland was already a member by then. The Baltic states were simultaneously admitted to the EU as well.
@Merry Andrew,
Actually, I know that of course and wanted to write that "nearly all countries on the Baltic Sea are NATO-members ..." but then thought about Kaliningrad region, Sweden, Finland ...
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:oralloy wrote:My suggestion is that Georgia be rushed into NATO and the EU, and their military be built up to the point where Russia cannot hope to defeat them.
There's the NATO-Georgia Commission (NGC) to oversee NATO assistance to Georgia already since some time.
Well, the EU ordered that report, isn't it? That's part of the
relation between the EU and Georgia.
What I mean is making Georgia a full member of NATO. And dramatically increasing their level of armament to the degree that they can repel the next Russian invasion.
Walter Hinteler wrote:oralloy wrote:In addition, we need to have a similar military buildup in Poland and the Baltics to prevent them from being victimized.
Poland and nearly all Baltic states are NATO-members, most EU-members or at least associated, too.
Yes. But there is not a huge buildup of forces to a degree that would enable them to repel a Russian invasion.
@Robert Gentel,
Robert Gentel wrote:oralloy wrote:I disagree. Shooting in such a circumstance would be illegal and would be an unwarranted escalation regardless of legality, but I don't see how it could be considered the start of the fight.
Well when it comes to war, the unwarranted escalation is pretty damn important.
True. But Russia's provocation was just as important, and came first.
And Russia's unwarranted escalation after Georgia's unwarranted escalation was also just as important.
Robert Gentel wrote:There's almost always some kind of silly "provocation" that can be cited for the aggressor to claim they didn't "start it" but that's pretty meaningless.
Russia's provocation of Georgia was neither silly nor meaningless.
Robert Gentel wrote:Georgia started this war, Russia helped create the conditions for it but they simply did not start the war.
I disagree.
@oralloy,
Quote:But there is not a huge buildup of forces to a degree that would enable them to repel a Russian invasion.
Isn't the whole idea behind a coalition like NATO that each individual country does not need a huge defense force because in case of an emergency (e.g. a Russian invasion) all the other member countries would immediiately come to the rescue?
@Merry Andrew,
Merry Andrew wrote:Isn't the whole idea behind a coalition like NATO that each individual country does not need a huge defense force because in case of an emergency (e.g. a Russian invasion) all the other member countries would immediiately come to the rescue?
In a way, but I always got the impression that during the Cold War a lot of NATO powers based heavy forces in West Germany in the hopes of being able to fight off a possible Russian invasion as it happened, rather than rallying to rescue West Germany after Russia had already invaded.
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
In a way, but I always got the impression that during the Cold War a lot of NATO powers based heavy forces in West Germany in the hopes of being able to fight off a possible Russian invasion as it happened, rather than rallying to rescue West Germany after Russia had already invaded.
Well, impressions are sometimes wrong.
Especially, when not founded by sources.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace