Russia/Georgia back to war...

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

You think Putin wouldn't 'thumb his nose' at Obama? Seriously?

HUH?!? What does Obama have to do with anything? This is the Russia/Georgia war thread, isn't it?

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

No he is not correct. Right now the US has to get involved diplomatically. That is EXACTLY what they are doing. What happened 6 years ago doesn't matter.

Again, both of you are insane if you expect anything else.

Sigh.. Please read the entire post.

Iowa was correct in reading what I was talking about. I agree that this is the course of action that the US should be taking given that Georgia is their ally. I'm simply not convinced that Georgia is the victim that they want the world to think they are.

That being said, it is still a hypocritical position. Bush, and by extension US foreign policy, is tainted by their past actions. They effectively say that Russia is being bad, even though the United States has a recent past that is far worse. You can't just toss US foreign policy that has been in place for the past six years out the window. Not until a new circle of power can that be accomplished without it coming out as a hypocritical mess.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

HUH?!? What does Obama have to do with anything? This is the Russia/Georgia war thread, isn't it?

Uhh, if Obama were President. Or McCain, Clinton, or anyone else.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Sigh.. Please read the entire post.

Iowa was correct in reading what I was talking about. I agree that this is the course of action that the US should be taking given that Georgia is their ally. I'm simply not convinced that Georgia is the victim that they want the world to think they are.

I don't think they are either.

But the US has a strategic interest in supporting Georgia, and the rest of the former Russian states.

That being said, it is still a hypocritical position. Bush, and by extension US foreign policy, is tainted by their past actions. They effectively say that Russia is being bad, even though the United States has a recent past that is far worse. You can't just toss US foreign policy that has been in place for the past six years out the window. Not until a new circle of power can that be accomplished without it coming out as a hypocritical mess.

Oh, boohoo. Nobody is tossing it out of the window. Its just insane to expect the US to take military action against Russia.

[kermitology]

Can you please stop calling me insane because I don't agree with you 100%.

Besides I never said, nor insinuated, that the US should draw arms against Russia.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I'm not saying that what Bush is doing right now is wrong. I'm saying that the same actions might be more effective if he had not damaged the credibility of the U.S. along with their international reputation and used up every shred of his political capital abroad on what amounted to a wild goose chase--in the process (and this is important) defining it as the doctrine of the United States that they will go out and preemptively attack anyone they want in order to protect their own security.

To paraphrase. You didn't like the invasion of Iraq. Now every action the US does is, regardless of whether it be right or wrong,.... wrong.

Iraq was invaded. You can't change that. What's done is done. Yes it damaged the credibility of the US in a great deal of the world. I really don't see how that makes the US current actions in Georgia wrong though.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

If you don't think part of what Putin is doing right now is thumbing his nose at Bush.... I'm not sure what will convince you. Remember, this is the guy that Bush thought was his buddy not too long ago. The guy's out of his depth, Azure. I think even you can admit that now, with only a few months left in his presidency.

Putin was friendly to Bush because Russia was in trouble and needed the US as an ally. Now Russia is on the rise again and guess what they are asserting themselves again. Regardless of which president was in power there would be Russian troops in Georgia right now.

This post is trying to cloud the issue. Noone is discussing Bush's presidency as a whole. We are talking about how best to deal with the situation in Georgia.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

HUH?!? What does Obama have to do with anything? This is the Russia/Georgia war thread, isn't it?

I think he is making the point that Putin would put up his nose at any president. Which is valid.

He is saying this has more to do with the attitude in Russia than Bush as an effective president.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Can you please stop calling me insane because I don't agree with you 100%.

Besides I never said, nor insinuated, that the US should draw arms against Russia.

Fair enough.

The problem isn't that you think the US should draw arms against Russia, but that you condemn Bush for going through diplomatic channels to try and solve this.

One would think that is the RIGHT choice at this time, and you should commend Bush for going that route.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

Fair enough.

The problem isn't that you think the US should draw arms against Russia, but that you condemn Bush for going through diplomatic channels to try and solve this.

One would think that is the RIGHT choice at this time, and you should commend Bush for going that route.

I criticize Bush for taking this stance NOW when his past behaviour suggests that if he was in Russia's shoes he would likely be reacting the exact same way. Criticize.. not condemn.

The biggest problem I have is that Russia seems to be the target of all the blame in this situation and I don't think that's right. I think that Georgia has as much criticism and blame to live up to as Russia.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by kermitology

I criticize Bush for taking this stance NOW when his past behaviour suggests that if he was in Russia's shoes he would likely be reacting the exact same way. Criticize.. not condemn.

Why? You even said yourself he is doing the right thing, but you still criticize him for doing it?

The situations are completely incomparable. I'm sure even Russia understands that.

Quit looking at this from the 'Bush is doing it' viewpoint, and instead look at is as the 'US is doing it.'

Maybe that wouldn't cloud the issue so much.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

I think he is making the point that Putin would put up his nose at any president. Which is valid.

He is saying this has more to do with the attitude in Russia than Bush as an effective president.

Right--and my point is that if Bush were a more effective president he would have more influence. And that might help in.... you know... finding a diplomatic solution?

I really don't see how this is hard to understand. Diplomacy doesn't occur in a hermetically sealed box in which the outcome of an action is always the same in every circumstance. People have limited influence, limited political capital, limited clout in given situations. That influence is finite --and part of what affects it is reputation, military strength, reputability, backing from other influential allies, etc. And that's what Bush has fundamentally failed to understand over the past 8 years. He thought he could go it alone with a unilateral preemptive policy --and now he has no influence, no political capital and no clout. So what he does doesn't matter because for it to have any effect he needs influence.

Again--I'm not saying that there wouldn't be troops in Russia if anyone else were president, or that Putin wouldn't thumb his nose at the U.S. under any circumstances. Nor am I saying that war with Russia would be a feasible option under any circumstance. Nor, in fact, am I even saying that Bush is doing something wrong in this situation. One of the first things I said is that he's doing pretty much everything he can reasonably do. I just think this situation reveals the limitations of the Bush doctrine, and I think Bush's attempts at diplomacy-without-influence look a little pathetic. Like he's out of his depth--almost as if he were an equestrian in charge of responding to a hurricane.

But it seems you think he's doing a "heck of a job" so I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by kermitology

The biggest problem I have is that Russia seems to be the target of all the blame in this situation and I don't think that's right. I think that Georgia has as much criticism and blame to live up to as Russia.

I don't really think that is fair either. I think there is a big chunk of the media characterizing this as hypocritical on Georgia's part: Georgia refuses Ossetia independence from Georgia, but then demands it from Russia.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why? You even said yourself he is doing the right thing, but you still criticize him for doing it?

The situations are completely incomparable. I'm sure even Russia understands that.

Quit looking at this from the 'Bush is doing it' viewpoint, and instead look at is as the 'US is doing it.'

Maybe that wouldn't cloud the issue so much.

US foreign policy saw them violate international law in the invasion of Iraq. The situations are most certainly comparable. What justification did the United States have in an invasion of a sovereign, independent country that doesn't even border their own?

For that matter, what justification does the United States have in any military action around the world?

If South Ossetia invited the Russians to protect them, wouldn't that be similar to any other breakaway state inviting the Americans to help them?

The United States is justified in condemning the actions of the Russians ONLY on the basis that they are standing up for their ally. That being said, if their ally is the provocateur, then perhaps it would also be wiser to reign in the admittedly wild Georgian president.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't really think that is fair either. I think there is a big chunk of the media characterizing this as hypocritical on Georgia's part: Georgia refuses Ossetia independence from Georgia, but then demands it from Russia.

Double standard on both parts isn't it?

Georgia won't accept the independence of South Ossetia, but fights for it's own independence from Russia. Conversely, Russia accepts South Ossetia's independence from Georgia, but won't accept Chechen independence from Russia. Although I think the issue there for the Russian's is that they've always viewed Chechnya as a part of Russia, though I honestly don't see how that matters.

My point in all of this is not to say that the Russian's are doing good, they are clearly not. But that the portrayal of the Russian's as the only bad guy here is wrong.

[Azure]

Well, IMO its a bit early to make accusations one way or the other. I understand the double standard, but I really feel that the media isn't reporting very much right now, and its not wise to take the propaganda and run with it as news.

I also don't feel that what the US did in 2003 has anything to do with their stance right now. Which is why Putin hasn't said a word about it. Russia would have the same attitude towards Obama, McCain or Clinton if any of them were President.

Despite what Bush has done in the past, the US is still the most powerful country in the world, and when they say something, other countries tend to listen.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well, IMO its a bit early to make accusations one way or the other. I understand the double standard, but I really feel that the media isn't reporting very much right now, and its not wise to take the propaganda and run with it as news.

I also don't feel that what the US did in 2003 has anything to do with their stance right now. Which is why Putin hasn't said a word about it.

Putin hasn't--but there is that Russian commander who told a BBC reporter
“If the American president can take Baghdad, why can’t we take Tblisi?”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=93606405

But yeah--other than the very obvious connection there's no connection at all. For the record, I agree that the situations are indeed quite different. But there is that one troubling little similarity, and if it's being said out loud by Russian commanders you can bet higher-ups are thinking it too. Like it or not, the U.S.'s past actions do provide diplomatic cover for a regime that didn't need much of it in the first place.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by kermitology

If South Ossetia invited the Russians to protect them, wouldn't that be similar to any other breakaway state inviting the Americans to help them?

..... and the fact that the Russian presence in South Ossetia was part of an already agreed with peacekeeping deal with Georgia.

Originally Posted by kermitology

perhaps it would also be wiser to reign in the admittedly wild Georgian president.

No kidding. According to this he had been warned.

Bush administration officials, worried by what they saw as a series of provocative Russian actions, repeatedly warned Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to avoid giving the Kremlin an excuse to intervene in his country militarily, U.S. officials said Monday.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/ar...ed_georgia.php

I'm betting Rice had a few harsh words for him when they met. The US pumps in >$1.2bn in various projects and then he gives the Russians a prime opportunity to destroy a chunk of it. What's more he flaffs about for 3-4 days before signing the peace deal giving them extra time to take out hardware. Rice probably had him by the ears telling him to sign.

He gambled. He lost.

Originally Posted by kermitology

My point in all of this is not to say that the Russian's are doing good, they are clearly not. But that the portrayal of the Russian's as the only bad guy here is wrong.

Agreed. There is no way in hell unless he's a complete idiot that Saakashvili couldn't have foreseen the Russian response. He himself admitted that he knew there were tons of tanks close to the border. As for how it all started I haven't heard it disputed by him or the western media that he launced an attack into Ossetia starting the whole thing.

My feelings at this time. He wanted the war. He loves playing the victim, he loves the attention. He was banking on outside intervention. He didn't get it.

I'm willing to bet that when this all blows over and people look back on things there's going to be a lot of Georgians pissed of with him.

[Azure]

Bush administration officials, worried by what they saw as a series of provocative Russian actions, repeatedly warned Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to avoid giving the Kremlin an excuse to intervene in his country militarily, U.S. officials said Monday.

Lame-duck President, huh. Seems to me Bush took the right stance on this situation from the get-go.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Lame-duck President, huh. Seems to me Bush took the right stance on this situation from the get-go.

Azure, that really isn't the point. I never said that Bush handled the Georgian situation badly--all I said was that if he hadn't squandered every iota of his influence and political capital on a failed and ill-conceived neo-con nation-building project, then he might have hoped for another outcome. By which I mean an outcome that isn't being told to go wait in the car while Sarkozy deals with the situation.

In fact, your example illustrates my point; a more influential U.S. probably could never hope to stop Russia from using any pretext to invade Georgia. But they might be able to convince Georgia not to give them that pretext in the first place. And they might be able to influence Russia's actions after the invasion has happened. Bush can't do either of them--and it's not because he's doing anything wrong. He doesn't have enough influence.

Bush has handled this situation as well as he can given the influence he has. I'd even say he's handled it perfectly. It's the other seven years that are giving him a little trouble right now.

[chris lindberg]

Report: Russia moved missiles into Georgia

The Russian military moved missile launchers into a breakaway Georgian province ahead of a pledged pullout, The New York Times reported, citing U.S. officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26248480