U.S. President Bush said in a statement Wednesday pledged support for Georgia, saying his country was dispatching aircraft and Naval forces as part of a humanitarian assistance program.
So a likely scenario is that once those units are in place, the Georgians will feel empowered to kick Russia in the knee again. US forces will engage, and it will escalate into an all out shooting war with Russia. AOll thanks to W's little dick syndrome.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Last edited by Mark57 : 08-13-2008 at 10:56 AM.
Reason: Oops, edited the wrong post. Sorry.
I think Bush was careful to say they are delivering aid, and not military support for Georgia.
You've gotta wonder what Saakashvili was thinking when he provoked Russia by attacking those Ossetians with obvious loyalties towards Russia. He had some pretty strong words for the Bush Administration too, accusing them of "not giving a damn."
It'll be interesting to see what comes out about what McCain's guy, the lobbyist for Saakashvili in DC had been telling the Georgians. It might have been the $$$.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
"Mr. Saakashvili’s latest show of bravado came only a day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she and a special State Department envoy had explicitly and repeatedly warned him not to take any military action against Georgian separatists that might provoke Russia, cautioning that the United States was not prepared to back him militarily if he did. He also appeared to exaggerate the Pentagon’s planned relief operation, making it seem larger and further developed than it was." Thursday NYT,
This looks like it could also be a message to Russia, we "explicity and repeatedly told him not to take any military action..... the US was not prepared to back him militarily.."
"Mr. Saakashvili’s latest show of bravado came only a day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that she and a special State Department envoy had explicitly and repeatedly warned him not to take any military action against Georgian separatists that might provoke Russia, cautioning that the United States was not prepared to back him militarily if he did. He also appeared to exaggerate the Pentagon’s planned relief operation, making it seem larger and further developed than it was." Thursday NYT,
This looks like it could also be a message to Russia, we "explicity and repeatedly told him not to take any military action..... the US was not prepared to back him militarily.."
Well, if we did tell him not to do it, he was just plain crazy to go ahead, and I feel alot better about leaving them in the lurch as we did. We don't need allies who are going to get us into this kind of situation on purpose. No Great War styled "blank checks."
"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century," Bush said.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
South Ossetia is backed by Russia in this clash, but is, to my understanding, autonomous. Georgia attacking Russia would seem to be the rough equivalent of me and a couple of buddies attacking the US.
Krugman had an interesting take on this. (today's NYT) He sees the main fallout as Russian's successful 'great game' of controlling oil transport. This had a huge potential for harming US and Euro interests. Today's folding as the US looked on may have been the best resolution we could have got. I remain convinced that our military solutions to the whole situation (Poland and missiles, Nato memberships for countries bordering Russia) had NO benefit to the US militarily, and rightfully antagonized Russia. There was a window of time when Russia may have looked to the US as its main ally. This event, along with the two failed wars may have marked the end of US hegemony.
hegemony, my definition: Overwhelming political and military power, best always denied, and exercised behind the scenes. To be used generally for the interests of allies and neighboring countries. Bush and the neo-cons loved bullying and war - results: defeat in Georgia, Iraq, N. Korea, Pakistan, and probably Afghanistan.
I think you all might find it interesting that today I was in the car and heard Rush Limbaugh's show (a rarity for me), and he opined that Bush's words against Russia are essentially meaningless because we have no way of backing it up with any sort of military power, if things were to get that bad in Georgia. Which is true, not that we'd have any real reason to support Georgia militarily in the first place.
__________________
"If it felt good, you didn't push hard enough. It's supposed to hurt like hell." - Dean Karnazes' track coach, Ultramarathon Man
"My baby's soft and sweet, somewhere between a flower and a gun" - fiction family
The LA Weekly had an interesting piece with an interview with a retired Russian Colonel in which he gave his perspective on Russian and American empires and foreign policy mistakes.
Quote:
Twenty years ago, there were two players on the world stage,” Yuryevich says in July. “The United States and the Soviet Union. I don’t mean to be impolite, but all the other countries, including Britain, France and Germany, merely sat in the audience.
“Today, the United States is alone on the stage, but we are in the front row of the balcony taking great pleasure in your performance. We [in Russia] are in the privileged position of understanding all the mistakes you are making, because we made exactly the same mistakes just before our empire collapsed.”
.....
“Our mistakes all stemmed from our rigid adherence to ideology rather than finding a balance between principles and practicalities. Our ideology was very different from yours, but you, too, are now wedded to ideology — a privatization/free-market ideology — as an economic template for the entire world. As you are discovering, it may not be a good fit for the entire world. You now look very tired, perhaps from trying to govern the entire world by yourselves, as we once tried to do. And when a nation is tired, it makes more and more foolish mistakes. Rigid ideology is a symptom of such fatigue.”
Of course Russia appears to be making some of the same historical mistakes, but there is food for thought there.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
The second real cyber was has broken out. On August 8th, Russian troops crossed into South Ossetia vowing to defend what they called "Russian compatriots". As this was taking place, a multi-faceted cyber attack began against the Georgian infrastructure and key government web sites. The attack modalities included: Defacing of Web Sites (Hacktivism), Web-based Psychological Operations (Psyc-Ops), a fierce propaganda campaign (PC) and of course a Distributed Denial of Service Attacks (DDoS).
Shortly after noon east coast time in the United States, CNN's Wolf Blitzer attempted to interview Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili by phone on his live news program. The first attempt was unsuccessful and the second attempt took place about ten minutes later was able to successfully connect to President Saakashvili. President Saakashvili immediately apologized for the missed connection earlier blaming the problem on a "cyber attack" against the Georgian VoIP phone system. Another causality of the cyber attack was the Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) website. At one point in time the MFA's web site had an image of Adolf Hitler beside the image of President Saakashvili.
At one point(used in the sentence above), multiple government websites were down or inaccessible for hours. This led them to make perhaps the most strategic move to date in cyber warfare. This impressive move came when the Georgian Government decided to relocate President Mikhail Saakashvili's web site to a web site hosting service in Atlanta, Georgia in the United States. The strategic thinking surrounding this move was twofold. First, the Russian cyber attackers would surely think twice about attacking a web site hosted on servers located in the United States. Secondly, if the Russian cyber attackers were to go after the President's web site hosted on U.S. soil, that action might bring the United States into the conflict.
"The Russians have gone to great lengths to try and implicate the Ukraine in the Russian Air Force losses, even going as far as to suggest that an SA-5 sold to the Georgians by the Ukraine was responsible for the Backfire loss," a second U.S. analyst says. "That's clearly not the case, but shows the Russian attempt to bring the Ukraine into the periphery of this event by implication, and to attempt to explain how one of their premier long-range attack assets could have been shot down so easily.
__________________
Cody Peterson
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."
There is one major difference here too... Georgia actually ATTACKED Russia. We have no leg to stand on to criticize them.
Really J.P.? When exactly was that. My understanding is that not a single Georgian plane or military vehicle entered Russian territory during this entire event.
My further understanding is that this thing took off when Georgia tried to reclaim some of its own territory that was being occupied by Russian troops who were supporting separatists.
And please don't cite the fact that many people in the territory have Russian passports. The Russians issued the passports to people who are citizens of Georgia in order to provide themselves with exactly this kind of pretext for butting in and controlling the territory in question.
I think what Georgia did was reckless, under the circumstances, but I am unclear on how trying to regain control of one's own territory constitutes an invasion of another country.
My further understanding is that this thing took off when Georgia tried to reclaim some of its own territory that was being occupied by Russian troops who were supporting separatists.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. From the first article I posted on this thread:
Quote:
The Ossetians, who claim to have inhabited the same territory for centuries, say their nation was broken in two by Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, who awarded South Ossetia to the Georgian Soviet republic against the Ossetians' will. (Stalin also took away Abkhazia's independence and made it an autonomous republic within Georgia.) As the USSR was collapsing, Ossetians fought a brutal war of independence against Georgia, which ended in a three-way peacekeeping agreement in 1992. Under that deal, Russian, Georgian, and South Ossetian forces were to jointly guarantee security until a final settlement was reached.
The people of South Oseetia have never considered themselves part of Georgia any more than the people of North Oseetia call themselves Russians. But that's where the lines were drawn.
So last week Georgia violated the 1992 agreement by shelling, bombing and invading South Oseetia. The government of the previously autonomous region asked for help from Russia, which responded with force to repel the Georgians. Georgia has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a top McCain adviser and Bush insider and was either assured, or maybe simply assumed (I'm betting the former) US backing of their folly. Russia's response was way over the top, but it sent a pretty clear message as to how they'll tolerate continued western meddling along their border.
Bush spoke out of turn a few days ago and got slapped down by his own SecDef, who took any level of military response off the table. Bush got sent to time-out in Texas while Rice went and told Saakashvili to sit down and sign whatever deal he got from Moscow, and McCain got told to STFU already.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
The timing is just crazy. I am trying hard to not put on my tinfoil hat right now vis a vis wagging the dog, but am really not a big believer in pure fortuitous coincidence, either.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. From the first article I posted on this thread:
The people of South Oseetia have never considered themselves part of Georgia any more than the people of North Oseetia call themselves Russians. But that's where the lines were drawn.
Georgia has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to a top McCain adviser and Bush insider and was either assured, or maybe simply assumed (I'm betting the former) US backing of their folly.
Yeah, but where the lines are drawn is ultimately what governs. And it is one thing if the people of the area in question mount a revolution and break away. Another situation entirely when a foreign power comes in and does it, particularly if that foreign power, as seems likely here, adds the breakaway region to its own territory.
AS to the point about the green light, my impression is that the Georgians were told not to provoke the Russians. I hope the truth on this comes out, because if we did give them the green light, I am ashamed of us. And if we told them not to do what they did, I am pissed at them.
The timing is just crazy. I am trying hard to not put on my tinfoil hat right now vis a vis wagging the dog, but am really not a big believer in pure fortuitous coincidence, either.
Thoughts?
I am not following your train of thought here. Can you unpack it a little bit?
What better way to win an election than to manufacture a foreign policy crisis (which IMO is one of the very few things McCain might be able to run successfully on), a la "Wag the Dog"?
I'm not saying it's so, I'm just saying that training up the Georgians in such close proximity to the actual events on the ground raises my eyebrows a bit.
What better way to win an election than to manufacture a foreign policy crisis (which IMO is one of the very few things McCain might be able to run successfully on), a la "Wag the Dog"?
I'm not saying it's so, I'm just saying that training up the Georgians in such close proximity to the actual events on the ground raises my eyebrows a bit.
Oh, I get it. I very much doubt the Administration had anything to do with this. They were completely unprepared. It was a complete disaster for us and Georgia.
Yeah, but where the lines are drawn is ultimately what governs. And it is one thing if the people of the area in question mount a revolution and break away. Another situation entirely when a foreign power comes in and does it, particularly if that foreign power, as seems likely here, adds the breakaway region to its own territory.
I guess the point that we will continue to disagree on is who that "foreign power" is in this case. I say because it is a self governed autonomous region, both Russia and Georgia are foreign powers. Georgia invaded South Ossetia in violation of the 1992 agreement, possibly thinking that the US would back them up.
Russia responded to requests for help from the South Ossetian government, a little too heavy handedly maybe, but they did what they set out to do. Now they say that Georgia has forfeited the territory as well as the right to maintain a peace keeping force there. I agree with them, while you seem to agree with Bush and McCain that Russia is the bad guy.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
I guess the point that we will continue to disagree on is who that "foreign power" is in this case. I say because it is a self governed autonomous region, both Russia and Georgia are foreign powers. Georgia invaded South Ossetia in violation of the 1992 agreement, possibly thinking that the US would back them up.
Russia responded to requests for help from the South Ossetian government, a little too heavy handedly maybe, but they did what they set out to do. Now they say that Georgia has forfeited the territory as well as the right to maintain a peace keeping force there. I agree with them, while you seem to agree with Bush and McCain that Russia is the bad guy.
I fail to see how Georgia can be a foreign country in its own country. As far as I know, no country has recognized South Ossetia as anything other than part of Georgia. Now, South Ossetia may have every moral right to fight and, if they beat the Georgians, win their independence. But that is not what happened here.
Nor do I see how Georgia can possibly have "forfeited" its rights to part of its country by trying to establish control there. Usually, it works the other way. If you acquiesce too long in a region being independent, you lose your rights. Lets not forget, the South Ossetians have been pushing for full independence. The Georgians have, at some point, to act to take back the region, or give it up.
I do not see the Georgians as nice guys here. I have no doubt that the operation to retake this region would have caused a tremendous number of casualties. Civil wars are very ugly. Look at our own. But the rule has never been that if you have to kill people to keep a region, you have to give it up.
In any event, the Russians have no business making pronouncements concerning anybody's right to Georgia. As we know from Chechnya, the Russians are perfectly comfortable devastating a region to keep control of it. If the Georgians have lost their rights here, it is because the Russians have taken them.
As for the Russians being bad guys, I do not blame the Russians for not wanting allies of the U.S. on its border. But lets not forget why these countries want to establish close ties to the U.S. They all have long and bitter experience of what it means to be part of the the Russian sphere of influence. Hemming the Russians in may be provocative. But if you are in that region, you damn well want them hemmed in as much as possible.
Here is Z'bigg's take on it, as found on the lefty Huffington Post, no less. Zbig thinks this is Finland all over again. Zbig is no "neo-con" (whatever that means) though he may qualify as a "neo-liberal") (remember them?)
Well I guess his views on Georgia are just as relevant as his views on Iraq, right?
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759
It's coming out now that Rove met with Saakashvili at a Yalta Summit a few weeks before Saakashvili launched attacks on Ossetia.
That bit together with McCain's foreign policy advisor lobbying for Saakashvili
Tina's eyebrows may have real reason to be raised. What the fuck is Rove, no longer an administration official, doing at a foreign policy summit meeting with leaders?
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
I doubt it. He's like that character in Lord of the Rings, Wormtongue. He works the background, whispering into people's ears, making promises and stirring unrest.
If the world looked like it was descending into a war, who do you think independents will lean toward? He ain't no dummy. He knows how to work with fear like a sculptor knows how to work with clay.
The problem with October surprises of that sort is that the fuse can go off too early and is unpredictable in nature.
'Spose they had to give it the 'ol college try though... *wink*
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
If the world looked like it was descending into a war, who do you think independents will lean toward? He ain't no dummy. He knows how to work with fear like a sculptor knows how to work with clay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kuri
That bit together with McCain's foreign policy advisor lobbying for Saakashvili
Tina's eyebrows may have real reason to be raised. What the fuck is Rove, no longer an administration official, doing at a foreign policy summit meeting with leaders?
Are you accusing Rove of fomenting a war for the benefit of McCain's campaign?
If so, it is incumbent upon you to present evidence that goes leaps and bounds beyond what has been presented thus far.
I'm saying the possibility exists. Of course nobody has proof.
__________________
Working "hard," or the perception of working hard, doesn't really mean anything. Sweating, vomiting, and breathing hard could be a good workout or a tropical disease kicking in.-Dan John
I'm saying the possibility exists. Of course nobody has proof.
And the possibility exists that aliens walk among us. Of course, nobody has proof.
Seriously, that's about the worst argument you could possibly make.
It's so damned easy to throw around all sorts of wild theories when you feel no burden to actually prove your point, rather, just a penchant for wild leaps of logic coupled with healthy doses of paranoia and partisanship, but precious little in the way of critical analysis.
The US knew it would be powerless to combat Russia in Georgia in the event of a conflagration and would thus look weak on the international stage. Exactly how does this bolster the McCain campaign? How does this give the impression that McCain would keep the US safe, or safer than his opponent would do? Is McCain playing tough by angling to get involved militarily in Georgia?
Seriously, given how predicatable the outcome in Georgia would be, I want your take on how anyone would have thought it a good strategy to bolster McCain's campaign. Hate him or not, Rove is not so stupid as to have been unaware that Russia would crush Georgia if need be and that the US would be on the sidelines.
Quote:
The problem with October surprises of that sort is that the fuse can go off too early and is unpredictable in nature.
'Spose they had to give it the 'ol college try though... *wink*
We heard talk of October surprises in Iran over and over again during the '06 midterms, but it never really panned out, did it.......Why would you bother to dig up an argument that failed last time around?
Linear Mode
