The only action that any third party is in any position to make is to impose swift sanctions against Russia. These will be about as effective as they were against Iran, Iraq, Cuba, et al. In other words, it won't accomplish squat. And with Russia potentially controlling that oil pipeline, it's dangerous for us to be playing that card. As the world's #2 petroleum exporter, they could really put us in the hurt locker considering how fragile our economy is vis a vis the price of oil.
The only other action I could see us taking is to boost our aid to Georgia and hope that they're able to mount one hell of a guerrilla campaign.
Not sure how this follows as the beginning of the 2 oil pipelines that traverse Georgia are in Azerbaijan. If they want to control the flow to the West, the easier answer would be a walk over the Azeri--I think they have a caus belli as I believe the Azeri cut off shipments through the Baku-Novorossiysk pipeline last winter. This one seems to have little to do with oil.Originally Posted by Wildcat
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
I'm merely saying that any effort by outside parties to intervene economically will do little to deter Russia. Of course oil is not a driver of this conflict, but it can be used to inflict damage.
It's a gas pipeline BTW, not oil. Gazprom wants Nordstream to Germany and Southstream to the ME to flourish, but can't do said (the Baltic States won't have them) without Georgia and the Ukraine. what's left is Turkey, and Turkey could give a Sierra about Putin (you get the rest).
Was Kosovo a big deal to Puti Puu ? You bet, and only Georgia and the Ukraine now stand in his way.
The 3 fat pigs we call them here. Russian Gas, Electric and Rail.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
The info we have is much like you've heard. The Russians poked and prodded til the Georgians acted. Georgia probably felt that their bilateral partner USA wouldn't mind a quick and dirty war, and neglected to bounce the theory by the POTUS. The Russians are not likely to leave without defacing the Georgian government. They know the Georgian president will not step down, so the hope (much like in Estonia last year) is to deface the democratic government and let the people riot and pillage.
I doubt Tblisi is Russia's goal, but I'm sure they are ready to advance a smiggin more before finally agreeing to a ceasefire. The French-led delegation will be in Moscow today, so it won't be long before Russia will be forced to decide.
Regards, Stan
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Lie in Russian official news broadcast. Just one of those many ones (tonight they started to talk about Baltic/Ukrainian mercenarys like during Chechen wars fightin in Georgian side). But this one is really BIG lie.
Mikhail Leontyev is Kremlin's loudspeaker and he is citing to Statfor think tank. Maybe someone understands the text that starts 4.50 in this clip. ... or show it to Russian-speaking colleagues. Clip ends with direct threathening of neighbours.
http://rutube.ru/tracks/917658.html?...5f977bb5a09f46
Last edited by Jedburgh; 08-12-2008 at 02:38 PM.
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373302The catch is that Russia cannot maintain its ambivalent stance of supporting the secessionist quasi-states and acknowledging that they remain parts of Georgia; nor can it keep pretending that it is not a party to the conflict but merely the guarantor of a non-existent peace process. Prior to the war, Moscow had been very irritated by Eduard Kokoity’s corrupt regime, but now to all intents and purposes it owns South Ossetia and has not only to provide aid but to resolve the status issue (Ezhednevny zhurnal, August 8). Medvedev is forced to make decisions that he is very uncomfortable with and to place them in a new strategic line for the Caucasus that he is not really qualified to draw, while Putin takes charge over practical matters like distributing money and resources. Spoils from this “victory” would hasten Russia’s drift from democracy, worsen its investment climate, and add more tension to relations with the West and with Ukraine. Diplomats may contemplate a return to the status quo ante, but Russia has changed in the course of this entirely unnecessary war, and the damage cannot be undone.
http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373303Several other observers predicted that the Russian-Georgian war would give Russia’s siloviki hardliners the upper hand in the country’s domestic politics. “Even a short ‘peace-keeping’ war will not only provoke a growth in enmity toward Russia on the part of Western countries, but also--and this is more important for us--will confirm [Russian] society in the opinion that over there, in the West, there are not only arrogant, rather stupid pindosy [a derogatory term for Americans], but an enemy who will not yield,” wrote Dmitry Volkov. “There are no real doubts about how Western countries will view the Russian attack. This will allow President Medvedev to be put in the unambiguous position of a ‘strong national leader’ completely dependent on the power structures” (www.gazeta.ru, August 9).
If Russia “gets involved in a war” with Georgia, this will solidify “what the Russian siloviki have achieved [over] the last several months,” wrote the commentator Yulia Latynina. “At the same time, it is completely unimportant who wins this war and who will be its victims. The very fact of such a war means that control over Russia will be retained by the siloviki, the special services, and Putin. The siloviki [would] even profit from the disgrace of Russia; in that case, there will be a bigger outcry, hysteria and money” (www.ej.ru, August 8).
Has anyone considered
How the Chinese may percieve this major distraction from their coming out party?
Also consider that should this end badly in the long run for Russia and they once again be sidelined to pariah status they may have to look towards becoming almost a client state to China in really being able to continue selling those exports upon which they have built their resurging economy.
Probably way out in left field but what the hay, worth looking at
AND RA: Thanks for the link its interesting reading and I am looking at it. The one problem I have with WIKI is that it is completely user created and when a large section of the posting is without sourcing and other parts are based on information from sources which may or may not carry a bias it really has to be taken for face value and with a ton of salt
Last edited by Ron Humphrey; 08-11-2008 at 09:21 PM. Reason: Add
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
I note with interest that the hate site "Blackfive.net" is already blaming "spineless politicians" - meaning Democrats, as is Mr. Kristol repeating the lie that it was the German politicians who were responsible for the treaty of Versailles and making comparisons.
Just for the record, we have had Seven years of a "Unitary Executive", presided over by a "Commander In Chief", and the buck stops with him.
Now let's get back to Georgia. What are Putin's intentions? Regime change? Control of the BTC pipeline? What else?
Last edited by walrus; 08-11-2008 at 09:34 PM.
I know...
Replacement of Kevin Rudd with Peter Costello.(Gratutitous and pointless political comment with no pertinence to the issue - no charge, no applause necessary)
Now let's get back to Georgia.
It's not gratuitous political comment if we allow the same processes and personalities and agendas that got us into Iraq to inform our stance on Georgia.
...And the same mouthpieces are already hard at work, and should not be listened to if a sensible decision is to be made.
What are Putin's intentions and what are the available American and European options?
True. Google "velvet divorce" for some different sources. Here's one from a Czech radio station's web site
"After 12 years of living apart the prevalent opinion in both countries is that the divorce was the right thing to do. At the time more people were against the break-up than in favour, but today people have accepted it and most of them say that, with hindsight, it was the right decision."
Yes, I've noticed mouthpieces from
both fringes are blathering. Saying little to nothing of import as usual but just trying to stir up hate and discontent. I keep swearing I'll ignore them like most but alas, I fear that I'm addicted to pointing out how silly they are. It's a terrible burden...
As to your germane questions, I have answers:
We don't know but there's a lot of guessing going on mostly based on fragmentary information, misinformation and disinformation.
Few.
This is whats throwing me off
No matter how I look at it, so far whats going on seems to be focused on first order effects and the possible or at least more likely second or third order effects don't seem to pass the "what in it for me" test
Unless they actually think the rest of the "world" is too busy to be able to effectively deal with it.
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours
Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
German news on Georgia are very mixed.
I just saw TV news that focused on human suffering and fear in Rogi (?), simply because their reporter was apparently not able to get anywhere else.
He did also complain bitterly about too much propaganda being directed at them and about the challenge to filter truth out of it.
Yesterday, when they had no reporter in Georgia at all, they invited a foreign politician and pressed hard on the question whether this war might be a backlash of NATO expansion.
Newspaper reports are different. They're very political, newspaper comments often attempt to look into the future - consequences for natural gas supply, NATO expansion, Ukraine, Georgia's future...
Overall I'd say the German reporters haven't found anything like a common line yet, but they don't stress failures of the Georgian government, aren't very aggressive against Russia and don't use much sources from the Russian side.
One exception was one TV reporter; he was apparently at a Russian HQ in T city (sounded like brigade or divisional HQ) and asked about what the Russians were doing about that Georgian city nearby. The Russian explanation was that they want to establish a 12 km security zone around T city and nothing else, no intent to invade the other city.
He mentioned that he was convinced by this face-to-face explanation and believed in the honesty.
Btw, some report that although the Georgians evacuated that city close to SO that's along the east-west highway, they did also report that there are no troops at all in the city, also no Russians.
What concerns me is a miscalculation by either party that could result in further escalation.
I am however surprised at the speed of Russia's action, which suggest to me that it had to have been premeditated. Those troops must have been on twelve hours notice to move or less, and my recollection is that you don't keep people standing around like that for very long. I'm also not sure that the reactive armor is left in place during training, those tanks look "" dressed", to me, although I was Inf.
Baltic states turn on Russia
The presidents of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, together with Poland, issued a joint statement at the weekend warning that the Georgian conflict would be a credibility “litmus test” for Nato and the EU.
Hat tips to Meatball One !The Baltic states, past victims of Kremlin attacks, have called on the European Union to suspend its drive for closer relations with Russia after its invasion of Georgia.
“We have to review our policy. Can we consider a partner a country who behaves like this?” President Toomas Hendrik Ilves of Estonia said in an interview. He added: “It’s time to stop sticking our head in the sand.”
The presidents also criticise Nato’s failure to give Georgia a timetable for membership earlier this year: “We regret that the not granting of Nato’s Membership Action Plan (MAP) to Georgia was seen as a green light for aggression in the region,” their statement said.
If you want to blend in, take the bus
Quick BBC Update
Full story can be found here.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ordered an end to military operations against Georgia, the Kremlin says.
He told officials he had decided to end the campaign after restoring security for Russian citizens and peacekeepers in South Ossetia.
Before Mr Medvedev's statement, there were fresh reports of Russian warplanes bombing the Georgian town of Gori.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Looks like Russia was totally prepared for this. Georgia made a big mistake. These people really hate each other. No different than the conflicts during the 90s. Looks like it is winding down. For an army that has split the enemy forces in two I think their ultimatum was more than generous. Nevertheless, leadership on both sides makes me wonder where is the World Court when we need it.
"But suppose everybody on our side felt that way?"
"Then I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any other way. Wouldn't I?"
Thank you for your excellent post Badtux, my knowledge of the Russians and their deployments is weak.
Next question: Has it crossed anyone's mind that this might be construed as a spoiling attack by the Russians vis a vis our ongoing confrontation with Iran?
Or is that not the right question?
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks