Russian attacks over Georgia

[ezodisy]

By the way, a true story, my friend's mother was run over by two speeding drunk [idiots]

sorry to hear this. It doesn't matter where the driver's from, it happens everywhere and in one form or another always will. Hope she recovers.

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

sorry to hear this. It doesn't matter where the driver's from, it happens everywhere and in one form or another always will. Hope she recovers.

I hope she recovers, too. And yes - every nation has its fair share of criminally irresponsible idiots.

[M forever]

sorry to hear this. It doesn't matter where the driver's from

According to Sarastro, it does. Because according to him, this incident justifies what the Soviet Union did to Romania.

[Sarastro]

sorry to hear this. It doesn't matter where the driver's from, it happens everywhere and in one form or another always will. Hope she recovers.

Hope so, too. Of course it doesn't matter, and her family does not care what nationality were those (although the guys were found later by evidence). It has already happened, and now they just want that at least she opens her eyes.
I referred to it just to show that many things happen, but after all you shouldn't think about the past so much (although never forget it!), and actually many things "had been" to Romania except the Soviet Union, and constantly blaming the Soviets for injustice avoiding other facts looks aggressive. Well, then, why not to blame the Ottoman Empire? And that is only about Romania, but how many other nations were ruled by some other nation? England itself was conquered by William the Conqueror. Had it not been for him, probably it would have been a far better place now, who knows. Or had it not been for the Nazi, the world would have been a far better place, and probably Japan wouldn't have suffered two atomic explosions. Why don't we then discuss the modern German government, saying something like "a sport that Germany has been practicing for centuries."

[M forever]

Or had it not been for the Nazi, the world would have been a far better place, and probably Japan wouldn't have suffered two atomic explosions.

Exactly! It was so mean of the Nazis to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Why don't we then discuss the modern German government, saying something like "a sport that Germany has been practicing for centuries."

What sport? Heavy close-combat drinking?

But I bascially agree with Sarastro. We shouldn't focus on Russia's recent actions, or what the US does in Iraq, when far more horrible things happen in the world at the same time. These countries aren't the only ones who invade other countries these days.

Where is the public outcry about the recurring German invasion of Italy every single year? When the evil Teutons head south in large numbers, to lie at the beaches and hotel pools, tan their pale skins lobster-red, drink beer and eat cheap pizza. All that clearly violates the Geneva conventions. As does the infamous and very unfair habit of Germans to get up earlier in the morning than the British tourists and occupy all the sun chairs at the pool. Brits have complained about this for a long time, but does the international community take action? Or even notice?

[Sarastro]

Exactly! It was so mean of the Nazis to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Oh, you understand everything so literally!

[Florestan]

Sarastro,

I'm very sorry about your friend's mother and I hope she recovers soon. Romanians have their share of scoundrels and I am the first to admit it.

It's not Russia that bothers me but Soviet Russia, i.e. the USSR and its destructive actions in Romania. You may deny or try to minimize them but that's your problem, not mine.

As for your historical ramblings they are fun but completely lacking in substance. Your saying "Romania would have been a far better place had it not been for the Roman Empire" is absurd, since there was no Romania at all in those times. As for the Habsburg Empire, I believe that quite the contrary of what you say it's true: had the Habsburgs ruled all Romania, not only Transylvania, Romania would have been a far better place than it is now.

That Romania's future is completely in our hands is of course absolutely true. But you seem to imply something like that: someone hits you in the head with a brick, you are uncounscious and bleeding for half an hour and when you awake and grudge at the hitter you get the reply: hey, that was in the past, now the future is completely in your hands. Not quite fair, IMHO.

[Sarastro]

since there was no Romania at all in those times.

There was no Romania, but surely there were some people living on those territories, future Romanians, and the territory was just called differently; it is like the Soviet Union and Russian Federation, isn't it? Or like Bohemia and Czech republic.

Amplifying your "had it not been" one can also conclude that had it not been for the Nazi's attack on the Soviets, the latter wouldn't have fought back, advanced into Europe, concurrently promoting the Soviet propaganda and puppet regime, having got a perfect chance for it. How is that?

It's not Russia that bothers me but Soviet Russia, i.e. the USSR and its destructive actions in Romania. You may deny or try to minimize them but that's your problem, not mine.

I neither deny nor minimize it, but because you are constantly picking on Russia, as if it were the only destructive force to Romania, I feel justifiable to refer to other examples in history.

That Romania's future is completely in our hands is of course absolutely true. But you seem to imply something like that: someone hits you in the head with a brick, you are uncounscious and bleeding for half an hour and when you awake and grudge at the hitter you get the reply: hey, that was in the past, now the future is completely in your hands. Not quite fair, IMHO.

Let's say several people hit you in the head with a brick, you are unconscious and bleeding for half an hour and when you awake and start never-ending grudging at one particular hitter or its descend, completely ignoring the other participation, - that is not fair. You do not discuss the Soviet Union, you discuss modern Russia.

But then again, rationality, logic and restraint doesn't go together with foreign policy, especially Russian foreign policy.

As if Russia has ever been respectful of international rights and laws...

Russia will support any seceding nation form its neighbours --- in the name of the right to self-determination, mind you --- but will crush mercilessly any such attempt on its territory. Very practical and convenient.

Russia has never given up its imperial claims and will do everything, including war, to restore its former status and jurisdiction.

Although it was proven that Russia was just defending against Georgian sudden attack, which happened to be reasonably armed and well-planned. Or what else had it to do - lay hands and look at missiles bombing South Ossetia?

Look at it this way: if a country steals territories from each and every neighbouring country --- a sport that Russia has been practicing for centuries

As if only Russia has been practicing that! These statements might be very well applicable to the Golden Horde, to the Ottomans, to the Teutons, the Franks (Norman Conquest of England, the Hundred Years' War, Napoleonic expansion in Europe), the War of the Spanish Succession, the rise of the Third Reich, and, going farther from just "neighbouring countries" - colonizing the North of North America - Canada and also Africa by the French, the Spanish and Portugal Conquista with thousands (Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, was bigger than the biggest European city that time, so I'd say hundreds thousand) of innocent native Americans killed, as well as the British colonization, and another British colonization of Australia, etc.etc.etc.

[Florestan]

I neither deny nor minimize it, but because you are constantly picking on Russia, as if it were the only destructive force to Romania, I feel justifiable to refer to other examples in history.

Russia has not been the only destructive force to Romania, sure, but it has certainly been the most destructive.

You do not discuss the Soviet Union, you discuss modern Russia.

Modern Russia which you just happened to acknowledge as the direct successor of the USSR.

As if only Russia has been practicing that! These statements might be very well applicable to the Golden Horde, to the Ottomans, to the Teutons, the Franks (Norman Conquest of England, the Hundred Years' War, Napoleonic expansion in Europe), the War of the Spanish Succession, the rise of the Third Reich, and, going farther from just "neighbouring countries" - colonizing the North of North America - Canada and also Africa by the French, the Spanish and Portugal Conquista with thousands (Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, was bigger than the biggest European city that time, so I'd say hundreds thousand) of innocent native Americans killed, as well as the British colonization, and another British colonization of Australia, etc.etc.etc.

This is true, but the destruction of the Kingdom of Romania and its society came not from the British, nor Portuguese, nor French --- it came from the Soviet Russia.

You keep talking about Nazi Germany. One big difference between Germany and Russia is that the German governments have expressed, many times, officially and publicly, their regrets for the crimes, follies and errors committed by the Nazi government --- of which they were not direct successors, mind you --- and presented their apologies to all the victims. Nothing of the sort happened in Russia after 1989 (with the possible exception of Gorbachev in the Katyn case, if I remember correctly). The Russian governments --- direct successors of USSR governments --- have not expressed the least regret for the crimes, follies and errors committed by their predecessors, let alone presented apologies to the victims, be they Ukrainian, Polish, Baltic, Hungarian, Czech, Romanian etc etc etc. Germany has learned the lessons of the past, has given up once and for all any imperial pretense and has become a democratic, stable and peaceful state. Russia instead has never learned anything from the past, still dreams of her former empire and is an authoritarian, unstable and violent state.

I can understand that for you, as a Russian, is hard to accept all that. I am sure that actually you see things differently. I have no problem with that. My issues are with the Russian government not with the Russian people, as I've said before. I make a clear distinction between the government of a country and the people of that country. Furthermore, I myself don't feel obliged to support or justify every action of the Romanian government just because I am Romanian myself. Nor do I think that Romanians are the best and brightest people on Earth.

But I will state it one more time: my dislike of Russian foreign policy is not based on fantasies but on historical facts and figures that happened not in a distant past but within living memory. And as long as Russia will not follow Germany's example of acknowledgement, repent and transformation I will consider it as a danger to the peace and stability of Europe.

[Sarastro]

I can understand that for you, as a Russian, is hard to accept all that.

Not at all. I know even more about the outrageous Soviet government and its crimes, but disagree with the way you present modern Russia as a frightful beast compared to other "innocent and fluffy" nations, whose past is even more frightful. Once again all your claims may be as well be applied to other states in different periods of their history. Of course, now Europe, spent after a couple thousand years of wars and conquests, is a relatively quiet and friendly place. And Russia is transforming enormously -- at least it was when I lived there, and now we got up-to-date evidence from Spitvalve. It is hard to change the whole nation at once, it takes time to transform and become a new state. But even my generation is already not Soviet, it is new Russian with peaceful outlooks and opened to the world. You didn't answer my question - what had Russia to do in such circumstance? They were not the aggressors.

This is true, but the destruction of the Kingdom of Romania and its society came not from the British, nor Portuguese, nor French --- it came from the Soviet Russia.

So you are speaking from a position of a single Romanian, who is not concerned about the external affairs that doesn't concern Romania? No, you are not. Let's try to look at another scale then.
Pretend we are Armenians. Let's take a look at another historical event about "acknowledgement, repent and transformation." It took place in Turkey and is called The Armenian Genocide. The USA condemned Turkey three times before the WWI, the same time Russia, France and Great Britain acknowledged the genocide, in 1987 EU recognized the genocide, too. Modern Turkey contradicts that fact and therefore is not allowed to the EU.

The Republic of Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, does not accept the word genocide as an accurate description of the events. In recent years, it has faced repeated calls to accept the events as genocide. To date, twenty-one countries have officially recognized the events of the period as genocide, and most scholars and historians accept this view.

Thus, following your logic, an Armenian may say Turkey is a danger to the peace and stability of Europe.

Every person whose nation suffered from another (or, better, another nation's government) is prone to claim alike, completely focusing on its rival, and many times ignoring other injustice that might be even worse. But that is not substantial.

Thereof if I were you, I wouldn't refer to the opponent's nationality as a major factor in judging actions of a country. Or what if you didn't know I am Russian? Besides, I live in the US -- the whole new perspective. Or what if I were a Czech...or a Brazilian, and had the same opinion? Would I then have been more justified to talk about Russia's policy? Moreover, following your logic, this can be applied to you either: "I can understand that for you, as a Romanian, is hard not to blame Russia for the ..." or something of that kind which is utter nonsense. I understand your point clearly, so we'd better stop here.

----------- ------------ ----------- ---------- ------------

By the way, news on topic: Georgia admitted it used cluster bombs that were imposed ban due to its immense danger to civilians and environment.

[Florestan]

we'd better stop here.

Agreed.

[ezodisy]

A couple of news-worthy pieces regarding Russian territorial discussions have emerged in the past week. The first is a short video from Forbes about Russia this week following through on its agreement to hand over to China certain disputed islands in the far east. In terms of recent Soviet history the gesture isn't on the same scale as what's going on in Georgia or Chechnya, but it does point up Russia's political acuity in its relations with China.

Forbes video

The second is about the recent meeting of the presidents of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (Russia, China, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan). The article is an interesting one showing how closely connected some of these states still are and of the change in sentiment from fully supporting Russian actions in Chechnya to only giving a slight nod of the head to what's happening in Georgia.

http://www.iwpr.net/?p=rca&s=f&o=346545&apc_state=henh

[ezodisy]

Maybe not a big deal long-term, and probably tied to western looming recession anyway, but worth noting now as one effect of the recent Russian decision:

Investors rush to exit Russia

[M forever]

FT interview with Gergiev: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9880da60-7ad9-11dd-adbe-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

[ezodisy]

"Russia, Abkhazia and Georgia seal friendship agreement" - watching it live now on Russia Today (thanks Zattoo). Looks like the Russians will go all out if anyone attacks either now.

edit: S. Ossetia, NOT Georgia. lol! Nice little hopeful slip there

[Archaic Torso of Apollo]

And in the wake of McCain's VP choice, the eXile's Mark Ames lays out the stakes:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080929/ames

[J.Z. Herrenberg]

"Russia, Abkhazia and Georgia seal friendship agreement" - watching it live now on Russia Today (thanks Zattoo). Looks like the Russians will go all out if anyone attacks either now.

edit: S. Ossetia, NOT Georgia. lol! Nice little hopeful slip there

Yes, I was amazed! 

[ezodisy]

BP considers selling Caspian pipeline stake

19 Sep 2008 - 14:36

MOSCOW, Sept 19 (Reuters) - BP may sell its stake in the Caspian Pipeline Consortium (CPC), which pumps crude from Kazakhstan to the Black Sea, if it fails to agree with Russia on terms for expanding the line, BP said in Russia on Friday.

The move would trigger a further shareholding reshuffle at the consortium after another member, Gulf Arab state Oman, said it was also looking to sell its stake.

Most of the shareholders of the Chevron-led pipeline, which runs to the major Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, have agreed on the expansion terms demanded by Russia, which owns 24 percent in the consortium as a host state.

BP, the only shareholder that still opposes the terms, said it was considering selling the stake if no compromise was found.

"This is one of the options to settle the current situation," Vladimir Buyanov, a BP spokesman in Moscow, told Reuters.

He said BP may sell its stakes in LUKARCO and Kazakhstan Pipeline Ventures, which are members of the consortium. BP's stakes in the ventures bring its share in CPC to 6.6 percent, Buyanov said.

Russian pipeline monopoly Transneft , which holds the country's stake in CPC, had long opposed the plan to double the pipeline's capacity from the current 700,000 barrels per day, but it has now dropped its objections.

Transneft previously argued that the pipeline yielded low returns and that expansion would add pressure on the already congested Turkish Straits shipping route.

In summer, most of the partners agreed to raise the shipping tariff to $38 per tonne from $30.24 last year and private investors agreed to halve interest rates on a $5 billion loan to CPC to 6 percent, easing worries over funding. Transneft, which owns all pipelines on the Russian territory except CPC, has said BP was insisting on borrowing more to fund the expansion.

A London-based source close to BP told Reuters on Thursday that BP wanted to borrow more as its percentage interest in the pipeline was bigger than its percentage interest in the Kazakh fields, which feed the route.

This means BP has more incentive for the pipeline project to be commercially attractive, the source said.

Russia and Kazakhstan, which is also a state shareholder of CPC, have both expressed interest in buying Oman's 7 percent stake.

Besides BP and Chevron, which holds 15 percent, its private shareholders include Royal Dutch Shell , ExxonMobil and Russia's two largest oil producers, Rosneft and LUKOIL .

CPC has been shipping oil since 2001 and pumps up to 750,000 barrels per day to Novorossiisk for re-export to the Mediterranean.