Georgia’s Defeat and America’s Options

From the desk of Joshua Trevino on Wed, 2008-08-13 17:33

What Mikheil Saakashvili began at his discretion, Vladimir Putin ends at his pleasure. The Russians have called a halt to their offensive in Georgia, and none too soon for the Georgians. What remains is the postwar settlement, and the American part in it.

A look at the situation on the ground speaks to the Russian dominance of the little Caucasian republic: the Russians have near-total freedom of movement in the western plain, with soldiers in Poti. Georgia’s only meaningful lifelines to the outside world are the port of Batumi, and the long road to Yerevan. Neither of these are significant corridors for supply, and the port is free only at Russian sufferance. Further war would have seen a battle for Tbilisi in the coming 36 hours. The Georgians would have lost, and the war thence would probably have devolved into guerrilla actions centered about a sort of Georgian national redoubt in the south — in regions populated more by Armenians and Azeris than by Georgians. To be spared all this is a mercy that Georgians, rightly inflamed by what’s been done in mere days, may not fully appreciate.

The postwar settlement remains thoroughly opaque, even if, as the Russians report, the conditions of a ceasefire are agreed. The Russian war aim was never announced — or rather, it only announced itself on the ground — and its political end remains obscure. The formal disposition of the Russian-occupied secessionist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia must be decided; the mechanisms of reparation, if any, must be agreed upon; and, most troublingly, the Russians are making noises about extraditing Saakashvili to the Hague. Here, a definitive settlement is to everyone’s advantage — not least the Georgians, who are ill-advised to act as if they are anything but beaten. Absurdities like putting Saakashvili in the ICC dock should be rejected, but otherwise, it is almost certainly best to let the Russians dictate their terms — and let resistance to those terms emanate from sources able to make that resistance count, like Europe and the United States.

With this in mind, the first task of America’s postwar policy in the Caucasus is distasteful in the extreme: pushing the Georgians to understand and act like what they are, which is a defeated nation in no position to make demands. This does not square easily with American sentiment — nor my own — nor with the Vice President’s declaration that Russia’s aggression “must not go unanswered,” nor with John McCain’s declaration that “today we are all Georgians.” Russia’s aggression and consequent battlefield victory will stand, and as the last thing the volatile Caucasus needs is yet another revisionist, revanchist state, it befits a would-be member of the Western alliance to make its peace with that. However inflammatory the issue of “lost” Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in the Georgian public square, it is nothing that the Germans, the Finns, and the Greeks, to name a few, have not had to come to terms with in the course of their accessions to the first tier of Western nations. We should not demand less of Georgia.

The second, and more enduring, task of our policy must be the swift containment of Russia. I use the term deliberately: to invoke another Cold War-era phrase, we’re not going to “roll back” any of Russia’s recent territorial gains, nor should we attempt to reverse what prosperity it has achieved in the past decade. (That prosperity, being based mostly upon transitory prices for natural resources, will itself be transitory in time.) Russia’s leadership has declared that it seeks the reversal, de facto if not de jure, of the “catastrophe” of the USSR’s end. Though not marked by any formal decision in the vein of Versailles, this is nonetheless a strategic outcome that America has a direct interest in preserving. That interest has only gone up with the admission of former Soviet-bloc states — and former Soviet states — to NATO. Inasmuch as Russian revisionism threatens the alliance that has kept the peace in Europe for generations now, it must be confronted and deterred.

The obvious question is how this may be done with the tools America has at hand. It is a media commonplace over the past several days that the United States has no leverage over Russia. This is false. American policy can and does tremendously affect several things of tremendous importance to Moscow. A brief (though not comprehensive) list of available pressure points follows:

First, the Ukraine. First and foremost, there is no former Soviet state that Russia wishes to have in its orbit more than the Ukraine. Not coincidentally, the Ukraine was also the only nation besides the United States to render Georgia material assistance in this war, when it threatened to deny Sevastopol to the Russian Black Sea Fleet. European reluctance to antagonize Russia scuttled the Ukraine’s potential NATO membership at the NATO Bucharest summit this past spring. In light of Georgia’s fate, issuance of a MAP, or even outright NATO membership, to the Ukraine, is an appropriate riposte to Russia’s war. Unlike Georgia, the Ukraine has no territorial or secessionist issues, nor an unstable leadership apt to launch unwinnable wars. It does, though, very much need the sort of guarantee that NATO exists to give.

Second, Russia’s G8 membership. The G8 is purportedly the group of the world’s largest industrial democracies. Russia, with a GDP smaller than Spain’s and a per-capita income lower than Gabon’s, was admitted in 1997 as a means of supporting its integration into international economic institutions. It’s a privilege, not a right, and it should be conditioned upon responsible membership in the community of nations. Expulsion of Russia from the G8 is a longtime policy favorite of John McCain’s, and it’s time to consider his preference.

Third, Russia’s client states. This is a short list, though Russian revisionism would wish to see it lengthen. Belarus is by far Russia’s premier client, followed by varying degrees of Russian influence over Armenia, Serbia, Azerbaijan, and the central Asian states. (We’ll exclude here clients like Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, all of which have statuses that are dubious at best.) We’ve already seen that Russia reacts to defend Belarus when the latter is criticized. An available pressure point, then, is to turn up the heat on the Belarusian regime — specifically with support of dissidents in Belarus — and link it explicitly to Russia’s behavior elsewhere.

Fourth, Russia’s dissidents. Russian public life is nowhere near Soviet depths, but it is nonetheless notable that the Moscow regime places a premium upon the control of journalistic institutions and media. (A great, English-language example of the slick and statist nature of modern Russian media may be found at Russia Today — note the stories on Georgian “spy rings” and refugees from Georgian aggression fleeing into Russia.) Divergence from the Putin line is a good way to end up unemployed or dead, and so we ought to lend what support we may to independent media personnel — and their means.

Finally, Russia’s Internet. A major tool of Russian foreign policy in the past few years is what may only be described as cyber-warfare. We saw it when Russia wished to punish Estonia [pdf], and we saw it again this week against nearly all of Georgia’s .ge-domain sites. This is a tremendously thorny problem, both because cyber-war by its nature affords the perpetrators plausible denial, and because it is quite easy to respond to a wrong with a wrong — in America’s case, by using its leverage over Californa-based ICANN to invalidate .ru domains from which Russian attacks emanate. Here, the basic functionality of the Internet must be balanced against political concerns — and there must be some mechanism for determining when political concerns from nations like Russia damage the basic functionality of the Internet.

Beyond applying pressure to Russia, American policy must focus upon reassurance to the NATO nations that expressed alarm at Georgia’s subjugation. NATO allies Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the Czech Republic all know quite well what it means to be crushed by the force of Russian arms, and all were therefore demonstrative in expressing their dismay at events in Georgia. If NATO and the American connection in particular is going to retain its meaning for them, it is up to us to provide the necessary reassurance. Although NATO is no longer a formally anti-Soviet (and therefore anti-Russian) alliance, we cannot pretend that it does not hold precisely that meaning for several of its member states. A failure to recognize this would concurrently weaken the alliance.

The war in Georgia is done but for the details, and the occasional sniping. Georgia lost on the first day, and Georgia has mostly — though not wholly — itself to blame. But if Georgia is prostrate, America and the West are not. If some good is to come of this, and if Russia’s adventure in its “near abroad” is to be its last, we must act decisively — and now.

@ KAPPERT

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-08-26 21:57.

I put the following question to you Alan Watts style.

 

Q:

 

 

Well, what's your answer?

@atlanticist

Submitted by mdavid on Tue, 2008-08-26 15:50.

Ok, but I have to let your question unanswered here on the site.

bye

@ kappert

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-08-24 20:38.

Would that be the same Alan Watts who said, "But to me -the negative, the empty- is exceedingly powerful" ?

 

If so, like me, don't you find it slightly confusing and hypocritical that he should write the word "paper" no less than SIX times on an empty sheet of paper, rather than practising what he professes to believe by leaving that single sheet of paper EMPTY ?

 

Ye Gods ! no wonder he is one of your heroes.

@ mdavid

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-08-24 17:01.

What's the point of "reading between the lines" of any kappert post when the lines themselves read like blank spaces?

@atlanticist

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-25 12:00.

please, ask the administrator to give you my email address; then send me a message.

Alan Watts

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-08-24 20:12.

This reminds me of the venerable Alan Watts:
" These words are written on paper
paper paper paper paper paper "

@ mdavid

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-08-24 09:37.

If you believe kappert has already answered my question kindly direct me to it. I am referring to an answer that matches up coherently with my question 'cause I can't seem to locate it anywhere on this thread.

@atlanticist

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-24 16:18.

a direct answer, if you mean that, you will not find it here; neither in other threads, probably

You will not get anything "better" than what is here already. I am satisfied with the answers I have got...and you saw how my posts were:full of reasonable questions. I read between the lines; you'll see I am right.

But, atlanticist, how the "heavyweights" from the left will answer ?

re: ugly world

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-08-19 21:05.

And how do you propose that China should protect this supposed future Chinese utopia other than by the use of their military might?

 

Clue: The answer to this question is the same answer as the one you failed to provide to my previous question(s) e.g. re: oil consumers, which is why you will fail to answer any of my questions. Am I right? 

re: Jump to China

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-08-19 20:56.

Are you seriously suggesting that this utopian piffle describes Chinese domestic and foreign policy, either in the past, present or future?

jump to China

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-08-19 16:34.

Can you govern your animal soul, hold to the One and never depart from it?
Can you throttle your breath, down to the softness of
breath in a child?
Can you purify your mystic vision and wash it until it is
spotless?
Can you love all your people, rule over the land without
being known?
Can you be like a female, and passively open and shut
heaven's gates?
Can you keep clear in your mind the four quarters of earth
and not interfere?
Quicken them, feed them;
Quicken but do not possess them.
Act and be independent;
Be the chief but never the lord:
This describes the mystic virtue.

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Tue, 2008-08-19 18:41.

Keep hitting them with hot air kappert, one day they will understand you. I won't.

re: oil consumers

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-08-19 14:51.

@ kappert

 

You say that you are in favour of downsizing our consumer behaviour (what about the Chinese?) and hardly see any benefits in exploring more and more fossil resources (the Chinese would disagree with you), nor building military-protected infrastructures (the Chinese?), which certainly end in military conflicts (are you suggesting that we should be fearful about the military intentions of the Chinese?).

 

OK but "downsizing" (try selling that idea to the Chinese) doesn't mean total eradication, does it? If not, then please tell me how you would protect (from the Chinese?) the reduced infrastructure you would need to maintain a downsized consumer society if you do not employ the military in that role.

@ mdavid

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-08-19 14:29.

I told you kappert couldn't face reality, didn't I?

 

Oh, he acknowledges YOUR 'reality' that YOU are right to centre YOUR questions on oil consumers (like yourself), but he refuses to centre HIS answers on the same problem (even though he is also an oil consumer like everybody else). No, instead, HE goes off into fantasyland and starts describing how he wishes the world SHOULD be rather than accepting it the way it IS.

 

Hopeless.   

@atlanticist

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-08-19 14:50.

Isn't it sad. Book recommendation:
Javier Esteban: El derecho a la ebriedad. Editora Amargord.

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Tue, 2008-08-19 20:01.

Obviously, Saak.was the first who thought about NATO helping him. He fall into a trap; the help comes only after georgia is "a little" destroyed.
Voronin does not have a good press here; very few realized, though, he wants only to suck up the bear, he was not genuine. You know he changed his postion several times; now he is more pro-Russian, apparently.
Basescu, another voluntarist, but with good analisys, adviced him Moldavia won't get any economic benefits from his pro-Russian stance. He's beeing suffocated by Russia, he does not have many alternatives. EU did not give him many chances for development. If this news is true, no wonder he walks this way...But he will not attack Transnistria; he is not in nato cards...
I assume you know what Transnistria is: they "own" the power plants needeed by Moldavia, maybe other facilities; Khruschev's doing: a poisonous gift. EU did not raise a finger... No wonder he had hopes. Now he is being justified in his choice: Russia, instead of EU quick membership access...It appeares he was genuine when he wished enter EU.

EU/NATO play a to complicated game with Russia and the countries within near abroad. With their fate, that is...
Bye..

@mdavid

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-08-18 21:35.

I understand what you meant and, believe me, so does kappert. But kappert can't face "reality", for to do so would require him to provide 'real'answers to 'real' questions. When was the last time you saw that happen? 

re: kappert - Nabisco thoughts

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-08-18 20:47.

@ mdavid

 

"I don't need necessarily an answer".

 

That's just as well, for when it comes to  failing to provide answers to questions posed, kappert truly 'takes the biscuit'.

@atlanticist

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-18 21:01.

No, this time I meant that. He lives in the same "reality" as I do - EU, Russia, etc. In fact for him it is more "striking":the economic aspects, that is; so, this is for him only.
I don't ask his answer for me; only to tell it to himself. he's free to post it, if he think's so..

The existence of pink (3)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2008-08-18 18:37.

"I agree to almost everything".

 

Please provide me wth an example of something from that piece on Georgia you DON'T agree with.

 

 

btw: What has Birmingham got to do with the question I asked you?

hitchens

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-08-18 17:16.

I agree to almost everything. The difference between Birmingham UK and AL is the rainfall i.e. sunshine hours.

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-18 19:51.

"eating his tie": not yet; but I have problems looking at him directly; sometimes he gives some information and I have to hear him; even so, I switch the channels from time to time, even if I loose what he say. He is not completely nuts, but with respect to Russia he's lost completely; Kouchner admitted it; and he is a diplomat currently.

Schroeder, the former German chancellor had a very good assesment: Saak. is a gambler - jucator la noroc: in traducerea romana a originalului- and is good G. is not a member of NATO. It is a good political evaluation.

------------------

From the legal pov:the Charter, 1966 Convention, etc., is Kossovo connected with SO/Abkh ? I believe SO has the right according to these documents, and K. case has no legal relevance.

If this is so, then all the world level propaganda of US/WE linked to Kossovo backfired in a form of a smoke screen Russia was able to use.

re: 24HR

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2008-08-17 22:31.

This evening (Sunday) kappert complains that:

 

"For almost 24 hrs you're discussing oil..."

 

 

On Wednesday, guess who initiated proceedings with the following post?

 

"This is a Russian-American competition for control of the strategic oil and gas reserves in this vast region..."

24hr

Submitted by kappert on Sun, 2008-08-17 21:56.

For almost 24hr you're discussing oil. After all, Mr Fischer was not so wrong, at all?!

@kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-18 18:59.

It wasn't "about oil vs SO/Abkh" in his piece which he wasn't right.

He is a German citizen, like yourself. Also, G. is a member of EU and one of the maintainers of economic activities in EU. And a huge exporter. The economic connections between Ru. and G. are (again) huge. Not to mention possible "behind the scenes" politics.

Since he took the matters in his hands to enlighten the "neutral" (and bourgeois, isn't it ?) german press, then: this is the context which determines the "look" of his analysis.
If you are an SAmerican, maybe you could write about geopolitical aspect only and about oil only. Even so, it would be dishonest: because part of elements who "creates" the WE answer is Russia initiated an aggresion: it was beyond defending it's peacekeepers; the oil part was hinted only by this "free excursions" of Russian forces; and this is an aggression; without these walks, you cannot distinguish betwwen legitimate response and pure aggression. Also an aggression against Georgians with Chechen and Osset. irregulars: they killed people on the spot(georgian witnesses appeared at romanian TV today). But he is not. I don't skip over Saak's actions, I am talking about R. answer which was overbroadcasted already; so since everybody on the globe knows, he cannot avoid any aspect.

Even if he wrote before all the events, attacking G. showed how far R. goes and so, by immediate "deduction", that NATO/EU is under attack - NATO idea was launched yesterday by a Rom.academic on international relations; I think he is right. So, not even the actors were indentified correctly.

It is not "oil" only; it is "oil bought legally" by EU from Azer. with the help of Geo. and Tur. via a pipepline privately operated by ...( it does not matter), pp found on georgian soil, under georgian soveireignity recognized by Russia. Only Georgia can decide the operation of the pp, because it has legitimate political control of the pp; this is the content of G's ownership.

The above paragraph is the "content" of oil item seen from Ger/EU pov. And the second paragraph of this post gives the context of his analysis which leads to the above meaning of "oil".

Second - and most importantly - Nabucco is under complete attack; the BTC was under an warning attack, it is not destroyed; but Nabucco has to be stoped for good. This is a "geopolitical" attack on EU itself. Only here, because Nab. does not exist yet, Mr.Fisch. can talk about "geopolitical"; but as long as he mentions the word attack, also.
This matters because EU - for a thousandth time - is directly implied; and Germany is over her head in this.
Geopolitical is for neutral observers only, kappert. Even Rom. is not directly affected; it is in indirect manner. Still, nobody stoped here short of "attack" issue. It is to obvious.

So, unless a politician even mediocre, which Mr.Fischer is not: foreign minister (!!!), says nothing about this details, he lies. More important, he did not mentioned EU, so he did not warned anybody in EU. And if these small details are known, then to whom this piece was addressed to ? To some guys who cannot put 2 to 2 together ?

I repeat: Mr.Fischer, an European - and German -put aside EU and G's borders; since Geo. is a NATO candidate, this also matters; Geo. itself is under attack - and it's population directly.

Mr.Fischer is green, left, green-left, etc. OK, I answered to his "hidden" ideological premise.
But it does not matter: anybody - an European - who paints the same "image" is dishonest, ideology or not. And this does not mean "we should attack Russia for a change"; but we need to know here who the targets are.

nabucco pipeline

Submitted by kappert on Mon, 2008-08-18 19:33.

Some thoughts on that pipeline project: "Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH will be the only company in direct contact with the shippers (one-stop-shop), and will operate as an autonomous economic entity on the market, acting independently from its parent companies." Given this (planned) structure, it will be a huge endeavor to bring the participating countries on one common line of management. Reading Iranian, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan press releases, these countries are eager either to participate or to sabotage the project. So is Russia. This is really a hot issue in the region for the coming years.

@kappert -Nabucco thoughts

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-18 20:18.

This question is beyond ideology; it goes directly to you as German/European citizen- and consummer.

Only the sending side matter here ? Or the shape of the economic organization ? The fact that you - kappert - are a direct beneficiary does not matter ? And mostly ? given the fact it is your life at stake...or it does not matter..

Why do you think the "ideologists" here tells you about "the utopia" you are interested ? There is simply no time to debate anything; although, myself I would preffer no polution.
The Russians will never give a damn if you are neutral or "objective"; this is serious bussiness for them; and for all the oil/gas producing countries.

I don't need necessarily an answer. The question is primarily for your thinking.

oil consumers

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-08-19 12:00.

You're right to center the question on the oil consumers. Though I am in favour of downsizing our consumer behaviour, I hardly see any benefits in exploring more and more fossil resources, nor in building military-protected infrastructures, which certainly end in military conflicts. But most people don't think that way.

@kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Tue, 2008-08-19 19:45.

Am I right ?
For the moment there is no alternative, kappert. The oil/gas will stay even for a transition period ...of two decades, at least.
It does not matter what are you favor in. Nor me. Atlanticist is right. China has an ec.programme of historical importance - for them. They will not downsize nothing. They have no time, so the more oil will be a debated issue the more their thirst of oil will grow ...above an already increased one. India is even worse:they have to switch to gas and nuclear...from coal, that is, in two decades. And they don't built manufactures...just big modern factories. Do you approach these countries too, or they have the "right" to do ...what ...?..it is not even clear what.

Again, it does not matter if you don't like that, or I don't like it.

You need energy for hospitals, schools; there are probably other emergency services; and tools for them, so you need industry, so you need etc., etc., etc. I thought myself many years ago about all of these; and it's highly unlikely to happen soon.

No, you are not right. I was reffering to our lives, kappert. You don't eat oil; so you are not "just" a consumer with many choices at your disposal. It is about your live, all your live; do you like computers ? energy, factories, pollution, you know... It is just an example

You have demands, but no workable sollutions ?
This_is ideology, kappert; no progresist stance.
It would be good to get rid of pollution and oil/gas use; but this is only for God; we are in a pit.

India, China ? Germany is there somewhere, too.
you have a huge and diversified economy, too. And if there is unimployment, Greenpeace will do what ...? demand for jobs - pollution - or for more unimployment ? to decrease the pollution...
Even if EU wants to go back to stone age, Asia will go ahead. And there are other countries who build military; China, Russia; and their armies have nothing to do with US having arms. If US gives them up, the others will not do it.
A peace and love era is not near soon, nor a Messiah...unfortunately.

I know for sure I cannot make you change your..wishes, demands, ideas,etc. We are on the net: I write what I want, you do the same. So, this is it.

@atlanticist/kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Tue, 2008-08-19 19:51.

Well, it is not a wonderful world, so no wonder he goes off into a fantasy land. Of course world can change, but I don't see any practical chance to happen; that my posts were about. The world can also stay the same; ugly, that is.

ugly world

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-08-19 20:29.

ok, less ideology - more solutions: Renewable energy resources should be 10% of China’s energy consumption by 2020 (it's a start). Two-thirds of China’s land area receives more than 2000 hours of sunlight annually. This gives China a potential solar energy reserve equivalent to 1700 billion tons of coal. And China has become a world leader in PV cell production: Shangde Solar Energy Power Company. China is also a world leader in solar thermal production and use, accounting for 55 percent of global solar heating capacity (excluding pool systems)—or 52 million m2 of collectors—that was by the end of 2003. The bad side: polysilicon waste is often not recycled, as the process is costly.

@kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Tue, 2008-08-19 21:27.

ugly means we are traped by ourselves; I don't think we can escape.
Of course I know the solutions; the guys here know also. What I asked was about something else.
To do it we need world collaboration - kind of anarchists' "program": mutual help -; and this is practicaly - not theoreticaly - impossible to achieve. Only this type of behaviour will get results. I won't continue with details; the post will be to long. this is ugly from "ugly world".
This makes your proposals as "utopian", kappert. Not the technical impossibility.

- although it won't like you, I will give you a hint on "ugly"; you say what China "should" do; do you think they will listen to you ? or me ?

difficult to cure

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-08-19 21:45.

As I said 'should', you may assume that it is my wishful-thinking speaking. Nevertheless, 'anarchy' produced market-oriented economy in the 19th century. Maybe ...

@kappert-difficult to cure

Submitted by mdavid on Wed, 2008-08-20 12:06.

Oh, I meant just that:mutual help/collaboration.
Not any ideological/or of any other type element involved for me, at least. If you go too theoretical - in general - you'll get nowhere..

"Maybe...": one can not isolate, unfortunately. Here "maybe..." works; but in Malaysia, for instance ? Or in SAmerica ?...

"Difficult to cure" - There is no blame; but you have to talk to too many people..

@atlanticist/traveller kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-24 06:49.

traveller/atlanticist: let kappert lightly, I think you are smart to see he answered you already. I was insistent enough. my questions remain, for all of us

kappert: I missunderstood your question about Snake(s) Island; and final: having hopes is what we can do at least.

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 20:09.

From time to time I ask general questions, not necessarily related to concrete questions. I was "surfing" UN's site then precisely for one general question - that's why I read the Charter and 1966 Convention and other documents -,only afterwards I searched 1244 UNSC res.

You "showed" you have legal knowledge, hence some of my questions.

No, you were right: UN members has the freedom not to recognize indepedance claims. Correct !; if this is 1244 all about...

Also, my phrasing has some problems - I think faster than I write (!!). Yes, Klaus mentioned Russia. But I felt the need to add information to what Russia's "concrete" "guilt" could be: the effect of "overwhelming response". Maybe it was pointless, given Klaus' remark. This in turn justifies WE actions: you know they used that. I wished to introduce and a third side in this picture. But... this is debatable..

The SO and Abkh. has the right to indep. Still, US and comp. have the - legal -right to reject it, even without justifications.
You say they are morally wrong if they do ? Agree, but politics is "morally neutral"...or so what they say...

I saw today Saak's interview on CNN: he is boring: democracy and freedom every 10 seconds. Either he is scared - or he knows the entire game. I switched channels every now and then.

Russian military presence: I know about the bases; I answered to "military presence since 1801". I "picked" the operational meaning of your point, trying to prove here you are not right. I don't think they inherited the obligation of hosting a "walkable" army unit, like 57th Army is now:inside Gori now, outside Gori again, etc. Remember: Medvedev, Serghei Ivanov et comp. justified their presence other way; as for their moves they denied the trops are on the move , but afterwards they mentioned security reasons - connected with Saak's actions, not with legal framework of post USSR.
Akira, it does not matter: preventive actions were invoked here also; as Nezavisimaia gazeta wrote: we do what US does.

The Russian bases status was not mentioned these days; they probably were outside the action. 57th came from Russian territory.
But from now on it will be interesting: Russians will reject the withdrawall of these bases.

Akira, I differ with you on: my tone is less stronger and I am skeptic on invoking moral in all these matters. But WE m.o. is criminal sometimes. If you read my posts carefully you will see that. I posted about politics to prove Mr. Trevino's approach is not right. Also, I preffer not to restrain myself to legal matters. At least, the region in which I live makes me so.

@ Russian apologist

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-08-17 12:25.

I know Russian individuals are generous, warm and big hearted.
However they never stood up against brutal dictatorship, except once and that was the bravery of one man: Yeltsin.
He never repeated it again and lost track of his aims.
Russians are individually mostly marvelous human beings, but as a group they are slaves to their regime, whoever is in charge.
Russians have no problem killing political ennemies, their whole history is witness to that.
My personal hundreds of boozy and warm discussions with Russians have given me a serious insight in the Russian soul.

@kappert

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 06:12.

Oh, "other" countries - you are german ; and are you sure NATO did not answer according to their document: attack on one country will be met by a response from other members ? Also, I believe they have UN mandate there. Also, there is a alliance, although with al kind of problems, in this "war on terror".

Yes, BP is the main operator of both Baku pipelines; you know they are built based on political agreement of Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaidjan. Second, even if you talk about "subtleties" - who own the pipeline, since the states have political control there -,
what matters is Russia's wish of gaining full political control - on their side - of an asset already owned; the resources there are not without ownership; Mr.Fischer was dishonest with that type of analysis. Because there is already a war there, you cannot write what Mr.Fischer wrote. You can not overlook these details. Otherwise, it is just about R. and US. fighting on some assets in which nobody else is interested: neither EU, nor Georgia. Either the audience knows all the details, if not you have to indicate them. EU is part of the conflict too, even at this "high level" of description; and it is under attack. And since Georgia owns his part of pipeline( probably taxes for tranzit) Russia wants to take what is not hers. Such kind of analisys - Fischer - works for Arctic resources, for instance.

No, she did not speak (I assume).Oset and Abhk. has the right to claim their independance. But Oset, at least, are not innocent either in this conflict.
Since Russia's interests are the problem, she could not speak to Georgians either. Unless R. does not stop this, the people there cannot receive anything, but empty words. What could she say ? Sorry for the problems ? And then, what ? Russia will still be there. And complicating things.

Afghanistan is a failure; to many fights between allies and probably to many errors of all kind on the ground. Unfortunately, again, this search for details, leads you kappert to nowhere. Today, Al-Q has a vast interest in Taliban, not only as a possible benevolent host, like in 2001. So, taliban are today part of the war on terror.

PS. go to UN's site; they mention a body of UN against Al-Q and Taliban.

The existence of pink

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2008-08-16 22:03.

@ kappert

 

The existence of pink need not undermine your ability to distinguish between white and red. Likewise, the existence of white and red need not undermine your ability to accept the existence of the colour pink.

ownership # 3

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-08-16 20:49.

1) Kappert informs the readership about the ownership distribution of the Georgian pipeline, and ends with the rethorical question "where is Georgia"?.   When it is explained to him why there is nothing wrong with the ownership distribution, and why it would not make sense for the Georgian state to risk its scarce resources on a pipeline investment, he has nothing more to say.  Does he address the arguments presented?  He does not.  What he does do is parrot irrelevant nonsense about "capitalist economy" etc...  He even suggests or implies that the Georgians are racists, and that they would not be able to make the distinction between a responsible African leader and a destructive African ideologue. Such seems to be the state of the 'German(ic)' teachers profession today.

 

2)  It gets worse.  A real racist, Armor, feels the urge again to demonstrate that he still cannot read. 

 -- The subject raised by Maple Syrup was not what "Europeans" want, but what governments do.  Governments deal with other governments, they do not deal with "Europeans".  They must deal with the European governments that Europeans put in power.

-- If European governments "betray" (w.r.t. Turkish entry into the EU) their own peoples, then the blame belongs squarely with these European governments, and not with anyone one.  EU entry is decided by EU governments, and not by the governments of  Brazil, or China, or the US, or Canada, etc.... 

3) The sad thing about much of contemporary naive-left European 'culture' is that it is not only the nutty left (as represented by Kappert here) and the ruling elites that are incapable of assigning blame were it belongs, but many on the European 'right' (as represented by Armor here) as well.

Armor behaves like many obsessed American blacks, who have been conditioned to see EVERYTHING through a racial lens. Armor is incapable of reading the debate between Maple Syrup and myself which was about governmental behavior regarding Turkish EU entry, and judging it on its own terms. All he can do is to repeat for the umpteenth time his contention that western governments are determinned to replace their "white people" with nonwhite people. Well, I can only say that if that were true those governments would be (or are) truly wrong and stupid. But all this is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the issue that Maple Syrup raised.

humble bow

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 21:00.

We should all admit that marcfrans is unbeatable. He capability to toss around lefties and righties, racists and -, äh, well, the contrary, policies and governments, EU and US. And all in this eloquent english!

@ Kappert

Submitted by cephran on Sun, 2008-08-17 05:09.

"We should all admit that marcfrans is unbeatable. He capability to toss around lefties and righties, racists and -, äh, well, the contrary, policies and governments, EU and US. And all in this eloquent english!"

Kappert,

The beatings/thrashings/slap downs you take from Marcfrans are fun to read. You’re like a battered wife who can’t help but come back for more.

Marcfrans makes mince meat out of you because your arguments (if we can call them that) are naïve and consistently found wanting.

When, oh when, will you ever learn that YOU”RE NOT IN MARCFRAN”S LEAGUE?

Your need for a daily ”Mike Tyson-like” lashing from Marcfrans is masochistic in nature.

Boy is it fun to watch, err, read.

ownership # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-08-16 17:10.

Imagine Kappert being the president of Georgia. He presides over a republic that only recently (less than 20 years ago) escaped the clutches of a totalitarian empire and, as a result, has an income-per-head of less than 10 percent of that of the EU. This means it has a third-world income level, but it has the clear potential of joining the developed world, both in terms of human capital, and because of recently-instituted reforms of market liberalisation. (Even the Chinese communists and the socialist Indian central planners had shown the way).   The upshot of all this is that the Georgian government has very scarce resources (because it has a very low 'tax base').

Under the real circumstances described above, would it make sense for the Georgian state to invest its scarce resources in a risky pipeline?  Of course, not!  Putin has just shown that he can shut the pipeline down any time he wants to.  So, it would be much more sensible for the Georgians to charge transit 'fees' for the oil, and let the very real investment risk be borne by BP, Chevron, Statoil, etc....They are willing to risk these resources because of the prospect of making sizable profits on rich country markets where the oil is destined to go.  

 

 And that is of course what responsible presidents do.  They let multinational corporations compete, let them use their capital resources for risky investments, and tax the income created to advance the welfare of their people.  It is the difference between, say, a RESPONSIBLE president in Botswana versus an IDEOLOGUE (and hater) in Zimbabwe.  Kappert would fall in the category of ideological third-world presidents...to the detriment of his people.   

president

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 19:54.

I rather not be promoted to president of whatever. But I'm sure that you are the ideal candidate for President of Europe. With THAT accumulated wisdom of capitalist economy, you'll beat any Barroso, Aznar, Sarkozy, or whoever. Beware of visiting Georgia, though, comparing them with Botswana or Zimbabwe shouldn't please them.

ownership

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-08-16 16:38.

@ Kappert

Are you now competing with Akira and mdavid in sillyness?  Who owns BMW or Mercedes Benz?

What does ownership of the pipeline matter?  Is it not a good thing that the pipeline is owned by a diverse group of private companies who have invested a lot of money in it?

It is in the interest of the European public at large that its supply of energy is as diverse as possible. That it comes from a wide variety of efficient private companies, and is as much as possible shielded from political considerations abroad.

Why should the struggling state of Georgia waste its scarce resources on investing them in a very risky venture like a pipeline? 

These are all rethorical questions, of course, because it is well known that you do not respond to direct probing questions.   You prefer to parrot ideologically-based prejudices.   

private ownership

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 16:44.

Of course, marcfrans is defending private ownership, specially when it comes to energy or military equipment. Whether it is a good thing, as he proclaims, I have serious doubts. The privates earn a lot of money with fossil resources, they wouldn't with solar energy. But that's another discussion ...

@ kappert

Submitted by traveller on Sat, 2008-08-16 17:03.

When you are stopped by a red light, do you wait or do you turn around to find a street without red light?

who owns the pipeline

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 12:05.

BP (30.1%); AzBTC (25.00%); Chevron (8.90%); Statoil (8.71%); TPAO (6.53%); Eni (5.00%); Total (5.00%), Itochu (3.40%); INPEX (2.50%), ConocoPhillips (2.50%) and Amerada Hess (2.36%). Where is Georgia???

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 06:26.

I was asking about a general problem, not related to a specific one; about this point in another - lengthier - post.

I don't know what you understood from what I wrote.

1. I wrote about 1244; I saw it 1 year ago when I read also the Charter in full on UN's site; I also read other documents there, not in full, though.

Still, now I see a problem: 1244 comes against the Charter, stating - indirectly - Kossovars have no right to claim independance.

2. I wrote K'rs have no historical rights to claim independance. Currently there are no data to support it.

3. SO and Abhk. has this right. In fact, they have this right independantly of K. But K. case works in favor of Russia.

4. Klaus also mentions Russia's answer. I also mentioned this because I wanted to show I know about these details also; and they matter, ethnicity and indepedance right aside. He obviously knows and the "real" reasons of Russia's actions, too. And again, K's case is in Russia's favor. Another WE mistake. I agree with Klaus. But Russia also attacked whatever political stability was in Georgia. And ordinary Georgians to "change" their minds about Russia, not about SO and Abhk.

5. I am interested in practical aspect only on these issues - and the validity of the arguments, as much as I get them -. If you want to do something which has unbereable consequences, don't do it.

Saak. misundersood what WE is prepared to do. Russia is a destination of foreign investments. Also, a major player in energy market. WE has her hands tight by herself.
But he was also right from political pov with his warnings before August 8. The Russian provocations were also true. And Russia's "real" reasons are true. That's a problem, Akira.

It would be better if georgians would accept SO's and A's independance.

"The sui generis" argument is (also)not valid. It has no legal meaning and the "process" was initiated by WE(Austria, etc) during 1980s. I am from the region, I know these details. Also, they were known by Rom.leadership; I knew by intuition, but Ceausescu had good intelligence which were given to Yug.; they did not believe him.

As I said, I am interested in practical matters only.
To sum up: my pov is WE complicates things as much as it can be; and without arguments in case they use them or without any possible practical meanings. The rest of my postings are details aimed to answer various questions. marcfrans already called me silly, but K is (another)WE blunder. This was my point and I had to detail it.

I am mdavid, not ROMAN(Romanian).

PS. just a specific mention: Russia's troops had no right to be there after Georgia declared independance in 1991. Russia recognized G. as a state. Also, the OSCE agreement forbade Russia's troops - except the peacekeepers - to be there.
And it is true. Russia had none of them before August 8. The 57th(58th ?) army entered SO 12 hours after Saak's actions started.

@ mdavid

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-08-17 11:52.

I have a certain sympathy for you.
You are trying to be legalistic, rational, locally informed and pragmatic, all in one.
You can save yourself a lot of time by looking at the way Russia is treating BP in the TNK case. They have absolutely no legal ground whatsoever and the other shareholders, with Friedman as the old "friend" of certain American interests in the driving seat, are a bunch of high level gangsters.
Notwithstanding this the Russian bureaucracy is completely supporting Friedman and the other gangsters, and the West should be well advised to seize all assets of those gangsters where they can hit them, inclusive the assets of Putin, 40 billion US$, more or less.
The same goes for their Georgian "operation".
Stop trying to make sense out of it, the Russians don't give a shit about the Abkhazians and the Ossetians, tomorrow they would be killed if that suits the Kremlin.
Russia wants to block the efforts of the US and Turkey in the region and Georgia is the weakest link. End of story.

BTW, I am one of the biggest fans of the Russian soul, I love it, but Russian Czars/Party-secretaries/Presidents are a continuation of dictatorship and extremely dangerous.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 19:25.

When I heard BP has a joint venture of that size in Russia - many years ago - I asked myself why are they (BP) doing this ? The course of today was predicatble before the joint venture started; you may not believe me, but you also know the reasons I had. I am surprised BP is still in Russia; maybe they will be lucky in the end, but BP leaving Russia - or staying for other type of arrangements with much more state control attached to them - is the only way I see now - as several years before. Oil resources as political weapons were obvious even during Brezhnev's years. You know why Ceausescu built Cernavoda reactor. Putin just took it from there.

My reasoning was simple, traveller. If Ru. wants to stay a world power a la russe: with an explicit influence to scare people they had only one way to do it - military force was "downplayed", ideological ways were finished, so economy was left and it was the only way. Creating a US like economy does not bring immediate influence - again Russian "style" - so, to create such an influence and to adapt the plans to Russia's conditions what was the way to go ? Resources: oil and gas they have plenty. And steel, aluminium, also. With them you have political control of entire economies and for decades.So, it was obvious Ieltsin period was an exception. TNK is part of this processas as an "ally" of kremlin, like other economic institutions and bussinessmen. BP's share of Russia's resources is too big, if my knowledge is correct.

You did not read my posts with attention. I posted extensively on geopolitical reasons of Russia today. In fact, almost all my posts were addressed to Mr. Trevino: to stop the military approach, and get into political side when it comes about Russia's intentions. They are all in one, military side being determined by the political side.

But K's case is a mistake and it is use by Russia; I use partially the determined tone of Akira because K, SO and Abkh. are mistakes. Also Saak risked his people lifes, even the BJ's commentaters (Handllery, Trevino) wrote about Saak. If there is a fact there, I try not to avoid it, traveller. And depending of the scale of the mistake, the tone should be choosen likewise.

Traveller: Russia's answer would have been reaching the borders of SO and, just maybe, with advances within G.itself, but at this scale. If it was only SO. But K. acts like a smoke curtain. Confusion reigns there so for several days - needed by Ru. - they could do what they want. It does not matter if K's mentioning is legitimate or not, or if Ru. has geopolitical reasons only. Saak's actions were a good reason for Ru. to intervene: they amagalmated everything here. Why ? Because US/WE made from K. a beacon of propaganda.

My guess is SO and Abkh. have nothing to do with K - from the legal pov. They may claim independance without being connected with K's case itself. They have a better case.

Also: it stroke me yesterday - a former diplomat said something on TV - Saak was chosen - without knowing ? - as a perfect pawn to attack Russia with a smart propaganda operation. By the WE - Fr. and Ger. - and US.
Georgia's NATO membership was the starting point and is still on the table. Complicated and cynnical game, traveller. You can figure out the details

I will give you one hint: Dateline London from BBCWNews features from time to time a french journalist, Marc Roche from Le Monde: a leftist and nationalist, not smart, but a spiner of situations. Today he said Poland is in her right to host the shield, it is NATO country, it is a NATO shield, etc. also:Why Russia has any bussiness in it ? Le Monde was until now acid towards Poland, the shield, Czech republic, look they have opposition in these countries against the shield, US is obssesed with this shield, is provoking Russia, etc.
Russia gave the reason to be under a "justifiable" attack without chances to win. WE/US officials are extremely relaxed. Russia proved to be aggresive, etc. The "small" problem is just some Georgians, Ossetians, etc.

@ mdavid

Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2008-08-17 19:59.

I was practically permanently in Russia when BP invested in TNK.
I thought it was a mistake but the attraction of the big reserves owned by TNK was too big.
The fact that I thought it was a mistake, since at the same time I was "studying" the Russian impossible tax-code and I saw that the premises for normal business were not there; does not mean that Russia has the right to steal from BP and from Shell.
For Russia "stealing", "killing" and generally any illegal international action is always justified when it's in the "intrest" of Russia.
The Russian people accept this without any qualms and this has given Russian leaders always a free hand for any foreign or domestic adventure. Couple to that the present material greed of the top personalities and you have a maffia state. Putin has become a billionaire with the Gazprom shares and the "Baikal" comedy.
THAT'S the problem, not the poor Chechens, Abkhaz or Ossetians which are pawns in the Russian strategy, with or without Kosovo, Russia has never been short in their search of explanations for a foreign operation.
In this case it's the disruption of the axis Azeri/Georgia/Turkey and the connecting oil-and gas transport control from Central Asia and the Caspian Sea which was the target, combined with the Iran link.
The move was brilliantly executed but it's foreign strategy, not the defense of the poor local populations.
The only valid reaction is the legal seizure of the Russian assets, inclusive Putin's in the world whereever they are, by BP and by Georgia, for reparations.
I don't know if those entities will have the guts but it would be enormously effective. You give the bear a bloody nose and he withdraws and has respect for the puncher, Russian history.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 20:18.

So, I was right with BP's share in Russia's oil: 25% of their oil known deposits ? Less than that ?
The laws are designed in purpose, I wonder BP did not figure it out- they must have political analysts; and a historian or two.
Two goals: to fool the foreigners like BP in case it needs be done, and to support the enrichment of those knowledgebeale - especially Kremlin's allies: the plunder of national resources to get the capital needeed by Kremlin's men.

But, I repeat: SO, K and Abkh. plays very well for Putin and his siloviki: propaganda reasons.

@ mdavid

Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2008-08-18 07:57.

I think 25% is too high.
The problem with those figures is that they were originally assembled by the Soviet oil ministry, using Soviet technology.
Since Western companies started coming to the Russian fields the reserve figures have been climbing steadily because the Western methods are much more sophisticated.
The biggest joke was Gazprom. After the Soviet collapse Gazprom needed capital and their Western advisors told them to go on the New York stock exchange.
When an oil company goes on the stock exchange they have to list their assets, here the reserves were the main assets.
The US oil companies laughed when they heard the Soviet figures for Gazprom until Western teams of geologists and specialists came back after a year of studying the known Gazprom gas fields(they have many fields they didn't even touch). The Western analysts came to the conclusion that the known reserves were bigger than those of any Western oil/gas company.
It is very difficult to put percentages on those figures.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Mon, 2008-08-18 19:23.

Thank you for your kind words and - another one - for you helping me not waste my time: the explanations from a previous post.

25% was a figure I heard some time ago. Of course is big, maybe reffers to BP's reserves; or maybe not. But I assume BP's Russian joint venture is "vital" for BP's reserves size.

"W.companies laughed": you understand now why - here, in EE - we are talking about WE/US stupidity. It is about a stubborn denial of reality, rejection which takes place - always - without going to see what happens here - in EE and Russia. W. oil companies mean the best bunch of oil specialists in the world; what's left to say ?

The chief of Intel Russia - an American - said 2 years ago: Russians are the best at solving problems, Indians are second, Americans the third. One can learn from here - and not to be scared; the top can be reversed.

@traveller

Submitted by mdavid on Sun, 2008-08-17 19:28.

thank you for your information on Russia, anyway; it is wellcomed.

Btw. I try to read all the posts here with as much attention I can. You posted another detailed post on Russia's actions; a kind of "bottom line". I saw it.

--------------
Editing the previous post: Saak was a pawn for WE to start a justified attack of WE/US on Russia after Saak's crazy actions would have been met by this "geopolitical" attack of Russia which in turn Russia would have considered as a an oportunity to get justification for a pending action. It was no secret for WE/US. They watched the region carefully. I hope my english is not a big problem for you to understand what I wrote - the ideas at least...

US/WE officials look relaxed: not just a deduction, I saw them. They are calm, and not nervous:Gates, Sarkozy, Merkel, Lugar - today on CNN. Richard Horner, former Ambassador to Nato was almost in extatic state yesterday. Saak is extremely "calm"... OK, maybe Merkel is somehow furious, but even her "fury" looks strange; or maybe I am paranoic (!).

Territorial integrity of sovereign nations

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-08-16 19:33.

Akira said: - When Germany, Canada, UK, US etc demand that Russia "respect the territorial integrity of a sovereign nation" after what they did to Serbia, they should choke on their own lying hypocritical tongues. They have ZERO credibility.

By the way, the main concern of Germany should be for the territorial integrity of Germany itself. I'm told that they cannot ask Poland to give back any territory, as the Germans were expelled from there a long time ago. But at least, they should demand the unification of Alsace with the rest of Germany. Failing that, they should ask the french government to stop its policy of suppressing the German language in Alsace, as well as its policy of replacing the locals with third-world immigrants.

a final

Submitted by mdavid on Sat, 2008-08-16 05:33.

I guess the comments on these two articles about Georgia covered almost everything.

With one exception: I could not learn all the details about Russia's preparations; last night on another news channel, they said there are now data available. The provocation hypothesis was considered as being something "that goes without saying". Some details would be military manoeuvres undertaken by Russia last year with the same units used last week and with the same type of forces; they took place in Abhka. during May.

Also, provocations by Osets inside the Georgian third of South Oset. during 1-8 Aug. this year, but they were routine in the last 4 years. Saak. wanted a dialogue with peacekeepers and Oset., to stop the shootings. Russians said they don't control the Osets.; the Osets did not want to talk. Saak. - added the same head of a research centre - warned the West about a planned Russian operation; WE refused to consider it, saying Russia does not have the capability to mount any military operation.
I guess the shield, Kossovo and the gas supply made WE to reach this conclusion.

I will side with a VP of Social Democrats in my country, a brilliant guy, former official in foreign policy: he said that, provocation or not, Saak. attacked and Russia answered too strong.

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Sat, 2008-08-16 05:44.

I hope I understood at least something from your post about international law.

1. If teritorial integrity is separated from sovereignity, then what is the "content" of this last concept ? It appears to be "empty": you are sovereign, but on a "variable" teritory; it is not a prerogative of a soverreign state to manage its teritorial integrity ? I know what happened during 1960-1980 with the new states was undescribable. Still, the questions above seems legit, ...to me at least

2. If a nation is not recognized, then UN Charter and the Convention from 1966 are not operational; for instance, Russia does not recognize Kossovars as a nation, beyond resolution 1244. Corect, or not ?

containment # 2

Submitted by marcfrans on Sat, 2008-08-16 01:54.

@ Maple Syrup

Your response is pretty disappointing. It is as if you have not read what you are responding to.  Why must everything be repeated?

1) Canadian support for Turkish EU membership has nothing to do with Stephen Harper.  It is longstanding Canadian policy, and was just as much 'embraced' by his recent 'liberal' predecessors Chretien and Martin. And why shouldn't it be?  Most of the world pays lip service to that because that is what the Turks want, and why needlessly antagonise someone about something one has no direct control over?  The Brazilian president, the Chinese president etc...they are all officially in favor of Turkish membership of the EU.  The point is that such membership is decided by the major EU states, and no one else.  And as long as the EU does not formally oppose the idea, the rest of the world, including the US and Canada, has nothing to lose by verbally 'supporting' such a Turkish aspiration.   

2)  Words are cheap, they mean next to nothing. It is actions that speak.  Putin knows that, but you do not seem to know it.  Words (about Turkish EU relations) from Rice, Powell, or anyone else for that matter, are no proof of "gung ho". Neither are 'European' statements of suport for democracy in former soviet states, etc... Only actions matter. These words... it is called 'diplomacy' and/or cynicism, and that is supposedly what western naive-lefties and other 'automatic' America-haters so desperately want more of.  

Containing Marcfrans

Submitted by Armor on Sat, 2008-08-16 19:30.

Marcfrans wrote: "Most of the world pays lip service to that because that is what the Turks want, and why needlessly antagonise someone about something one has no direct control over?"

Most Europeans want the Turks to stay out of the EU. Why needlessly antagonize them over something the USA can do nothing about?

But are we sure the USA can do nothing about it? How come most European governments are anxious to betray their own peoples and let the Turks into the EU? How does it work? Have they been bought off?

"The point is that such membership is decided by the major EU states, and no one else"

Saying this is saying nothing. How do major EU states reach their decisions? They certainly do not consult their peoples. Do they blindly follow an international anti-white ideology? Are their decisions bought by money? How come Western governments implement the same anti-western policies, both in the USA and in Western Europe?

Russia/USSR

Submitted by dbostan on Sat, 2008-08-16 00:18.

Bolsheviks in charge or not, the russians behave the same way.

They are an uncivilized horde killing and pludering at will.

That's why NO neighbor likes them.

Just look at the reaction of all countries that "enjoyed" the russian "brotherhood and fraternity".

No one wants to be in bed with them, except, maybe, Armenia, and that only because they are more scared of the turks than they are of the russians.

It is time for the moronic western "leadership", including that in the USA, to wake up and smell the gun powder.

Because, this smell will extend...

U.S., Turkey ,and EU membership

Submitted by Maple syrup on Fri, 2008-08-15 23:22.

Yes, our prime minister has backed the U.S. in its support of Turkey joining the EU. No surprise, really. Stephen Harper has backed the U.S. in most areas of foreign policy, including the recent conflict over South Ossetia. He does so partly because he thinks Bush is a fellow ‘conservative’ and partly because he thinks the US will reciprocate, particularly in matters of trade.

The same mental calculation has been made by other world leaders. Do I have to mention their names?

“I do not see any evidence that the US has been "gung ho" about Turkey joining the EU.”

A quick Google search came up with the following hits for “U.S. Secretary of State” + Turkey + “EU membership”. I could have easily found more.

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, welcoming the EU’s decision on Turkey’s accession talks, said the move reflected “Turkey’s impressive reform accomplishments” and was “a great success for both Turkey and the EU.” Washington is “confident that the accession process and Turkey’s eventual membership in the European Union will bring great benefits to Turkey and the EU,” he stated. Powell added that “a Turkey that is firmly anchored in Europe and sharing European values will be a positive force for prosperity and democracy” and will be “good for Turkey, for the broader European region, and for the United States.” - December 21, 2004

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice helped rescue Turkey's bid to join the EU on Monday in an unusual intervention in European affairs prompted in part by U.S. concern that the block was interfering with NATO. - October 3, 2005

Containment

Submitted by marcfrans on Fri, 2008-08-15 20:37.

@ Maple Syrup

1) "If I had a choice....".     Well, we do not have a choice.  It may well be that Turkey will need to be contained in the future, but in present circumstances it is Russia (or Putin) that needs to be contained, because high energy prices on world markets have re-ignited old imperialistic ambitions and, therefore, threaten some of Russia's neighbors.

2)  It is only common sense to try to contain Russia through regional 'alliances', south of Russia (Georgia/Azerbajan/Turkey) and in eastern Europe.  Just like the six-party framework in East Asia is intended to contain North Korea in a sense, etc...  

3) The US cannot "promise" Turkey to become an EU member.  Such membership is entirely determined by the major EU nations, and by nobody else.  The US can only offer (cost-free) verbal assistance in that regard, as does most of the world (to please the Turks).

Also, I do not see any evidence that the US has been "gung ho" about Turkey joining the EU.  But, I see a lot of evidence of naive westerners, like yourself, who are gung-ho on attributing nefarious motives to US governments. It is a form of self-destructive self-hatred.   By the way, your Canadian government is also officially (and gratuitously) in favor of Turkey's entry into the EU.

4) The US can offer to 'seek' (or work for) NATO membership for Georgia, but for that it needs the agreement of its European partners in NATO, which so far has been withheld.    

Who should we be containing?

Submitted by Maple syrup on Fri, 2008-08-15 18:31.

"Since 2003 the US is trying to bring to life a Turkish/Azerbaidjan/Georgia military cooperation pact and an economic powerhouse of those 3 countries together. This would bring the Turkish army, the 4th biggest in the world, as protector of a pro-American alliance right at the backdoor of Russia and take any possibility away from the Russians to interfere in the Uzbek/Turkmenistan/Azerbaidjan oil and gas market and would assure the protection of those strategic countries for the US. The US had already a military agreement with Georgia and Turkey to start this operation. In return the US had to promise Turkey and Georgia to become member of the EU for Turkey and of NATO for Georgia, both promises didn't happen until now."

I was wondering why the U.S. was so gung ho about Turkey joining the EU.

In this, as in so many things, U.S. policy-makers seem to be guided by short-term economic and military interests. If Turkey enters the European Union, there will be a flood of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe. And this flood of legal immigrants will facilitate the much larger inflow of illegal immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East. Western Europe will become between one-third and one-half Muslim within a very short time.

Is this a reasonable price to pay for containing Russia? Frankly, if given a choice, I would sooner contain Turkey.

@ Maple syrup

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-08-15 18:51.

You are right but this was/is an American strategy, not a European one. The US didn't think about the muslim immigration in Europe when they developed this strategy.
It would have been much better to let Turkey develop their own strategic thinking, they would have come to the same conclusion without the European carrot.
The axis Azeri/Turkey/Georgia is a beauty by itself and the Azeris can never risk to lose control to papa Bear, they know him too well.

@ all

Submitted by traveller on Fri, 2008-08-15 15:48.

I have had enough buccolic pictures now of lazy Georgian wine guzzlers versus oppressed Ossetians and Abkhaz innocents.
Of the 70.000 Ossetians, how many were ethnic Georgians, muslims etc.?
Mind you we are talking 20 people per square km, or approx.one farm family per square km.
Further those innocent Abkhazians, known to be only intrested in making a buck or two from some honest drug dealing, weapons smuggling and the occasional nuclear fission material like any other farm community, took also care to clean their territory of some unnecessary Georgian rodents, all 200.000 of them, who cramped their style and dirtied the buccolic landscape.
All this under the benevolent eyes and guidance of mother Russia and with the approval of little fathers Medvedev and Putin.

Jezus Christ almighty, who is kidding who here.
I did not read a word from all those specialists, linguistic and others, about the real cause of the Russian actions:
Since 2003 the US is trying to bring to life a Turkish/Azerbaidjan/Georgia military cooperation pact and an economic powerhouse of those 3 countries together. This would bring the Turkish army, the 4th biggest in the world, as protector of a pro-American alliance right at the backdoor of Russia and take any possibility away from the Russians to interfere in the Uzbek/Turkmenistan/Azerbaidjan oil and gas market and would assure the protection of those strategic countries for the US. The US had already a military agreement with Georgia and Turkey to start this operation.
In return the US had to promise Turkey and Georgia to become member of the EU for Turkey and of NATO for Georgia, both promises didn't happen until now. The Russians have complete opposite aims and want to control Azerbaidjan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and being close to Iran to control the international oil market.
All the rest is BS, the Russians couldn't care less about the Ossetians and very troublesome Abkhazians.

part one

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 16:41.

I don't have time now for a calm reading of kappert post; it seems to reffer to anything else than his previous post. In his first post he said "agression"; now this conflict is something else...something unknown.... Plus practical questions - about WE economy and his daily life - without answers. I can not match - for now - his positions with his answer to me.
But I'll try.

onecent was right with his post for mimi. I mentioned this item under the banner of Near Abroad: protecting the holders of Russian documents. All the former Soviet republics are a target of this policy; and I hope you know it is not just an ad-hoc thing; saving Russia's influence comes from Andropov, via Gorbatchov,via etc. ALL the countries from EE were also aimed by the reformation of SU; the plan is still active. The shield is attacked due to this policy, this is how is a threat to Russia: to Russia as a great power.

I owe a partial apology to ONECENT. He said "grab the pipelines". I thought rather to "grab the routes" as in "future routes", including Nabucco - now in comma - and anything else connected with Caspian resources in connection with EU.
The explanation is the folowing: Russians' prefered method is to work with plausible explanations; they are usually better than anybody else. Distroying Georgian military in connection with "preserving peace" is an example; and it is inexpugnable. Even if the West knows - and they know - the real reason, Nato, they cannot do anything. This is why Saak made a mistake: We(Ru) do everything we want in Georgia to prevent another action. Don't you, WE and US, agree ? So, yes, they "agree". Can they say anything else.. ?
Now, grabing the current pipelines would involve - that was my reasoning - an undefendable occupation of Georgia. The population is against them, Saak. or not. Then, the West - at least that was my impression - would react to this action. Because the occupation would have to be for years, giving legitimacy to a WE/US intervetion helping an which is against its occupier.

So, a "justified" attack with prospects to be repeated any time Ru. wants it - for the next 3-5 years - was more plausible. It gives the same influence in the region, while keeping the appearences. And promising the same even after this period. Uncertainty, that is for two decades at least. And nobody will ever have legitimate reason to intervene openly: Georgia will still be "independent". Like today...

Not to forget: the plunder made by Oset in Georgia, the recent events, that is was "documented" by TV news in my country: the guy asked Georgians. If it is true, then this is probably to scare the Georgians to change their anti-Russian stance. The russians allowed Oset with them; do we need to ask why ?..

@mdavid

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Thu, 2008-08-14 21:56.

Notice how kappert conveniently sidesteps your question, then hits you with a totally unrelated question of his own (about Insula serpilor/snake island) in a calculated  attempt to get you away from the subject you wish to question him about. DON'T fall for it.

Russian passports for Ossetians

Submitted by Mimi on Thu, 2008-08-14 14:47.

I want to clarify one point. The reason a lot of Ossetians have Russian passports is due to the Russian citizenship law that came into effect after the fall of the Soviet Union and has since changed. At the time, everybody who was born in the Soviet Union, not necessarily Russia proper, was entitled to the Russian passport, provided that they did not accept the passport of their new country. Many Ossatians and Abkhazians took advantage of this law because they did not want Georgian citizenship. Many Russians in the Baltic countries also took advantage of it, not because they didn't want the Baltic citizenship but because they were not entitled to it. One gets a mistaken impression that Russia was purposefully handing down citizenships right and left specifically to Ossetians. This was not the case. Every former Soviet citizen was entitled to a Russian passport.

Those passports

Submitted by onecent on Thu, 2008-08-14 21:54.

Every former Soviet citizen was entitled to a Russian passport.

Mimi, it isn't as innocent as you would like it to seem. People in the ex-republics don't need visas to travel into Russia. Georgians traveled to Russia freely until they were expelled. The duplicity and divisiveness of the Russians in handing out their passports en masse in Ossentia and Abkhazia were meant to undermine Saakashvili. Those Russian passports are basically a citizenship grant. It would be more akin to France handing out French passports in Quebec in a separatist flare-up. The Baltic states have no provision for dual citizenship because they clearly understood it would be very useful for the Russians to undermine them if they provided it.

@ Mimi

Submitted by traveller on Thu, 2008-08-14 20:54.

You are right about the passport law but this was already done to weaken the ex-Soviet countries which declared their independence. I was in Uzbekistan when this law was voted and every Uzbek wanted a Russian passport. The Uzbek police beat the shit out of the people lining up at the Russian embassy. Even the ethnic Russians couldn't get in except by paying a hefty bribe to the police officers. The Uzbeks knew also that this was a destabilising ploy by the Russians.

@mimi

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 17:54.

we are here 3 guys who know about the Russian passports item, since 1990. Also, about the policy of near abroad; passports are a part of it. The westerners should take this aspect into consideration. Remember: SU(Russia) is neighbouring upon who she wishes. But thanks for info, anyway.

@dbostan

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:29.

Cu Ucraina ramine cum am stabilit...din pacate.
Poate cu Insula Serpilor, cica sint sanse...

@Akira

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:48.

I forgot to give you a clear answer; I gave you one, but it is lost in a previous lengthy post.

I think you are referring to the fact that Saakashvili's actions and the stupid US policies in Georgia and the Balkans have provided Russia with the justification and means to enforce it's will on its ближнее зарубежье (Near Abroad). Right?

Yes, I am reffering to this fact. In particular, K.'s case provided Russia a leverage
to make confusing sittuations permanent: Georgia and Transnistria. The later will go forever: they cannot be part of Russia - look at the map, but they may say forever they don't want to be part of Moldavia. And they can not be independent, also.

updates - just facts; who is right and who is wrong is up to us

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 19:33.

A recent press conference pf Mr.Gates, defence secretary:

Russia is asserting it's role of world power - this answer was considered as fundamental regarding this conflict;
The NATO membership of Georgia is an issue, but it is not decided yet, not it is cancelled. The support is still there.

The expression used by Gates is integration within the West; this means Nato/EU membership of Georgia - and Ukr. -; obviously EU and US wants Georgia to join them, so Russia's actions are about this subject. The distructions of Georgian assets, that is.

Three statements from Nezavisimaia Gazeta - broadcasted by TV news channel in my country:

1. Russia did in Georgia what Israel and US are doing: preventive attacks
2. Russia did in Georgia what US did in Iraq
3. Russia used the same strategy as US/WE regarding Yug. and East Timor

I will change slightly what I said about pipelines: it is also about pipelines; but the same reservations: Baku-Ceyhan and Baku-Arzurum reffer to Turkey - not only,probably.
Turkey and Azerbaidjan are important "collateral" goals: Turkey supports Georgia - they gave a $2bn worth of help package to G. For months now, Erdogan can not speak with Putin, not even at the Olympics.

Georgia is the only independent route for Cental Asia gas/oil routes. It is Nabucco who is the real target among pipelines. Still, the current pipelines appear secondary,onecent; Nabucco is primary, if you meant this, you are right. I rejected your oppinion thinking about these two, not to Nab.

Also, by this distruction campaign in Georgia, Russia want to keep any future investment out of that region.
No energy future for EU; and Saak. gave reason to the Russians to acomplish this objective...

Gates did not say, but it is obvious: Russia's role of power implies attacking oil supply of EU, other than her own pipelines.

Interesting, Gates and his subbordinate were relaxed, calm; is US not scared ?? Georgia remains for now a US concern.

Mr.Trevino, in my country they quoted sources from City Bank London, think tanks, former diplomats, all saying the same: Georgia should become NATO member. That was the goal of Russia. I assume now there are hundreds of these guys saying the same.

To combine this two, NATO membership and oil are one thing in Georgia's case. EU cannot have hope about Nabucco without integrating Georgia in the West. Will the Russians succeed to prevent this ? And to turn to Ucraine ?

Wait until december: maybe G. will give up to Abk. and Osetia.

@kappert-a follow up

Submitted by mdavid on Thu, 2008-08-14 18:28.

Mr. Fischer is a blattant liar, and since he is a professor, he is close to perjury.
I believe the control of resources is being public since ... the dawn of men, don't you think so, kappert ?. It is not a good thing, but this is it, yet. And, surprisingly for Mr.Fischer or for you kappert, it is known by billions as a basic matter. Not a happy event, I agree; but it takes place everywhere.
So, in Caucausus there are no resources who just lie down there waiting to be found. They are already owned by Georgia and Azerbaidjan. These countries have also the right of relations with US. So , it is Russia who is an agressor - regarding the energy subject. If they succeed in signing contracts with Georgia, like they did with other Central Asian countries, bad news for us, but it is legit. The agression on EU, that is. Euronews is repeating for several days the same: Nabucco splits EU.

Secondly: are the pipelines secret ? No. And what should Saak. say: it is about the pipelines and not about sovereignity ? But you get to the pipelines precisely ignoring the sovereignity; and this is done via military. And the sovereignity is there precisely to combat any unwanted military presence; like everywhere. So, yes, it is about sov. mainly. No secret involved. The pipelines are the Russian "secret": it is one of the objectives, of the real and undeclared objectives of Russia. So, Russia has the secrets for now, not US/Georgia. This was the reason why for several days WE is constantly asking: what the Russians are doing there, because it might not be about autonomy only.
Or you wished Saak. declaring: forget anything else, help me because of the pipelines ? Since sovereignity is a legit issue and has international implications, and it is really at stake, they have this option. The pipelines are public and no secret.

Saak's mistakes are other subject, we know them.

Mr.Fischer is talking probably to an audience of retards, revealing the "big bad real secrets" of this conflict.

This i swhy I asked you in a previous post about the truth being told by Mr. Fischer and you: don't you or your country need oil/gas ?
This is not "truth", also ?

And Afghanistan is not a real part of war on terror, kappert ? Is it not important for Al-Qaeda, via Taliban visibility/setting an example for others? What are you talking about ? Or it is about Unocal only?

@mdavid

Submitted by kappert on Thu, 2008-08-14 19:20.

Think of Russia, think of oil and gas. Many European countries are increasingly dependent on Russian deliveries. Mr Fischer is poking the tooth, hurting right in the dilemma of European foreign politics. And Russia knows this only too well. The Afghanistan invasion was covered under the symbol of 'War against Terror'. Such a symbol did not appear in the current Georgia conflict. Therefore, most reporters and press maintained a neutral position, disturbed by the provocative interviews of both leading politicians. It seems the conflict turns more personal, and I'm waiting what clueless-Connie may say to the Georgians and the Russians. I'm keen to know, whether she may talk with Ossetians and Abkhazis. What could she possible say to them?
Just for curiosity: What's the problem with Serpilor Island?

@kappert - and atlanticist

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 22:13.

atlanticist: I saw that, thank you.

kappert: I asked about your position about Afg.war since you call it an "agression". It is or it is not a part of "war on terror" ? (I repeat the hint: the taliban are used by Al-Q. to set an example, even if they have ethnical basis.)

----------
kappert: you mean Mr.Fischer is now an objective analyst ? Well, then he should mention Russia as an agressor on EU in connection with oil/gas routes. And it is objective Ger. and EU in general needs oil/gas;otherwise what he writes is anything than ideological rubbish ? Did he mentioned this "small" detail ? And it is objective US is protecting EU with this "new great game", even if you prove US is doing out of being selfish.

How come the german - not the guys from Burkina Faso - journalists maintain a neutral position ? I mean smart guys, kappert; educated and connected to the current events, aren't they ? This means I was right: he writes to retards; but I rather think this is the oil supply for german economy syndrome of fear which creates retards. And the audience is so clueless? In Germany ? In the country of technique? Even if he writes a "poking the tooth" piece , the consequences for G.economy should be in the article. Also: EU has an unsolvable dillemma. The quote is anything but this. Otherwise, don't write the article - Fischer, that is -, if you want to avoid Russia. Fischer is not out of the energy context, unfortunately for him. So, the questions I asked you about energy are valid and the backbone(s) of his intervention should be these, not US vs Russia conflict - in this order. And he should mention also Georgia's rights to those pipelines, since they makes Russia an agressor. This is objective, not his text. Any comment ??

---
I know few details about S.I.( Snake Island). In 1948 this little island from Black Sea was given to SU via a controversial document, signed by a guy from Foreign Affairs - a communist; is not clear if he had the power to do that. He was on the the third echelon at best. Ukr. inherited this SI, which is surrounded by deposits of oil/gas. Even today Rom.press wrote about the (real)good chances Rom. has in getting it back via Haga tribunal. It is the second "good" news I know - in the last 3 weeks - about this file.

@mdavid

Submitted by kappert on Sat, 2008-08-16 11:54.

The NATO war against Afghanistan as response to the al-Queda attack in the U.S. was an 'aggression' in the sense that Afghanistan did not threaten or attack other countries. Al-Queda did, surely supported by taliban and wahab regimes, and any military intervention should have gone after them. The result is that 5 years after the NATO intervention we see talibans again coming foreward, and a puppet presidency in Kabul.
With regard to Mr Fischer and his 'ZEIT' article: I rather agree with you that his writing contains 'ideological rubbish', 'die ZEIT' is known for that, although his analysis (at the 3rd day of war) proved to be right with the Russians penetrating deeper into Georgia.
Whether the pipelines belong to Georgia or to BP, I have my doubts on that matter. But I'm rather fed up of Georgian propaganda and Saakhashvili's TV-shows. By the way, clueless-Connie did not speak to Ossetians or Abkhazis, am I right?

part two

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 22:56.

A more extended apology to ONECENT: Serghei Ivanov mentioned 300 peacekeepers. Also, the 57-th army was NOT there, like I thought; they came after Tshkinvali attacks. Also, the agreement forbade other guns in the area; the Osets had a small army - he said. I know the Russian methods; the question is if the provocations before the Geo. attacks were done with smuggled arms - as you say - or the arms were already there.

I, also, was fooled by a diplomat/analyst in my country who downplayed the current pipelines compared with Northstream/Southstream; he was right: these last two are big. But Ceyhan pipeline was open 3 years ago; he ignored that. This is important. Still, it is about controlling the teritory from the distance; this fits with an "adequate"/plausible answer to Saak's actions: it can ve justified that way; this is my current opinion. Already Nabucco is dead and you have NO real grabbing. And they closed Ceyhan, without a (again)real grabbing: ocupation of G. But,still, these pipelines were a target; here you were right. And G. membership in Nato covers this thing, also: no membership, no oil/gas for EU - from Russian pov. I ignored the fact the NATO membership has two meanings in Georgia's case, not one.

a last update

Submitted by mdavid on Fri, 2008-08-15 23:16.

CNN's Crisis in Georgia: Dr.G.Friedman from Stratfor: Russia is reshaping the political relations in the region.

Various TV channels in Romania: politicians, heads of think-thanks(6-8 of them):
The Russian troops are roaming freely in Georgia - Gori and Poti - to show:
1.they control that region
2.they can come back anytime they want
3.to create and to show the instability of these oil routes - Nabucco and the future; plus the current ones
4. ...therefore to discourage any future investement; without Russia's aproval/control.
So, it does not matter if they will withdraw - as they will -.

Antena 3 - romanian news channel - 19h19m/bussiness magazine: There are informations about Iulia Timoshenko stroke a deal with Kremlin: a deal with Gazprom and German firms to gain control of Ukr. gas transport system in exchange for political support: IT wants to be president. It is Iuschkenko made only or is it real ?

Merkel in Moscow: NATO membership of G. and Ukr. will be aproved.

------------------
Russia's goals - achieved:
1. distruction of Georgia's military capabilities: no NATO membership
2. Russian troops moving whenever they want - showing, indirectly: the independent oil routes are not viable for EU
3. Osets with military uniforms, but without other marks, plundering: to frighten Georgians to give up their militant stance against Russia for the future. Obviously, Russian commanders and Putin knew about these paramilitary, given the strategic importance of this operation.