Putin, however, is a different story. If he wanted to make NATO stronger, he couldn’t have picked a better strategy.

If you believe the media, then you are a fool.

Nobody is saying that Russian is a sweetheart, although, I can say if I had a choice, I’d choose Russia to be on my side over the US, much the same way I’d rather have someone give me money over a kick in the head.

Remember that the day you stop learning, you die.

But of course, no mention of that in mainstream media. Nor is there mention of the fact that Georgia had Ossetia’s water cut off for a month prior to attacking it and the fact that the call for independence from Georgia resulted in a 99% vote for with a 95% turnout. I think these people have spoken pretty clearly about what they want.

Nobody is arguing Georgia’s “territorial integrity and sovereignty”. What they are arguing is the obvious genocide against a people who obviously see things a little clearer when it comes to the U.S./Isreali sponsored regime running Georgia and who want no part of it. Tshinvali in the after math was littered with U.S. made war ammo and food rations. There’s no doubt who was behind the onslaught. Most likely to tie Russia up in a civil war that will keep them off the U.S. long enough for them to go in to Iran to do their thing.

One thing is very clear, this was a war by Proxy against Russia and I don’t think Russia is stupid enough to not realize that. If Russia has a grudge against Nato/UN/U.S. over this cowardly act, they have every right to be. Considering as well the fact that now they want to implement missile defense systems next door, I think there’s more to this than meets the eye and people better wake up or we Canadians will be dragged right into another illegal war for oil just like the U.S. is doing in Iraq.

What fools do the U.S. take us for??
What fools do the media take us for??

Open your eyes and see what’s going on!! Pure hogwash!!

The U.S. may be supportive of Georgia joining NATO, but Georgia’s decision to try to join NATO was made by the democratically elected government of Georgia for reasons ENTIRELY of self interest.

We can debate how democratic Georgia is, but with your main point here I would agree.

Georgia’s not interested in helping NATO surround Russia. Georgia’s interested in not being reabsorbed by Russia.

Georgia wants NATO help. But Georgians are perfectly capable of improving their own country, even without the benefit of NATO membership, even being given no choice but to “get along” with Russia. They are not pathetic victims.

Ukraine doesn’t want to join NATO because they think that will make Russia feel threatened by them . . .

In fact, most people in the Ukraine do not presently want to join NATO, according to recent polls:

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080506/106712138.html

NATO’s not twisting the arms of these border states to get them into NATO as some conspiracy against the Russians. In fact, NATO’s not made it particularly easy for them to join the alliance.

It depends by how you define “twisting the arms.” Does money count?

If so, I would refer you to Section (3) of H.R. 987, The NATO Freedom Consolidation Act of 2007 passed by the US Senate in the Spring:

(3) GEORGIA- Georgia is designated as eligible to receive assistance under the program established under section 203(a) of the NATO Participation Act of 1994, and shall be deemed to have been so designated pursuant to section 203(d)(1) of such Act.

According to sources, US$10 million is authorized to be available on a grant basis for Georgia from the US taxpayer.

The Russians can’t afford dragged on military confrontations either. They made their point with Georgia and pulled out immediately. They will probably continue this pattern with other countries.

They are not interested in the economic basket cases of the former USSR, but they are interested in Poland, Latvia, Estonia and the Ukraine. They will aim for control rather than occupation. Most of these countries already have enough ethnic Russians to keep the locals in line.

Putin is not Hitler, but he’s bad. Read the article Paul linked to yesterday.

What should the West do? “NATO” has somehow become the answer to anything related to Russia, but the organization is as obsolete as the USSR. The EU needs to get its act together, but they’re paralyzed over Cyprus and Turkey. People who can agree on a military union but not an economic union might get what they deserve.

Andrew Coyne is bang on in his analysis of this situation.

The USA is not the evil bogeyman that leftists and idiots think. Putin’s Russia is the worlds biggest problem right now. There is a reason all the newly freed states are rushing to join nato.

Its because Russia is and has always been dangerous.

Putin is a thug and a bully using his oil and energy to rebuild a totalitarian state and re-conquer all of eastern europe and re-establish his empire over the stans.

Poland certainly doesnt feel safe. And gee no wonder.

The old soviet block states were conquered countries not Russian property. No surprise they dont want that to happen again.

The previous commenter needs a good shot of Russian vodka and a dose of reality.

As a citizen of a small country, I feel the world is a safer place when there is a balance of power. We have seen what happens when there is one superpower; the United States has been a worldwide bully in pursuit of oil since the fall of the Soviet Union. The rise of Russia is necessary.

Somebody ought to tell the Russians that eh?

The timing is not coincidental. It was a statement.

You can look at these states bordering Russia and say that the U.S. is trying to “box in” Russia by encouraging them to rush to join NATO, but that’s not how I see it at all. I think these country’s are rushing to join NATO because they want to stay outside of Russia’s box.

The U.S. may be supportive of Georgia joining NATO, but Georgia’s decision to try to join NATO was made by the democratically elected government of Georgia for reasons ENTIRELY of self interest. Georgia’s not interested in helping NATO surround Russia. Georgia’s interested in not being reabsorbed by Russia. Ukraine doesn’t want to join NATO because they think that will make Russia feel threatened by them. They want to join NATO so that THEY can feel less threatened by Russia.

NATO’s not twisting the arms of these border states to get them into NATO as some conspiracy against the Russians. In fact, NATO’s not made it particularly easy for them to join the alliance. If NATO wanted to box in Russia, these countries would already be members. These countries are clamouring to get in to NATO, of their own accord, because they fear what the Russian’s might decide to do to them. And this month hasn’t exactly put their fears to rest.

Well they aren’t in the WTO now so they wouldn’t be losing anything they already had, and if the G7 met up up and discussed the “Russian issue” without Russia present to complete the G8 during the meeting, then arguably, that might not be such a big deal losing membership either.UN Sanctions would be likely vetoed by Russia and China. Direct military engagement with Russia at this time is simply not an option.

In the end its about fear and respect with Russia. The loss of respect in losing WTO/G8 status is deemed less important (by Russia) than the loss of respect in allowing the Near Abroad to join NATO. When faced with the loss of respect in either scenario, Russia will turn to its most time honored weapon: Fear.

Allowing Russia to get away with this, and not being able to stop them are not the same thing. The US is beset with 2 protracted conflicts, a populace that’s tired of foreign wars and a troubled economy. NATO is strapped with getting force level commitments from its members other than the UK and the US. The UK/US duo are the only countries in NATO ( possibly Germany to some degree ) that possess the logistics to mobilize quickly. They are also the largest part of NATO’s “stick”.

If they are not willing or unable to confront Russia, it is unlikely NATO would propose force as a response. Coupled with Russia’s UN veto ( and China’s most likely ) and Russia’s current position as a major energy provider for western Europe, its only logical that Georgia is considered an acceptable loss.

Does that qualify as appeasement? For the short term it absolutely does. It will take time for NATO ( and more to the point , the US ) to redeploy in light of this new threat. Georgia is lost, there might still be time to prevent the same fate for Ukraine and others, but time is running out.

In terms of the invasion of Gerogia, it was a masterstroke on the part of Russia. Everything to gain, little to lose and almost no response possible.

Since NATO hasn’t been able to do much in Afghanistan why isn’t reasonable for the Russians to view it as an alliance against them?

We, we, we, we . . . Say, do you suppose people who actually live in some of these places might be capable of looking after — negotiating — what’s in their own best interest? I bet some of these local people know far more than we ever will about how to help them help themselves. For example, take a look at the history of the Georgia-Russia relations in relation to Ossetia:
http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-of-conflict-between-georgia.html

Russia’s interventions in the country have been going on for hundreds of years. Sometimes, indeed, at the request of the locals.

Isn’t the best way to contain the influence of Russia to make democracy itself appealing to people around the world? I fear that to extent the West puts resources into military-industrial-complex sponsored containment schemes, the less inspiring our example will be.

I think the best hope for the world is for the West to continue practice at home the virtues it preaches abroad.

They are not, and nor should they be according to some like Angela Merkel. I think Paul Wells does a good job of making that distinction.

If Russia attacked any NATO member there would have to be consequences, Georgia is not one, so there is no obligation to take action.

I realize it isn’t that simple, but that it clearly a factor..

Andrew’s musings/comments about Kosovo reminded me of two Gwynne Dyer columns from a few months back.

No, I don’t think the West was intentionally trying to humiliate Russia by recognizing Kosovo’s independance, although it was definitely a by-product. As Dyer states, although “a shabby, shady” move, it may have been the “least bad option” in a situation that was poorly thought out from the start.

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Kosovo%20Independence.txt

And yes, Andrew is quite right that this is NOT Kosovo, but here is why it matters.

“If Russia one day recognises Abkhazia’s independence without Georgian consent and Security Council approval, it will mean that Moscow has finally lost its faith in international law and accepted that the world has reverted to jungle.” If that ever happened, I’m glad I live far, far away from Russia’s part of the jungle.

http://www.gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Abkhazia.txt

Not this chestnut again– those evil, evil Serbs had it coming.

Funny, but by 1999, the Serbs and the KLA– the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army, with links to Osama bin Laden– had been perpetrating atrocities against each other. Those claimed “mass graves” never turned up. The KLA attacked not only Kosovo Serbs (and burned down Eastern Orthodox churches), but brutalized Gypsies and even fellow Albanians. The KLA’s specialty, after all, is people smuggling, gun running and weapons smuggling. Hardly the basis for a viable state.

The Kosovo war was the height of folly, and yes, Russia has every right to cite it. Recognition of it went against international law, and most countries in the world will never recognize it– including democracies, such as Brazil, New Zealand and India.

We screwed up big time in Kosovo. It’s time to withdraw recognition for this nonviable, KLA-led narcostate, and invite in international peacekeepers as needed. In return, Russia must do the same for Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Now one of the greatest mysteries of all time is on the verge of being solved, and this catastrophe could ruin everything.

Read this link for a revealing account of the real TRUTH these superpowers are covering up with this war!

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/metro/clayton/stories/2008/08/14/cop_bigfoot_sighting.html

Just admit it. Your side lost the Cold War!!

The same people who promoted the biggest foreign policy debacle of at least the last generation are the ones now pushing the hardest for Cold War Version 2.0. They got everything wrong then, including supposed facts. Why should we listen to them now?

Incidentally, Russia did call an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council claiming to be seeking a peaceful solution before they went into Georgia. It remains possible that their intentions even then couldn’t be accepted at face value. It remains possible that yours can’t either.

This is what we’ve come to.

Albright says Condi Rice should go to Moscow and speak harshly to the Russians. Not exactly pistols at dawn. She goes as far as saying that the US should support Georgia joining NATO, “ultimately” (i.e. once Georgia has resolved the outstanding obstacles to its membership).

Again, by all means, push back on Russia diplomatically but let’s hope McCain explains to Saakashvili when they next IM or whatever they’re doing that that’s the limit of Western support.

Neither former Secretary seemed entirely confident that Russia’s done, and they were both pretty bellicose in their statements. Both want to get NATO membership back on track fast, and let’s just say the word “sanctions” came up (though in response to a hypothetical).

Anyway, here were two people who aren’t exactly lightweights, both seemingly convinced that this is intended as step one of a larger project for Russia. Eagleberger and Albright both certainly seemed worried about Russia’s potential neo-imperialist intentions (as we know are the leaders of Poland, Ukraine, and the Baltic states) and that certainly has me worried too.

NATO was a deterrent to Soviet expansion into Western Europe, where the West had pretty significant interests. That made the deterrence credible. Extending NATO into areas currently in low-grade, murky border disputes in smaller countries would quickly undermine the credibility of NATO – because the alliance would immediately fail to intervene in at least one of these. So, your suggestion that NATO rush to expand even further seems likely to weaken the alliance (which I understand is already having some trouble what with the nobody sending troops to Afghanistan thing).

It might be better to set out a roadmap for membership for Georgia that required it to resolve its disputes with its breakaway regions or set up a reasonable process for managing those disputes. We might want to make it clear that attacking Russian troops in the ground in those regions would not be “a reasonable process”, just to avoid future misunderstandings. We could also continue to condemn Russia for its disproportionate response. But let’s not pretend we’re about to rush to the military defence of Georgia.

I was being very serious. Not in the “tomorrow” sense, but in a decade or so. What happens?

Our claims to the Arctic versus their desire for it?

Having the Russians annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia and at least threaten to take over Georgia is bad enough. A trumped up invasion of Crimea and threatening of Ukraine would be TRULY disastrous (Current countdown clock on that might not be until 2017, but who knows… I didn’t really expect to see the Russians invading a sovereign neighbour this decade either…).

Which also makes me wonder. Do you suppose this week that Ukraine is regretting transferring their nukes back to Russia? I think maybe I’d be.

I tend to take my cues on what the right position for the West is from the reactions of the people actually on the ground. The leaders of Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic states rushing to Georgia to stand before crowds of thousands of cheering Georgians to show their solidarity with the Georgian people told me all I needed to know about who’s side we should be on, and how quickly we should demonstrate OUR solidarity.

When on the one side you have Russia, and on the other you have “absolutely everyone who borders Russia”, to me, it’s a no-brainer.

I hope our Rangers are keeping an eye out for Russian-accented dog sledders handing out passports to the Citizens of the North like candy.

1) Whether the event was resulted from
deliberate action by Russia or was precipitated
by someone else.
2) Whether the event has any historical precedents and parallels involving other countries.
3) Whether the event took place recently or a
thousand years ago.
4) Whether the event was actual or dreamt up
by Andrew himself.

Here is the only thing relevant in forming
Andrew Coyne’s opinion on any development
involving Russia:

1) Inbred russophobia of Andrew’s paymasters.

Well, maybe also Andrew’s fondness for a good
living he makes by pleasing his paymasters.

Russia must be doing something right, if all
those hate-filled cold worrior russophobes have
their panties in such a bunch.

Relevance of their impotent whining to actions
of the Russian governmant fulfilling its primary
role in defending Russia’s own national
interests and improving wellbeing of Russian
citizens – zero.