[Archived] Bush To Send American Troops To Georgia

[SouthAussieRover]

Hi Sar,

You are correct on reported information, but mine is not from western media and is 9 hours ahead! Btw - Half the information R6 reported was rubbish.. and then he/she/it changed it.. like passports was never mentioned at all in the original post - funny that!

EDIT: May I ask, how does asking for a Russian passport (from anyone in Ossetia and Abkahiza) change the complextion of the outbreak of war and the reasoning behind it? and bear in mind that Abkazians and Ossetians want independance from both?... think abut it.

Fair comment. 9 hours ahead though?

I'm of the personal opinion that this is Russia flexing it's military muscle and testing out the US's resolve.

[AussieinUk]

And may add..

Before the break-up of the USSR, very few Russians lived in S. Ossetia. The population consisted almost entirely of Georgians & Ossetians - 29.0% Georgian, 66.2% Ossetian, 4.8% assorted others, according to the 1989 census, which was consistent with earlier censuses. Ethnic Russians have never been more than 2.5% of the population, according to the Soviet censuses.

The population balance has since been affected by flight of both Ossetians & Georgians. The numbers fleeing are unknown, & it should be noted that the highest quoted figures add up to more than the entire 1989 population, which was only 99000.

Note, that according to the Russian citizenship acts of 1991 & 2002, as far as I can see the South Ossetians are not entitled to Russian citizenship. They were not born in Russia, nor (in most cases) are they descended from anyone born in Russia, nor are they former Soviet citizens resident in Russia. They qualified under Article 11 of the Compatriots Act of 1999, but this was revoked in 2002, & subsequent claims of citizenship under this act have not been recognised by Russian courts or executive agencies. I wonder on what basis South Ossetians are recognised as Russian citizens? Were they all registered in that 3 year period?

Explain please R6?

[AussieinUk]

Fair comment. 9 hours ahead though?

I'm of the personal opinion that this is Russia flexing it's military muscle and testing out the US's resolve.

At least.. (thats was on the 8th -10th of August) by then every news crew journo was trying to get into Tblisi and Ts'hivali (S. Ossetia) to report (and many of these were inaccurate)

Personally, I think Georgia was quelling territoral disputes (WITHIN) their borders and Russia knew of this.. Georgia also cut their own gas pipleine (through Turkey and around Armenia) 36 hours, before the opening of the confict started..

Why did elements of the Russian black sea fleet, sail immediately from Sevastapol - unless of course they knew prior?

Why did the US pull over half their advisors out of Tblisi 48 hours before the opening of the confict?

[AussieinUk]

In the end, who knows, who was holding all the pieces? I know I dont and nor does R6 by a long shot... he should stick to football, as he is clearly well out of his depth on this subject!

Another note: Georgia could not get NATO membership (voting in Dec 08) with territorial disputes in hand..

[rover6]

AussieinUk, your slightly hysterical responses to my post is confusing. I will readily hear arguments against my view - I didn't even know of the existence of a place called South Ossetia until recently - so I'm hardly an expert. However, I don't read arguments from you but slapdash digs, which makes me wonder what I wrote that upset you.

EDIT: May I ask, how does asking for a Russian passport (from anyone in Ossetia and Abkahiza) change the complextion of the outbreak of war and the reasoning behind it? and bear in mind that Abkazians and Ossetians want independance from both?... think abut it.

Under international law, under certain circumstances, a state has the right to use self-defence in order to protect its citizens.

By granting these people citizenship, Russia was always intending to give itself a legal pretext (however doubtful) to involve itself militarily (or threaten to) within the borders of Georgia.

Note, that according to the Russian citizenship acts of 1991 & 2002, as far as I can see the South Ossetians are not entitled to Russian citizenship. They were not born in Russia, nor (in most cases) are they descended from anyone born in Russia, nor are they former Soviet citizens resident in Russia. They qualified under Article 11 of the Compatriots Act of 1999, but this was revoked in 2002, & subsequent claims of citizenship under this act have not been recognised by Russian courts or executive agencies. I wonder on what basis South Ossetians are recognised as Russian citizens? Were they all registered in that 3 year period?

Explain please R6?

Again to emphasise, I'm no expert, but a quick bit of research leads me to believe that South Ossetians and Abkhazians were awarded Ruskie citizenship on the legally dubious basis of being stateless and living in a place that was part of the USSR. (The dubious bit is whether they are stateless).

[AussieinUk]

As stated already R6 -

1. Your original post contained no mention about passports - then you edited it (twice I might add)

2. Some of the information you provided was not factually correct at all - I mentioned which parts.

3. Who actually knows why this incident was started. a ) Was it provocation by Russia (they were very much ready and arming local militia's for years) or, b ) Was it Georgia for two reasons, i) Gain NATO entry (through perceived heavy persecution), or ii) Correctly quelling territoral disputes

I dont think anyone, correctly know's the full reasoning behind this incident. Thats all.

Btw - Slapdash digs, my ar$e!

[rover6]

As stated already R6 -

1. Your original post contained no mention about passports - then you edited it (twice I might add).

AusseinUk, I am still totally perplexed about what was in my post that has upset you so.

Yes, I edited my post a few times. I was verifying some stuff before posting everything, so I posted it in stages. I didn't delete anything I had previously written, merely adding to it. And I didn't edit in response to your post because I hadn't read your post until I'd finished. Why the ire about adding to my post? Have I broken mb etiquette on editing or something?

2. Some of the information you provided was not factually correct at all - I mentioned which parts..

You have merely guessed that the information is factually incorrect. IF you check the facts, you will find that, for example, the head of the local KGB in South Ossetia is a former FSB man. If you check the facts, you will also find that Russia has admitted violating Georgian airspace..

3. Who actually knows why this incident was started. a ) Was it provocation by Russia (they were very much ready and arming local militia's for years) or, b ) Was it Georgia for two reasons, i) Gain NATO entry (through perceived heavy persecution), or ii) Correctly quelling territoral disputes

I dont think anyone, correctly know's the full reasoning behind this incident. Thats all.

No-one may know the full reasoning behind this incident - certainly not I. Both sides have been burying the facts under a plethora of bare-faced lies, prevarication, misdirected guesses, provocation, taunts and insults. This makes it harder to work out what happened. But we can still try to engage in civil, open-minded debate on this mb, can we not?

And I think we should distinguish between the spark that flared the war and the factors that have slowly burned to create the dangerously unstable and pendulous situation. As far as I know the spark was the Georgian decision to invade South Ossetia to reclaim the land from separatists and put and end to their sporadic attacks on Georgian villages. This move was probably ill-advised and has attracted Saakashvili much criticism. (Incidentally, apparently Saakashvili's family originate from S.Ossetia).

[rover6]

I would like to widen this debate, if I may.

The more I read, the more worried I become about Russia and its role in the world for the future. I am not adopting a biased Western Cold War mentality but trying to looking at both sides of the supposed divide and the present facts.

The scary things about Russia:

- Their regime is dominated by an entrenched bunch of ruthless, lawless, amoral, FSB-associated men.

- These men are very intelligent and cunning. They have perfected the art of demagoguery and rhetoric. (They have revived the spirit of Stalin as a great man - now considered in Russia as one of the greatest.)

- These men have few interests beyond securing their own power, reasserting Russian "pride" and accumulating great wealth.

And scarily of all...

- They have vast and ever-growing resources, including gas and oil, with which they are able to gain great political leverage.

Russia could debilitate parts of Europe by switching off the taps. Whilst now, I believe EUrope relies on 1/4 of their gas from Russia, as Arcitic regions are exploited this will only make Europe more dependent, I fear. In addition, Russia is actively trying to purchase the export supplies from other countries such as Libya and Algeria. They are slowly moving towards a supply monopoly on European hydrocarbon resources.

With their growing wealth and energy clout, Russia are going to only get more influential, as far as I can see. The worry I have is that we will see tensions ratchet upwards as fundamentalist Western capitalism (lead by US) confronts fundamentalist "State Capitalism" (lead by Russia).

However, others think that as Russian business and the government use their wealth to invest abroad, they will gradually become integrated into the world economy, to the extent that co-operation with the West will be in their financial interests.... But as long as Russia are making great swathes of money from gas and oil, this won't occur, surely?

[blue phil]

Dignity in ruthlessly killing those children in Beslan to make an example of the terrorists?

Would you care to edit this bit of nonsense , Rover6 ?

Or give a bit more info to back it up .....

[rover6]

I have to admit, most of my knowledge comes from the source of Anna Polikovskaya's book, "A Russian Diary". However, I have no reason to believe that her writings were biased. In fact, much of what she alleged has been corroborated by other sources.

The reports of what happened at Nord Ost Theatre siege (where the FSB 'gassed' the terrorists and hostages) and the Beslan siege, there is a disturbing level of blame that can be apportioned to the Kremlin. I accept that one cannot be 100% sure because the fact is, in Russia truth is hard to come by.

Whilst the terrorists are in all probability, of course, the primary criminals here, the state displayed a terrible disregard for the lives of the hostages. There are also allegations made by people like Litvenenko, Politkovskaya and others that the FSB were complicit in both events.

At Nord Ost, the FSB gassed the hostages and their captors. Once it was over, doctors could not treat some the dying because the authorities would not divulge what gas was used. The chemical used is still a secret.

At Beslan, it has been alleged that the FSB used tank fire and flamethrowers on the school during the siege - although the Russians claim, contrary to witness statements, that they only fired once the hostages were out. Afterwards dead bodies were thrown onto garbage heaps.

A number of journalists were barred from travelling to Beslan during the crisis. Politkovskaya, who had mediated in the Nord Ost Siege, tried to get there but was stopped. When she eventually did get on a plane, she was drugged by tea she was given, falling into a coma.

It is undoubtable that the Russian regime is callous and self-interested. That, of course, does not make them guilty of every crime, but it is something that must be considered when they are involved in any incident and claim innocence (as in the South Ossetia war).

[Flopsy]

the fsb? Not Alpha team and spetsnaz. Fsb is the foreign intelligence arm of russia. So Mi6 not Mi5.

[Bazzanotsogreat]

I would like to widen this debate, if I may.

The more I read, the more worried I become about Russia and its role in the world for the future. I am not adopting a biased Western Cold War mentality but trying to looking at both sides of the supposed divide and the present facts.

The scary things about Russia:

- Their regime is dominated by an entrenched bunch of ruthless, lawless, amoral, FSB-associated men.

- These men are very intelligent and cunning. They have perfected the art of demagoguery and rhetoric. (They have revived the spirit of Stalin as a great man - now considered in Russia as one of the greatest.)

- These men have few interests beyond securing their own power, reasserting Russian "pride" and accumulating great wealth.

And scarily of all...

- They have vast and ever-growing resources, including gas and oil, with which they are able to gain great political leverage.

Russia could debilitate parts of Europe by switching off the taps. Whilst now, I believe EUrope relies on 1/4 of their gas from Russia, as Arcitic regions are exploited this will only make Europe more dependent, I fear. In addition, Russia is actively trying to purchase the export supplies from other countries such as Libya and Algeria. They are slowly moving towards a supply monopoly on European hydrocarbon resources.

With their growing wealth and energy clout, Russia are going to only get more influential, as far as I can see. The worry I have is that we will see tensions ratchet upwards as fundamentalist Western capitalism (lead by US) confronts fundamentalist "State Capitalism" (lead by Russia).

However, others think that as Russian business and the government use their wealth to invest abroad, they will gradually become integrated into the world economy, to the extent that co-operation with the West will be in their financial interests.... But as long as Russia are making great swathes of money from gas and oil, this won't occur, surely?

From a contextual pov the use of the word fundamentalist does not fit within your argument.

As for your prediction over some sort of economic battle between the West and Russia it is way off. To put this argument into perspective; the combined wealth of the EU & North America is well-over £30 trillion dollars (GDP ppp). The Russian economy is rated at just over £2 trillion dollars (Britain’s economy alone is worth more in terms of ppp than Russia’s).

Yes Russia could play hardball on petro-gas supplies, but the vast majority of Russia’s wealth is from the fact that they sell to Western consumers- without us ¾ of there market would disappear.

The real threat from Russia to the EU comes from its military- only the UK and France (to a degree) have anything like a proper military. The Russians are aware of this, thus the recent spike in Russian military activity (incursions into EU airspace).

As for the recent Georgian campaign , whilst I am no fan of Russia or its foreign policies- the West will have to accept that global powers such as Russia & China will always have ‘spheres of interest’ with ex-Soviet states being the obvious states of interest.

[rover6]

That's a fair point and I have read that people do tend (like I have here) to overestimate the economic clout of Russia.

However, when I suggest a clash of ideology between Western Capitalism and State Capitalism, I am less concerned with economic competition but the actual ideological gap. I guess, clash isn't the right word...

I think most would agree that Russia operates on a corrupt, kleptocratic but ultimately capitalist basis. It's not a free market in Russia but there is something resembling a capitalist market. However, the Kremlin are insidiously representing themselves, when it benefits themselves, as anti-capitalist. Thus, Putin has publicly harangued a number of Oligarchs and the state has painted Russia as being under threat from ruthless, self-seeking, exploitative Westerners after Russia's wealth (which may be partly true of these multi-nationals...).

The situation, as I see it, is Russia representing itself as the alternative to the Western world of exploitative multi-national Western monoliths that shred countries to bits in search of profit. By representing itself as this "rebel against Western greed" it has brainwashed most of its citizens. Most of these people, fed by state-propaganda, genuinely believe the Kremlin as protecting them from capitalist greed.

Who is there to take the ideological fight to the Kremlin and explain to the Russians that the Kremlin itself is operating a callous form of capitalist greed and exploiting its own citizens, whilst pretending to be their brave defenders? The West can't do it - we are becoming increasingly dominated by the influence of these gigantic multi-nationals who don't want to upset foreign nations and harm their profit potential therein.

Fundamentalist capitalism (in my sense, people who view the free market as a panacea) will surely be on the rise in the West as our Frankenstein Corp/Plcs grow. State capitalism will surely, as a counter-weight, go from strength to strength as a supposed alternative to Western Capitalism. This means, as my worry goes, the Putin style capitalism will become entrenched and thus perpetuated.

Basically, I'm saying, there's no-one challenging Western Capitalism, so Putin and Co. are happily filling that void and surfing great waves of popularity at home as a result. We need a feasible, humane alternative to develop to knock Western Capitalism and State Capitalism off their perches because both, imo, are harming this world. I'm not necessarily suggesting revolution, but a evolution of our current Western capitalism, to rein in these vast world-wide conglomerates and multi-nationals that basically have their own foreign policy and are taking hold of that of Nation states. Once we have stood up to our own corporations, we can sincerely go to the Russians and say, "We don't want to influence your country to reap financial rewards, we want to urge change in your country to promote the well-being of the embattled average Russian."

[blue phil]

As for the recent Georgian campaign , whilst I am no fan of Russia or its foreign policies- the West will have to accept that global powers such as Russia & China will always have ‘spheres of interest’ with ex-Soviet states being the obvious states of interest.

It was before my time but didn't Kennedy take the world to the brink of war in order to uphold the "sphere of influence" principle ?

Georgia - and the Ukraine - may well be all in favour of having Nato bases on their soil but by the same principle so was Cuba back in the 60's with Soviet bases and weapons .

[Bazzanotsogreat]

It was before my time but didn't Kennedy take the world to the brink of war in order to uphold the "sphere of influence" principle ?

Georgia - and the Ukraine - may well be all in favour of having Nato bases on their soil but by the same principle so was Cuba back in the 60's with Soviet bases and weapons .

My reference was attributed to a geographical/histographical sphere of influence not a political one BP. The difference is that Russia whether the West like it or not, is a major player in Asia & Europe much the same as China is within its sphere. The Cuban missile crisis was created by a man-made clash of political ideologies (with all the obvious gamesmanship & brinksmanship that accompanied Cold-war conflict)

[yoda]

I wouldn't worry about Russia to much, Pakistan is the next big problem facing the west.

It's more than fiesable that some Islamic radical will get his finger on Pakistan's nuclear trigger in the near future.

[sijoco]

I wouldn't worry about Russia to much, Pakistan is the next big problem facing the west.

It's more than fiesable that some Islamic radical will get his finger on Pakistan's nuclear trigger in the near future.

Agreed, despite the fact "The West" decided Iraq was the problem, it's strange the Taliban originate from Pakistan. Forget Russia defending their own against a wanna be NATO country, since Musharraf "stepped down" we have bigger things to worry about.