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 ...