http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/12/georgia.russia.war/index.html
Honestly, I think we are seeing a Russia looking to reestablish its empire. It is likely that the "War on Terrorism" is about to make way for Cold War II. If so, it'll be interesting to see how Al Qaeda takes the news that they are no longer front-page news. I am eager to hear/read speeches from Senator Obama and Senator McCain on how they would confront such a radically-changed world.
This conflict coverage is just biased. The question i have is why did Georgia attacked Russia in the first place, knowing that they really can't win against a much greater power that Russia is.What did they try to accomplish there?
YanıtlaSilGeorgia didn't attack Russia. They attacked South Ossetia, which has been trying to break off from Georgia. Russia attacked to "help" South Ossetia, and then kept going.
YanıtlaSilI think you're right Nomad. Russia has been flexing their muscles for a while now, and they definitely have dreams of empire.
South Assetia has a right to decide its destiny and if they asked for help, Russia stepped up. Putin warned Georgia in the past that in case of the ausalt on Assetia this would happen, but Georgia didn't listen.
YanıtlaSilI understand US concern for civilians being killed, but shouldn't US focus on resolving the issues that it created for itself by "flexing its muscles" , such as Iraq?
Galia.Al-Achi, First, welcome to Mod-Blog! It is good to have you here.
YanıtlaSilWhile I definitely agree, in general, with concepts of self-determination for national populations, you have to admit that there is some manipulation going on here by Russia. Russia has for year been encouraging emigration by ethnic Russians into South Ossetia and the other territory I can't spell in hopes of being able to then use those populations to allow Russia to annex them. For an American equivalent, it would be like Mexico trying to argue that the large number of Mexican immigrants in Texas is an argument for Mexico to take back Texas. In such a case, the USA would fight to retain its territory, even though there may be a plurality within TX which would agree with the Mexican position.
I guess what I am saying is that while self-determination of populations is right, it can be manipulated by the unscrupulous for their own ends. That appears to be what has happened here.
But, that opinion is based on a few days of reading - not a deep expertise in the area or the subject. If you have other sources to bring to our attention, please do so!
Russia told Georgia what would happen, Georgia took the bait thinking that they could defend themselves with their "New Military" that was paid for by our tax dollars. We payed for their military because they were one of the "coalition of the willing". The US had to fly the Georgian army that was in Iraq back to their homeland so that they could join in the defense. One of the explicit Russian goals was to destroy the new Georgian military that we paid for. Do not be fooled into thinking that this is less complicated than it is.
YanıtlaSilInteresting point made by someone recently... in order for the Russian tanks to get there, they have to pass the Caucus mountains, which takes time.
YanıtlaSilPoint being, Russia has been planning this for a while.
I don't know that this is so much about Georgia taking the bait as Russia bullying them into having to defend themselves. Russia is making a point about their power in the world.
Oh, on the "self determination by populations" question...
YanıtlaSilThe same sort of thing (a country sending emigrants into another country to demonstrate so they could take the territory) was what happened under Hitler. Austria and the Sudetenland Germans (that's part of the Czech Republic) were demonstrating (violently) for a more "German" government, and Hitler moved in to "protect" his people.
Seems to be the same thing here. Russia was issuing passports to South Ossetia citizens for years apparently...
Now, I agree that it is a complicated situation, but it does seem that Russia and Putin are definitely flexing their muscles and trying to send messages to the world about their power. They didn't need to invade...
I think Georgia *DID* take the bait, gambling that their work in Iraq ensured them a direct US intervention if Russia invaded. Unfortunately, they were 100% wrong. Likewise, Russia *DID* dangle the bait to draw Georgia into this, and set up a situation where the current outcome was inevitable. They were both playing chess, but we had a patzer (Georgia) playing a Grand Master (Russia/Putin).
YanıtlaSilThe question is whether this is the beginning - i.e. Russia will use this as the jumping-off point for more invasions and/or interventions into Former Soviet Union states - or if this is a one-time thing. I suspect the former, as part of Putin's rise to power has been stoking the flames of Nationalism and Empire within the Russian heart. Let us not forget that Russia considers itself to be "the New Rome", even in this relatively peaceful times.
Let us also not forget that while Russian though is more West than East, it is still NOT typically European and thus does not always follow the paths that we Americans expect.
Good points Nomad.
YanıtlaSilMy guess is that Georgia missed two factors in their equations:
YanıtlaSilFirst, we're already in two war fronts. It's unlikely, especially in this economy and with the makeup of Congress that we'd be ready, willing, and able to add a third front. Especially since we're keeping a close eye on Iran and North Korea.
Second, the United States of today is not the United States of the past. Russia is not seen as the great enemy and Americans generally feel safe against non-terrorist foreign attack. As such, the American people have no stomach for war. War in Iraq or Afghanistan is "easy"... there's no big country behind the other country that we'd have to fight. War in Georgia means we have to fight Russia which would be a loooong battle, especially given the proximity of Russia to Georgia. We won't be landing troops in Georgia for the same reason we've kept the Korean war as it is. A war with a big country just isn't prudent or feasible at this time.
Nick's comment about this being like Germany is true and scary. Russia wants the empire back. Europe especially and America less so is reluctant to go into an all out major war. I could see a strong wave of appeasers coming forward, not learning from the pasts' mistakes.
YanıtlaSilNomad,
YanıtlaSilWHy do you think that Russia considers itself to be "The New Rome"? Is this something you got from the media or is it your personal opinion?
I don't believe Russia is such as agressor as America perceives it to be, even though every once in a while it uses the force (which i am not proud of, but this seems to be the practice of every country in the world that has more powers than others). So far we haven't learned the lesson that the war should be the last means of handling a conflict, and that's not Russia alone, but US and Israel are guilty of that as well.
I just wanted to comment on the media a bit. The coverage is obviously different in US and in Russia as a result of different political strategies and interests. Yet, yesterday as i was watching the video on CNN, i have noticed that the translations of what this one Obchassian woman said was completely wrong. I wonder overall how accurate the information is in US and in Russia that we are presented with.
galia.al-achi, I also welcome you to Mod-Blog. I know that I see Russia as more aggressive based on their responses vs. the response of the U.S. For all of the grief the U.S. is given about hitting civilian targets, the philosophy of the U.S. Military is to avoid civilian targets and only hit military ones. In modern terrorist warfare this is difficult since the terrorists integrate themselves into the civilian targets. Russia on the other hand, tends to clean up the mess regardless of civilian cost. I remember there being some kind of hostage situation in Chechnya, I believe, that one of the options was to take out anyone that they saw regardless of civilian or terrorist to make sure they got the terrorists.
YanıtlaSilQuizwedge and Nomad, thanks for wellcoming me to this blog. It's nice to be here and have a chance to express my opinion.
YanıtlaSilI believe, when it comes to war, its initiation is an act of an absolute agression, then what happens in war is beyond anyone's control. So it's all really relative and subjective (and all the information we get comes through the media filter anyways) Quizwedge, i remember that time that the theater was captured by terrorists women with bomb around their waste. I know the results were tragic, but the Russian speznaz was able to save at least some of the hostages. I believe they did have a special training and knew what they were doing. Those women could blow up the whole building any time and get everyone killed.
I grew up in Russia and know the mentality of its people. Russia will become stronger and it will make some effort to strenghten its position on the world arena. But i am certain, Russia will be a good and peaceful neibor and wouldn't attack if unprovoked.Russians know what it is to be in a war and to have war on their land. And "Russians love their children too", remember.
galia.al-achi, I know that I read a speech from Putin where he used the phrase, but I have been unable to find it tonight. Here is one such article which uses the phrase:
YanıtlaSilhttp://www.economist.com/cities/displaystory.cfm?story_id=7830915
I'll keep looking. You're right to challenge me to prove it.