Is it just me or is this Georgia thing getting more than a little scary

I have thought for a while that these overtures to bring ex-USSR territories into NATO have been ill-conceived. They're almost a guarantee of provoking some form of negative reaction, whatever form that would take.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% Sukerkin. What's the saying: "Never kick a man when he's down if you think he might get up again?" 21st-century Russia is no Soviet Union, but it's an angry bear and it's had ten years being prodded with a stick and laughed at.
 
Other than my personal opinion that killing people is generally not a good thing, I just don't get what about the situation between Georgia and Russia gives the U.S. any standing to get involved. For one thing, we lack the cred.

We failed, or aborted, our attempt to capture the organizer of the 9/11 attack in Afghanistan. We've completely blown our war in Iraq, and we're now expending a lot of resources occupying a nation that DIDN'T perpetrate the 9/11 attack. We have a war of intimidation with Iran. We have no moral high ground whatsoever to comment on other countries' aggressions, yet Bush is expressing concern about Russia's "bullying and intimidation" and invasion of "a sovereign nation," while Rice is talking about "territorial integrity." The missile defense deal with Poland probably doesn't help the issue much either. And we have major domestic issues to deal with.

It's particularly bizarre in view of Georgia's human rights violations in the disputed territories, where people pretty much don't want to be part of Georgia anyway, and the fact that Georgia kind of started it, despite the US warnings not to.

Is this really our battle? Let's face it, this is about Georgia's oil pipeline. Oil is what's fueling most of the crises in the world today: Israel, Palestine, Iraq, Iran, Darfur, and Georgia. "Territorial integrity?" Do you think we'd care if Senegal invaded Guinea-Bissau?

I wish we'd redeploy our resources into alternative energy. It would turn Saudia Arabia back into the sandbox it should be, and Georgia would be a non-starter.
 
Last edited:
Maybe one of you guys can clear this whole thing up for me....

Now I have a rather limited intellect and I can only go based on what I hear on the extremely biased news media, but here's what I've got so far.

One of Georgia's provinces doesn't like being part of them and in practice IS part of russia (speaks russian, russian passports, etc) wants to be part of Russia. So Georgia sends military to that area to "reclaim" it, effectively forcing the population back to a country that they have no ties to. Russia defends them by responding with more force.

SO, in summary.....Georgia sends military into a province of its own country to keep them from separating, Russia sends military into another country to get the province back.

So if I've got this whole thing right....kind of makes it hard to choose a side. On one hand, you've got a country who seemingly wrongly invaded an area....on the other hand, you've got another country who basically send an invasion force into another country.
 
MBuzzy said:
Maybe one of you guys can clear this whole thing up for me....
>
>One of Georgia's provinces doesn't like being part of them and in practice IS part of russia (speaks russian, russian passports, etc) wants to be part of Russia. So Georgia sends military to that area to "reclaim" it, effectively forcing the population back to a country that they have no ties to. Russia defends them by responding with more force.
Click to expand...
Close but not quite (from what I understand, anyway).

Most of these new republics formed from the former USSR/CIS have social/historical ties to Russia. True, most Ossetians and Abkhazians speak Russian, but so do most Georgians (although the official language of Georgia is Georgian, and the 'official' language of the break-away state of Abkhazia is Abkhazian). True, many Ossetians and Abkhazians do not view themselves as Georgians; however, they generally do not view themselves as Russians, either. True, many Ossetians and Abkhazians have Russian passports, but only because in the last four years the Russian government has been supporting separatists there with arms and training, and has been handing out Russian passports like candy. Russia has stationed 'Peace-Keeping Forces' in Georgia. Basically, Russia has been looking for any move by Georgia to 'justify' such an incursion for years.

If you look at a map of Georgia (see for instance, the CIA World Factbook, which gives some excellent background data on the nation of Georgia and the ethnhic conflicts there), you will see that South Ossetia occupies a north central section, and Abkhazia the extreme northwestern tip of Georgia. Still, the Soviet (er, excuse me, I mean 'Russian') incursion emphasized the capture of the central city of Gori (hub of the transnational oil/gas pipelines that have become the center, with tourism, of the robust new Georgian economy) and the central west coast city of Poti (Georgia's only major port on the Black Sea).

I was surprised that someone talked about the limited freedom in Georgia when that is actually opposite of the current situation there. Prior to the last set of elections, Eduard Shevardnadze (of old Soviet name and fame) was the president, and there were many holdovers from old Soviet-style communism. However, in 2004 his government was swept out of power by free and fair elections in which 40% of the vote was distributed among political parties other than the new president's party. Representation in the legislature includes 150 delegates apportioned by population, and even includes 10 representatives for displaced persons from Abkhazia (Abkhazians forced from their homes by separatist clashes).

Georgia has been a 'success story' of economic growth and development and freedom in the wake of the breakup of the former USSR. The 2007 GDP grew at a rate of about 12%, fueled largely by foreign investment (Georgia has made the aim of opening up to outside investment and ensuring a pro-industry government environment.) This may be part of the root of Russia's concern.
 
Last edited:
Something the media seems to have been avoiding, and that hasn't been mentioned here, is that there were over 1,000 U.S. troops in Georgia, acting as "trainers",though some were rumored to be supervising security for the pipeline that passes through Georgia and Ossetia, and some were participating in an exercise with Georgian forces that were going to be deployed in Iraq-prior to the Russian invasion.

Additionally, while it was opposed by the majority of NATO members, the U.S. has been ushing for NATO membership for Georgia and the Ukraine-a move that would have allowed a larger American force presence in those countries, right on Russia's borders-something that Russia (Putin) can't have been happy about.
 
Elder - thank you for bringing this up.

There have been US military advisors in Georgia. In 2002 a small group came and worked with Georgian forces, training them for anti-terror operations in the Pankisi Gorge, a rough, mountainous area that borders Georgia and Chechnya which had been used by Al Qaida as a 'safe haven' from Russian forces. Also, the US has helped train Georgian forces who have been deployed as peacekeepers in Iraq. The 2000 Georgian troops in Iraq have since been redeployed as a result of the conflict with Russia, so I am not sure of the current status of any US personnel in the region.

The joint US-Georgian military exercises (I believe they were practice for working with NATO forces in Iraq, but I'm not positive) had been completed and the American forces participating in them had left before any of the current crises.

I would be very interested in finding links/news showing the current status of US involvement in the area. Are advisers/trainers still present at all?
 
Ninjamom said:
The joint US-Georgian military exercises (I believe they were practice for working with NATO forces in Iraq, but I'm not positive) had been completed and the American forces participating in them had left before any of the current crises, however.
Click to expand...

Actually, while the exercise was over, they were still there when Russia invaded. They left afterward.

Ninjamom said:
I would be very interested in finding links/news showing the current status of US involvement in the area. Are advisers/trainers still present at all?
Click to expand...


If you find any links, you'll find that the answer is "maybe yes, maybe no."

I'm guessing "yes," but what do I know?
 
Last edited:
jkembry said:
I am not sure scary is the right word for it ... unless you happen to be in Georgia.

My opinion only...I believe that an updated 'Cold War' is returning and has been for some time. And, I believe as long as Putin is around we can expect more of this.

The thing I found fascinating about it was the timing of the invasion. Had the Olympics not been in play, I am certain that we would have heard MUCH more about it in our news.
Click to expand...
Just remember Putin is reacting to pre-existing violence within Georgia against pro-Russian supporters. To the Russian People he is stopping a geonocide that the US chooses to ignore.
Sean
 
The Russian people have been seriously propagandized.

The two break-away sections of Georgia have been outside effective operational control of the central Georgian government for years (ever since the Russian 'peace keeping' forces have been operating there). So, who exactly would Georgia have been committing genocide against seems unclear, especially since the Russians have been in control in those areas. Meanwhile, however, there are 100,000 to 200,000 'internally displaced persons' inside Georgia (i.e., Georgian citizens who had to flee their homes because of Russian-backed, Russian-funded 'ethnic cleansing' against them in their homes in South Ossetia and/or Abkhazia).
 
Originally Posted by Ninjamom I was surprised that someone talked about the limited freedom in Georgia when that is actually opposite of the current situation there. Prior to the last set of elections, Eduard Shevardnadze (of old Soviet name and fame) was the president, and there were many holdovers from old Soviet-style communism. However, in 2004 his government was swept out of power by free and fair elections in which 40% of the vote was distributed among political parties other than the new president's party
Click to expand...

Yes, that was me. I was going by what I read in UK newspapers and elsewhere. However, I grant you now that I've checked up, that the last elections in the January of this year were much freer. Still problems, as we can see here and here, but probably better.

Originally Posted by Ninjamom The Russian people have been seriously propagandized.
Click to expand...

As for this one, they probably know it. Russia has always been different from the rest of Europe - it doesn't think or act in the same way. Throughout history, Russia has been invaded by just about everyone - hence their preference for fighting wars in other people's countries rather than their own (!) - and they seek strength in their leaders. As long at Putin is seen as strong - and that's Putin, not his new puppet president - the Russians will continue to love him for it.
 
CaffeineKing said:
...... Russia has been invaded by just about everyone - hence their preference for fighting wars in other people's countries rather than their own (!) - and they seek strength in their leaders. As long at Putin is seen as strong - and that's Putin, not his new puppet president - the Russians will continue to love him for it.
Click to expand...
A very good observation! I agree.
 
I'm not as worried about China from a military stand point as I am from a financial stand point. Financially, they could crush us in a heart beat.
 
theletch1 said:
Simply put... Putin scares me. Really scares me.
Click to expand...

theletch1 said:
I'm not as worried about China from a military stand point as I am from a financial stand point. Financially, they could crush us in a heart beat.
Click to expand...

From a 'world stability' point-of-view, I totally agree with you on both counts (well, maybe not 'in a heartbeat', but China could definitely raise enough economic pain to make us cry 'uncle' on a lot of issues).

I have long believed that cheap imported Chinese goods were keeping prices in the US artificially low, and that the moment China either raised prices or cut exports, a backlog of a decade's-worth of inflation would hit us. I suspected such a thing would/could be used as a political/economic weapon; however, whether planned or not, the rise in oil prices and resulting increased fuel costs has actually accomplished pretty much the same thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Texas school district allows CCW for staff

Previous Thread

Howard Dean Calls GOP the "WHITE party"

Next Thread

Similar threads

Sukerkin
A View of Empire In The Modern Era
Replies
2
Views
992
Carol
Carol

Latest Discussions

Back
Top