GMG Classical Music Forum

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10ossetia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

In the Georgian capital of Tbilisi, wounded fighters and civilians began to arrive in hospitals, most with shrapnel or mortar wounds. Several dozen names had been posted outside the hospital.

Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia accused Russia of a “well-planned invasion” and mobilized Georgia’s military reserves. There were signs as well of a cyberwarfare campaign, as Georgian government Web sites were crashing intermittently during the day.

(http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/images/photo/2008/08/09/20080809-GEORGIA/24393754.JPG)

Apparently the bloody Russians have tried to take out a major oil pipeline -- but have so far failed. I don't wish to say too many bad things about them, as I don't quite believe that such an elected government represents its people so it wouldn't be fair to dismiss a whole country based on the decisions of a few hundred or a few thousand. I'll only say that precedent indicates that they will disable or destroy as many strategic dependency points as they possibly can, effectively crippling the country while initially minimising non-military casualties. It is as ever typically cunning and ruthless as it effectively diverts immediate blame for innocent losses while in the medium term causes even greater disturbance and deprivation. I will watch with interest and a certain amount of one-sided disgust as this continues over the next few days.

On a separate note I have been following a particular US-based (Houston, Texas) oil and gas company which operates bang in the middle of Georgia in a particular region called the Kura basin. The recent Russian attack on the centrally located town of Gori should suffice to put Frontera Resources on a stretcher back home to the good old US of A.

This is crazy. :-\ There is an outburst in Russian networks.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 09, 2008, 10:53:01 AM
I don't wish to say too many bad things about them, as I don't quite believe that such an elected government represents its people so it wouldn't be fair to dismiss a whole country based on the decisions of a few hundred or a few thousand.

Right, the major Russian problem is government. It is still absolute monarchy, and no one is going to take care of settling it.

My own opinion is that this is a test to see what the West will do and it will also be a trial of strength about oil and gas. I think we are in for bumpy weather caused by a ruthless and power hungry government. If we sit on our hands, and effectively we will, expect more of the same.

Mike

Then again, with the US claiming there's 90bn barrels of oil beneath the Arctic and three times as much natural gas (more than Russia's estimated reserves), if they get the go-ahead to start exploration, will the West eventually care what the Russian government does?

I think it will, since I cannot see Arctic gas being pumped into Europe. Also, I don't see this as primarily about oil or gas, it is about global power and dominating, blackmailing and browbeating your old buffer states. Today's independent countries become tomorrow's buffer states. Once economic dependency is established then political and economic influence comes to bare. At the same time there is the implicit threat to all of us here who seemingly need the gas and then the confiscatory prices they will ultimately impose.

Seeing Russia as allies and friends was a short lived period.

Mike

Quote from: knight on August 09, 2008, 11:47:47 AM
My own opinion is that this is a test to see what the West will do and it will also be a trial of strength about oil and gas. I think we are in for bumpy weather caused by a ruthless and power hungry government. If we sit on our hands, and effectively we will, expect more of the same.

Mike

Well I suppose you can take 3 things for certain: 1) local media of any country cannot accurately portray, describe or interpret such a conflict as its information, excluding several firsthand videos of combat, is mostly secondhand and/or piecemeal, 2) the complex history of North and South Ossetia, (Soviet) Russia and Georgia is too complicated to understand for anyone outside of direct political/acdemic involvement or not living in the immediate history or area of any such place, 3) that there is, as ever, some manner of behind-the-scenes political agreement in place, perhaps between Russia and the US, regarding what is and is not permissible to take out, destroy or arrest in this ongoing conflict.

In the third instance there could well be acknowledgements on either side that certain economic interests, such as pipelines, foundries and what have you, would be off-limit targets in exchange for a change of sentiment towards Georgia's possible participation in NATO, a change that appeared likely enough in any case and fairly certain now. This would satisfy Russia and they would not lose anything by leaving Georgian interests undamaged. I would guess that a full invasion would be unlikely or agreed beforehand not to take place. If it's true that the Georgian president had pledged to get back what he believes is Georgian land, then, however briefly, through this conflict he could be said to have done so and kept his promise. However the obvious discrepancy between his stated intentions to NATO and his current actions is enough to have any participation cancelled.

In Russia's favour here is the recent recognition of Kosovo's independence, which in broad outlines at least could be said to mirror that of Southern Ossetia which obviously has not been recognised as independent yet. I'm aware of the Russian nationality/passport matter with Ossetians but beyond that I don't know much about any possible tie-up between North and South, especially given the North's current position with Russia, and whether in years ahead it would be possible for Ossetia as a whole to become independent if tacitly and economically under the control of Russia. I imagine Russia might be willing to forge such a unity, though who knows. This, at least superficially, goes back to the early '90s and with all the upheaval it is way too complicated for me.

Regarding the matter of oil, the BTC pipeline (Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan) runs through Georgia. It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world and is of major importance to Georgia's economy, obviously. Would the Russsians take it out? Surely they could, but in spite of what I said above I really don't think so. They would incur the wrath of many different countries, and not just the ones whose name is in the title of the pipeline (BP have the largest stake in it). I would guess that this is the sort of thing that might be agreed upon beforehand. The plan is to disable and punish Georgia, not to shit on your own doorstep.

90 billion barrels sounds like a lot but, um, that's beneath the Arctic, if there at all. Off the coast of Nigeria there's an estimated 70 billion recoverable, with oil prospecting licenses granted or farmed-out to Addax, BP, Shell, KNOC, Chevron among other large and quite a few small players. In fact most of these oil prospecting areas (I am talking about the separate plots, not cumulatively) around Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe put the talk of oil off the coast of Florida to absolute shame. The latter is really just a joke, something to appease those disgruntled Americans who will cast their vote for whoever gives them a lower price at the pump. Little more.

QuoteRussian attacks over Georgia

Huh? Georgia started it. Not to say the Russians weren't itching for a fight, but get your facts straight.

Tony, Thanks for that, interesting read. I am perhaps being over simplistic; I am going for what I think is an end game for the Russians. Whatever, I hope it calms down and quickly.

Mike

NY Times article (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/world/europe/10ossetia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)

From the article:

The United States and other Western nations, joined by NATO, condemned the violence and demanded a cease-fire. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went a step further, calling on Russia to withdraw its forces. According to the Associated Press, President George W. Bush in Beijing for the Summer Olympics, said that the Georgia crisis endangered regional peace and urged an end to escalation.

I am confused now. What are Rice and Bush talking about? Georgia or Iraq?

Quote from: knight on August 09, 2008, 10:10:05 PM
Mike

Mike, how does the British media present the conflict?  :)

I have only seen TV and listened to the radio. Both BBC and one independent channel have characterised the Russian moves as...

A landgrab
That they will do exactly what they want, then seemingly bow to outside pressures once they have achieved all they want.
That they don't seem to care about collateral damage to civilians who are near to strategic targets. I don't recall seeing such explicit footage of bodies.

Little is explained about the origins of what has been happening. They do say, but are clearly cynical about it, that Russia sees itself as maintaining the status quo and intervening to achieve that.

Mike

Quote from: knight on August 09, 2008, 10:10:05 PM
I am going for what I think is an end game for the Russians.

Overall I agree and generally am as pessimistic about them as you are (and you know how much I love Russian art culture). I think they have some form of the Kosovo precedent in mind as they "intervene" on behalf of S.O. Just listen to the Russian take on this: "It no longer exists" (speaking of the SO capital), and Putin throws out the word "genocide" which, combined with the earlier presidential stance of defending Russian people and (human) interests, can be interpreted as a direct attack on Russia, I suppose. At the same time it is not just the Russians who are trying to exploit the media: the Georgians themselves claimed that the Russians tried to destroy a major oil pipline, presumably BTC, which most likely is bullshit and a more subtle way of calling for western intervention. The Georgians are also claiming "humanitarian catastrophe", which I hope not and frankly speaking expect not, and at the same time are now pulling out of SO though trying to save face by claiming that it's for the sake of saving human life which sadly and ironically they had forced to this point in any case. In spite of a lot of western media focus and media pressure on Russia to cease and withdraw, I would guess that more pressure by the west is being put on Georgia as they are the ones harbouring important oil prospects and also are something of the "loose cannon" in terms of regional stability with their dogged determination to snatch their land back. I guess hearing about and seeing Russian "peacekeepers" in SO every day wouldn't sit well with them over the past dozen years.

Personally I expect the media to carry on about Russia while in fact any actual international punishment would go to Georgia, even if kept relatively quiet. It's a fascinating situation, at least partly because it's so complex and I'm sorry to say tragic. I agree about the explicit footage of bodies. Along with this there's now more talk about Abkhazia which I guess will be the new SO...

Predictably enough the BBC have now published a piece on Putin's response to the conflict and have inferred, perhaps correctly, that he is still calling the shots over there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7552323.stm

Quote from: M forever on August 09, 2008, 11:17:06 PM
What are Rice and Bush talking about? Georgia or Iraq?

My thoughts exactly.  ;)

Quote from: ezodisy on August 10, 2008, 01:22:42 AM
(and you know how much I love Russian art culture)

Fortunately, there is no link between Russian Art Culture and current Russian government. So there! :D

There are two dogs - the West (led by the US) and Russia. The bone is dominance in Central Asia and access to oil and gas reserves.

South Ossetia broke away from Georgia (there is a Russian majority there), which Georgia never liked. George aligns itself with the West, which Russia doesn't like (fear of encirclement, no hegemony in Central Asia). Georgia attacks SO, Russia hits back, undoubtedly very grateful to be able to do so.

This is a dirty 'Grand Chess Game'. And I sympathise with none of the players.

We are in the grip of the new Black Death - oil.

High time humanity grew up and realised it is one one planet, sharing one fate. Possibly death, if it 's not careful.

My take.

Is "The Guardian" British press?  :) http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/10/georgia.russia
Here is what they say:

QuoteGeorgian president Mikheil Saakashvili seems to care less about these people than about asserting that they live in Georgian territory. Otherwise he would not on the night of 7-8 August have launched a massive artillery assault on the town of Tskhinvali, which has no purely military targets and whose residents, the Georgians say, lest we forget, are their own citizens. This is a blatant breach of international humanitarian law.

San-Francisco Chronicle:

QuoteA sharp escalation began Friday when Georgia launched a large-scale predawn military operation intended to seize control of the rebel region, whose de facto autonomy and ties to Russia have long been an irritant to Georgian leaders. Backed by airplanes, Georgian troops plunged into South Ossetia and waged a hard battle throughout the day for control of the province capital, Tskhinvali.

I am not a pro-war activist, but it's utterly unfair to refer to "the bloody Russians" and accuse of the Georgian attack as aggressors. As it is presented, the Georgians (not, not Georgians, Georgian government :)) started first. I would say they both are severely wrong. Not just because innocent civilians die, but why should soldiers die, too? But as long as we do not know the real reason of the conflict, we can't say anything, who knows, if it is just a political game, and all was planned beforehand, and Russia, the USA, and Georgia negotiated how to make this spectacle. :o

Quote from: Sarastro on August 10, 2008, 02:38:15 AMwho knows, if it is just a political game, and all was planned beforehand, and Russia, the USA, and Georgia negotiated how to make this spectacle.

I agree. All this was planned, unfortunately for civilians and soldiers of all factions.

Quote from: Jezetha on August 10, 2008, 02:34:32 AM
There are two dogs - the West (led by the US) and Russia. The bone is dominance in Central Asia and access to oil and gas reserves.

The situation in Central Asia is extremely, mindbogglingly complex, and any such media-inspired reduction as above turns it straight into a self-fulfilling warmongering disaster. I don't even know where to begin with this monster. First of all the matter of the preponderance of Central Asian countries which constitute the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) needs to be looked at. These are former Soviet Republics, currently numbering 11 + 1 associate (including Russia), which have something of their own free trade agreement dating back to 2005. Ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union this commonwealth has, quite obviously, given a local and economic advantage to Russia, if not outright hegemony of the area surrounding the oil-rich Caspian Sea. The one associate I mentioned is Turkmenistan who for reasons I don't know has largely cut its links here. Ukraine in some respects appears not far away from doing so too with its increasing pro-western stance, and--surprise surprise--Georgia is also severing links as it does its best to suck up to NATO. This is all one matter which could have and I'm sure has had books written on it and is part of the underlying geopolitics of the region.

A second matter is oil pipelines or perhaps lack thereof. With the Druzhba dominating Europe the media appears happy to fuel fear of Russian dominance everywhere. It becomes more interesting, as ever, in the details and specifically in certain origins in Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. These are oil rich countries which traditionally have had their exporting points through Russian pipelines and/or over Russian territory. However the past decade has seen a significant shift in strategy and control, partly through further US coordination and partly through these countries talking to each other to maximise returns on their own resources, and this last point is still undergoing and gaining momentum in several ways including a proposed Trans-Caspian pipeline between Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan (this would be a gas pipeline though nonetheless highlights my point as it is being strongly opposed by Russia, and Iran, as it would break free from both). Of the three countries, Azerbaijan appears to have gained the most freedom so far and has most likely caused Russia the biggest headache, at least until Kazakhstan breaks free further. Largely it has been through this thread's favourite pipeline, the lovely BTC, that Azerbaijan has managed to assert greater self-determination than it otherwise could have. The B(aku)TC, whose construction was encouraged by the US and undoubtedly funded to some extent, has pretty much screwed Russia over, because as of this year Azerbaijan no longer uses the Baku-Novorossiysk (Russia) pipeline to transport oil and instead pretty much everything goes through the BTC out to the relatively safe and I suppose western-looking land of Turkey. Kazakhstan, like Azerbaijan previously, principally uses an overland Russian line -- CPC pipeline (Caspian Pipeline Consortium -- which Chevron and ExxonMobil have large stakes in) which runs over Russia to the increasingly popular destination of Novorossiysk on the Black Sea. Apparently four-fifths of Kazakhstan's oil moves this way. However there are plans, predictably opposed to by Russia and Iran, for Kazakhstan to build a pipeline between two of its own cities, from northwest to southwest, which would start a Kazakhstan Caspian Transportation System (KCTS), leading to Azerbaijan and out through our almost-overused pipeline, the BTC. Apparently the building of KCTS would cost upwards of US$4billion, and you can guess where some of that funding will come from. Add to this that China apparently wants to quadruple the current oil it receives from Kazakhstan and you are looking at a rather sour and grumpy mother Russia with a deepening furrow in her brow. More choice, less control you could say, though it's more likely just a matter of control changing hands. Having said that, I shouldn't forget that these countries are starting to wield the resource power that they have underneath them, and as such it is more difficult for them to be controlled, more likely cajoled, and that best price will often be best man.

All that is not to say that power is changing hands from Russian control to US, or from east to west (if anything China will win a tug-of-war). There are too many countries and too many factors involved for such a simplification. I've been reading of links between Israel and Georgia, military ones where Israel sells certain "defence" systems to them, and it's interesting to note that Israel are currently proposing oil from the BTC flow through their channels onwards to Asia. I suspect none of those goes down well with Russia, but then who really knows what sort of links exist there and how much of this is true or not?

Referring strictly to Georgia, I've since learned that the BTC pipeline was actually closed a few days ago, on 7 August I think. The apparent reason for this was an explosion in Turkey, though the timing--apparently 15 days down--appears a little too perfect and adds fuel to the fire of a pre-arranged agreement over the whole war/target/pipeline thing I mentioned yesterday, or something else entirely of course. Notice also that oil prices were not unduly affected by the news (no sudden upsurge). When this same thing happened a year ago, they shot up (it was going up anwyay, but still...).

Anyway it's all bloody complex. You are right that that area of the world has a huge struggle going on, but it is not simply a black-and-white us vs them type of thing. Humanity will not be growing up any time soon so long as there is oil at stake (I don't know anything about the gas over there but presumably there's a lot of it). And after oil, something else, so don't hold your breath  8)

Quote from: Sarastro on August 10, 2008, 02:38:15 AM
I am not a pro-war activist, but it's utterly unfair to refer to "the bloody Russians" and accuse of the Georgian attack as aggressors.

Извините если я оскорбил вас .По английски слого "bloody" необязательно имеет плохое значение и я неимел в виду ничего плохого. Неодин тупой англичанин неинтересуется русской культурой больше чем я. Пожалуйста забудь что я сказал и я знаю что вы правы насчет того как это началось

Давайте начнем сначала.

Здравствуйте, я ваша тётя! :)

Really excellent piece, ezodisy! Thank you. The whole thing is a minefield, I know, but you pick your way through it in expert fashion.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 10, 2008, 03:05:44 PM
Anyway it's all bloody complex. You are right that that area of the world has a huge struggle going on, but it is not simply a black-and-white us vs them type of thing. Humanity will not be growing up any time soon so long as there is oil at stake (I don't know anything about the gas over there but presumably there's a lot of it). And after oil, something else, so don't hold your breath  8)

I am 47. I would have suffocated from holding my breath many times over if I had at any point harboured any illusions about humanity as a whole...

We'll have to see how the whole thing plays out the coming days, weeks, years. I have a feeling Russia will stay in SO.

Quote from: Jezetha on August 10, 2008, 02:34:32 AM
South Ossetia broke away from Georgia (there is a Russian majority there), which Georgia never liked.

This contradicts everything I have read, which indicates that Ossetia is mostly inhabited by "Ossetians" who are ethnically closest to Persians (they speak a language closely related to Farsi).  The Ossetians have a history of siding with Russians rather than Georgians, I suspect because Russia is farther away than Georgia.

Quote from: scarpia on August 10, 2008, 06:02:40 PM
This contradicts everything I have read, which indicates that Ossetia is mostly inhabited by "Ossetians" who are ethnically closest to Persians (they speak a language closely related to Farsi).  The Ossetians have a history of siding with Russians rather than Georgians, I suspect because Russia is farther away than Georgia.

From what I have heard and read, 80% of Ossetians have Russian passports. Ethnically they may be closer to the Persians, but to all intents and purposes their nationality is (half-)Russian. People may correct me...

Quote from: scarpia on August 10, 2008, 06:02:40 PM
The Ossetians have a history of siding with Russians rather than Georgians, I suspect because Russia is farther away than Georgia.

no, geographical location has less to do with it. To put your mind at ease that there is no such simplicity, please see the following map:

(http://www.armenian-history.com/images/maps/ethnic_map_of_Caucasus.jpg)

From what I can understand, Ossetia was under Russia's control as far back as 1801. It was during the Russian revolution that the area started to fragment, with the south becoming part of a Menshevik Georgian Republic and the north Terek Soviet. In 1922 and 1924 respectively, the two parts became autonmous oblasts of the Soviet Union, the south part of the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic, the north Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. So even as far back as this there is some manner of divide. Fast forward to 1989 and you have the South Ossetia Supreme Soviet ruling in favour of joining south to north, a move which was opposed by the Georgian SSR; and in Dec. 1990, following further South Ossetian political rebellion, Georgian SSR Superme Soviet revoked SO autonomy, and now we are much closer to present day events. There has not been similar unrest in North Ossetia which became and remains a federal subject republic of Russia.

So again it's nothing like as simple as it's made out, and if anything, Ossetians don't "have a history of siding with Russians rather than Georgians" but more likely an inclination to side with themselves, which one day, in spite of all the Russian passports flying around, will probably be a future case for full independence.

Quote from: Jezetha on August 11, 2008, 12:27:58 AM
From what I have heard and read, 80% of Ossetians have Russian passports. Ethnically they may be closer to the Persians, but to all intents and purposes their nationality is (half-)Russian. People may correct me...

"Russian" in this context would imply that they speak Russian, at least.  The Russians have been handing out passports to residents of the breakaway regions for the past few years with the apparent purpose of justifying an adventure such as this. 

Quote from: scarpia on August 11, 2008, 06:57:02 AM
"Russian" in this context would imply that they speak Russian, at least.  The Russians have been handing out passports to residents of the breakaway regions for the past few years with the apparent purpose of justifying an adventure such as this.

Yes, you are right, they have been handing out passports. But you can't force people to accept them. And the 'adventure' is as much Saakashvili's, who seems to have overplayed his hand by attacking SO, as the Russians', who use this unwise (to put it mildly) action by Georgia to make a few things clear not only to it, but also to the West - don't meddle in our backyard.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 10, 2008, 12:15:35 AM
Mike, how does the British media present the conflict?  :)

This is not Mike, but in response to your question I heard a BBC radio interview with a former Foreign Secretary (Conservative) Malcolm Rifkind in which he accused Russia of hypocricy for supporting separatism in this conflict whilst denouncing and making was against it in Chechnya.

Quote from: vandermolen on August 11, 2008, 07:33:16 AM
This is not Mike, but in response to your question I heard a BBC radio interview with a former Foreign Secretary (Conservative) Malcolm Rifkind in which he accused Russia of hypocricy for supporting separatism in this conflict whilst denouncing and making was against it in Chechnya.

Political hypocricy? That's nearly unheard of.

Quote from: Philoctetes on August 11, 2008, 07:37:09 AM
Political hypocricy? That's nearly unheard of.

You are right, of course. Freedom Fighters/Terrorists etc.

Quote from: vandermolen on August 11, 2008, 07:44:51 AM
You are right, of course. Freedom Fighters/Terrorists etc.

I think you meant Freedom Fries.
:P

Quote from: vandermolen on August 11, 2008, 07:33:16 AM
This is not Mike, but in response to your question I heard a BBC radio interview with a former Foreign Secretary (Conservative) Malcolm Rifkind in which he accused Russia of hypocricy for supporting separatism in this conflict whilst denouncing and making was against it in Chechnya.

You can't define a uniform policy regarding "separatism."  It depends on whether the region in question has a legitimate claim of being oppressed, or whether there are strong cultural or political ties to one country or another.  There is also an issue of proportionality of response.  When Bosnia split from the former Yugoslavia there was a legitimate grievance for Serbians who found themselves on the wrong side of the dividing line.  But it did not justify what took place. 

Ultimately this is evidence of pathological politics in that part of the world.  Can you imagine that Maine would try to split off from the US, and that when the US tried to reassert control, Canada would invade the US? 

Quote from: scarpia on August 11, 2008, 07:55:04 AM
You can't define a uniform policy regarding "separatism."  It depends on whether the region in question has a legitimate claim of being oppressed, or whether there are strong cultural or political ties to one country or another.  There is also an issue of proportionality of response.  When Bosnia split from the former Yugoslavia there was a legitimate grievance for Serbians who found themselves on the wrong side of the dividing line.  But it did not justify what took place. 

Ultimately this is evidence of pathological politics in that part of the world.  Can you imagine that Maine would try to split off from the US, and that when the US tried to reassert control, Canada would invade the US? 

I agree with you. In response to a question I was just reporting back what I heard on the radio. As with any historical problem, the more you look into it the more complex it becomes.

Quote from: scarpia on August 11, 2008, 06:57:02 AM
"Russian" in this context would imply that they speak Russian, at least.  The Russians have been handing out passports to residents of the breakaway regions for the past few years with the apparent purpose of justifying an adventure such as this. 

Of course they speak Russian -- at least the old timers and the educated ones do.  Like with most of these one-time Soviet states they have Russian as an official or business language. Just in case you didn't know, Gergiev grew up in North Ossetia, and his Russian isn't too bad. Have you considered that perhaps the majority of Ossetians don't even speak Georgian?

Regarding "justifying an adventure such as this", what is your source for "handing out passports...for the past few years"? Russian passports were granted as far back as the very early '90s, so any adventure that's been coming has been in waiting for over a dozen years.

Before you go on with your insinuations about Russia's strategy--which probably have some element of truth to them--keep in mind that there may not be too many job opportunities in South Ossetia, and that it might not be uncommon for some of the family to go north to Russia, thanks to their passports, and to work there and to send money back home to their underprivileged families. The Russian passport might be a godsend for many.

Quote from: scarpia on August 11, 2008, 07:55:04 AM
You can't define a uniform policy regarding "separatism." 

Ultimately this is evidence of pathological politics in that part of the world.  Can you imagine that Maine would try to split off from the US, and that when the US tried to reassert control, Canada would invade the US? 

I agree with your comment about the impossibility of a uniform policy here, but comparing a state breaking away from the US, or Quebec from Canada, for example, is completely and utterly irrelevant to the situation and, quite frankly, I'm sure very insulting to anyone from that region. See my previous post for at least 2 reasons why.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 11, 2008, 10:32:14 AM
Of course they speak Russian -- at least the old timers and the educated ones do.  Like with most of these one-time Soviet states they have Russian as an official or business language. Just in case you didn't know, Gergiev grew up in North Ossetia, and his Russian isn't too bad. Have you considered that perhaps the majority of Ossetians don't even speak Georgian?

I am certainly aware that Russian was taught in all schools in the former Soviet Union, and throughout the Soviet Empire.  Even Vietnamese were forced to study Russian in school, does that make them Russians?  When the nationalists talk about "Russia for Russians" I'm not sure they are thinking about Ossetians.

Quote
Regarding "justifying an adventure such as this", what is your source for "handing out passports...for the past few years"? Russian passports were granted as far back as the very early '90s, so any adventure that's been coming has been in waiting for over a dozen years.

From the New York Times:

QuoteIn Georgia and Russia, a Perfect Brew for a Blowup
By C. J. CHIVERS
Published: August 10, 2008

[...]

Under the presidency of Vladimir V. Putin, Russia had already been granting citizenship and distributing passports to virtually all of the adult residents of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the much larger separatist region where Russia had also massed troops over the weekend. The West had been skeptical of the validity of Russia's handing out passports by the thousands to citizens of another nation.

"Having a document does not make you a Russian citizen," one American diplomat said in 2004, as Russia expanded the program.

But whatever the legal merits, the Kremlin had laid the foundation for one of its public relations arguments for invading: its army was coming to the aid of Russian citizens under foreign attack.

Quote from: scarpia on August 11, 2008, 10:51:00 AM
does that make them Russians?  When the nationalists talk about "Russia for Russians" I'm not sure they are thinking about Ossetians.

I don't know. Most nationalists are raving lunatics anyway (IMO).

Quote
From the New York Times:

Thanks for that. I don't buy into the prejudiced final line: "the Kremlin had laid...". The matter of invasion is open to wide interpretation here even without SO receiving official recognition of independence. As for Putin, his presidency goes back to 2000 so you are still looking at 8 years of planning for this "adventure". I would really like to hear how an experienced person in political law interprets the old autonomous oblast/vote for separation/hopeful annex/russian passport/no official recognition line of events which underlies this complex issue.

It is arguable that South Ossetians would rather be part of Russia than Georgia.  If the Russian rhetoric can be taken at face value and their goal is to prevent Georgia from taking South Ossetia by force, it could be claimed that they are justified.  The current operations seem to have a wider scope, if the result is to chase out the elected government of Georgia and install a pro Soviet Russian puppet regime, then I think there is a problem.

Quote from: scarpia on August 11, 2008, 10:51:00 AM
I am certainly aware that Russian was taught in all schools in the former Soviet Union, and throughout the Soviet Empire.  Even Vietnamese were forced to study Russian in school, does that make them Russians?

Yes, it does. Alternatively, a really tall glass of vodka instantly makes you Russian, too.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 10, 2008, 12:15:35 AM
Mike, how does the British media present the conflict?  :)

The right wing papers (of which the Guardian is not part of) are loving the drama:

(http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/9820/dmsmalldq5.jpg) (http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5691/dmbigaf0.jpg)
Click for larger size

Although it must be said that the Daily Mail possibly doesn't care too much about Russia, as it is equally hysterical with all of its headlines.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 10, 2008, 03:05:44 PM
Извините если я оскорбил вас .По английски слого "bloody" необязательно имеет плохое значение и я неимел в виду ничего плохого. Неодин тупой англичанин неинтересуется русской культурой больше чем я. Пожалуйста забудь что я сказал и я знаю что вы правы насчет того как это началось

I was just trying to make a point that characterizing the whole nation as "the bloody Russians" is unjustified. Certainly, my grandparents do not long for civilians' blood. Nor do I. :D

Quote from: ezodisy on August 10, 2008, 03:05:44 PM
Здравствуйте, я ваша тётя! :)

Из Бразилии, где много-много диких обезъян? ;D

Jeez, I leave this site for a year, and a war breaks out  ;D

I just want to add a few observations from my perch here in Moscow - ezodisy's detailed posts have covered most of the essentials.

First of all, the humanitarian aspect of this operation seems to be uppermost in people's minds here. I'm not taking sides on this, just pointing it out. In the company I work for (which is American BTW, not Russian) we've been collecting medical and other supplies for the Ossetians displaced and wounded. One colleague (an Ossetian herself) described this as "an incredible tragedy for such a small nation." She was referring to Saakashvili's assault, not the Russian response.

Secondly, probably none of this would have happened if not for several years of bad US-NATO-EU diplomacy. Bush and his colleagues, in particular, built up Saakashvili and encouraged him in every way possible, not caring that his unstable, narcissistic behavior marked him not as a "pro-Western democratic leader" but as a petty-minded local megalomaniac. Georgia and its adjoining regions are a nest of antique ethnic hatreds and Mafia-like rivalries; looking for good guys under our definition is pointless. (BTW, Stalin is still considered a great national hero in Georgia.)

The craziest aspect of this is the notion, ceaselessly pushed by both Bush and Saak, that Georgia should join NATO. As an American citizen, I have to wonder - should kids living in Iowa or Texas have to die to help Georgia hold on to a breakaway province? Because that's the logic of a military alliance - an attack on one is an attack on all. Should Georgia in the Caucasus have equal value to US citizens as Georgia in the US? I say no.

Saak played along. He sent his soldiers to Iraq, and even renamed Tbilisi's main avenue "President George W. Bush Street."  :P  And look what it got him.

Anyway, as George Kennan presciently said years ago:

"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

Well, the idiocy of Georgia's action is now apparent.  What they describe as assertion of control of South Ossetia was, in practical terms, a military assault on Russian forces which have been stationed in the region for many years.  Did they really think the Russians would simply retreat?  On the other hand, Russia seems to relish the opportunity to "punish" Georgia (to use Medvedev's term) which has led to a lot of civilian deaths and suffering.  Overall, the result seems to be a slap-down on Bush's strategy of emboldening former Soviet republics to challenge Russia.  Hopefully Russia will honor their pledge to withdraw forces before much more life is lost.

In short, here is how it was:

(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B918bb6cd-b61d-42b4-9ff1-c33aa94c173e%7D.gif)

Quote from: scarpia on August 13, 2008, 07:51:44 AM
Well, the idiocy of Georgia's action is now apparent.  What they describe as assertion of control of South Ossetia was, in practical terms, a military assault on Russian forces which have been stationed in the region for many years.  Did they really think the Russians would simply retreat?  On the other hand, Russia seems to relish the opportunity to "punish" Georgia (to use Medvedev's term) which has led to a lot of civilian deaths and suffering.  Overall, the result seems to be a slap-down on Bush's strategy of emboldening former Soviet republics to challenge Russia.  Hopefully Russia will honor their pledge to withdraw forces before much more life is lost.

Yup, a major miscalculation by Georgia. They think the US would send in the military to help them fight the Russians. What the heck are they smoking? There isn't an iota of a probability that the US is going to go in there and take up arm against the Russians. Now they are screwed.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 13, 2008, 08:57:34 AM
In short, here is how it was:

(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7B918bb6cd-b61d-42b4-9ff1-c33aa94c173e%7D.gif)

Very apt and amusing.

Quote from: Philoctetes on August 13, 2008, 09:20:21 AM
Very apt and amusing.

And now British The Independent:

(http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00043/cartoon110808_43676a.jpg)

Now I see the US is sending Condi Rice to smooth things over.  She should be able to convert this to another Cuban Missile Crisis.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 13, 2008, 02:02:31 AM
Anyway, as George Kennan presciently said years ago:

"Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold war era. Such a decision may be expected to inflame the nationalistic, anti-Western and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion; to have an adverse effect on the development of Russian democracy; to restore the atmosphere of the cold war to East-West relations, and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking."

Nice one Bruno. One look at Kennan's biography and I see I'll have some interesting reading to do later tonight. Thanks for that. How's life in the most expensive city in the world?

Thankfully today we received some news that will help deter war in the future  ::)

US andd Poland sign defence deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7561926.stm)

Henry Fuseli to the rescue:

(http://www.flatrock.org.nz/topics/intellect_and_entertain/assets/fuseli_nightmare.jpg)

There is an outstanding article here about the recent political and geographical background of this area, very much worth reading by anyone interested in this conflict

http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/the-georgia-russia-conflict-lost-territory-found-nation

Thanks for the link, ezodisy.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 14, 2008, 11:20:27 AM
Thankfully today we received some news that will help deter war in the future  ::)

US andd Poland sign defence deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7561926.stm)

Oh, great! The last time Western powers guaranteed Poland's freedom, that worked out really great...uh...especially for Poland...uh...

From the article:

A White House spokeswoman said US President George W Bush "was very pleased with this development".
"In no way is the president's plan for missile defense aimed at Russia. In fact, it's just not even logically possible for it to be aimed at Russia given how Russia could overwhelm it," she told AFP.

I think that goes without saying. That has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. These measures are put in place as defence against the threat posed by Sweden, obviously.

Quote from: M forever on August 14, 2008, 08:52:02 PM
I think that goes without saying. That has absolutely nothing to do with Russia. These measures are put in place as defence against the threat posed by Sweden, obviously.

Iran, actually.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 14, 2008, 11:20:27 AM
Nice one Bruno. One look at Kennan's biography and I see I'll have some interesting reading to do later tonight. Thanks for that. How's life in the most expensive city in the world?

Hey Sid! (that's you, right?) - Moscow is not really that expensive. Those surveys are done for Western expat execs who want the same living standard they had at home. Just another case of Western media misleading people  ;) But inflation is beginning to bite...

Quote from: scarpia on August 13, 2008, 07:51:44 AM
Hopefully Russia will honor their pledge to withdraw forces before much more life is lost.

Honor and politics are mutually exclusive. Especially in the case of Russian politics.

Quote from: M forever on August 14, 2008, 08:52:02 PM
The last time Western powers guaranteed Poland's freedom, that worked out really great...uh...especially for Poland...uh...

lol!

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 14, 2008, 10:26:49 PM
Hey Sid! (that's you, right?) - Moscow is not really that expensive. Those surveys are done for Western expat execs who want the same living standard they had at home. Just another case of Western media misleading people  ;) But inflation is beginning to bite...

yeah mate, very nice to see you posting here again. I hope you're still well over there. Has it become home for good now?

Quote from: ezodisy on August 15, 2008, 12:32:47 AM
yeah mate, very nice to see you posting here again. I hope you're still well over there. Has it become home for good now?

Good to see you, too....have you been over here yet?

I wouldn't say "home for good," because I'm a nomad by nature and will probably move on eventually. However, the job is good, life is interesting (incl. the musical life of course), I'm writing articles in my spare time, and I can get food I can't get elsewhere (any Uighur restaurants where you are?). The Georgian food is great too, another reason to be pissed off by this war. I just hope Soso and Zaza at my favorite Georgian eatery don't get hassled.

Quote from: M forever on August 09, 2008, 11:17:06 PM
I am confused now. What are Rice and Bush talking about? Georgia or Iraq?

(http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1649/1111111111py3.gif)

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 15, 2008, 01:02:58 AM
Good to see you, too....have you been over here yet?

I wouldn't say "home for good," because I'm a nomad by nature and will probably move on eventually. However, the job is good, life is interesting (incl. the musical life of course), I'm writing articles in my spare time, and I can get food I can't get elsewhere (any Uighur restaurants where you are?). The Georgian food is great too, another reason to be pissed off by this war. I just hope Soso and Zaza at my favorite Georgian eatery don't get hassled.

I'm happy you're enjoying it still, you make it sound really nice (had to look up Uighur  ;D ). I know you have an advantage with your job but what's the expat situation like over there? Is it common enough to run into foreigners (from wherever)? You know what the situation is like in London, you can hardly turn a corner without hearing a different language. I guess though it's not quite like that there yet.

I'll be over there soon enough, that is for certain. In fact there can only be two things that'll stop me, one being a complete breakdown of UK-Russian relations, which unfortunately is not impossible  :'(. I'm aiming for St. Petersburg 2010, which is the only city, aside from a few places in northern Italy and southern/central France, that I still wish to visit. 1.5 - 2 years will give me enough time here to have bought a house once this credit crunch turns in a year's time or so. As soon as that is done, and I can put my dearly beloved relative in it, I'm off and will see you there :)

Quote from: ezodisy on August 16, 2008, 12:14:24 AM
I'm happy you're enjoying it still, you make it sound really nice (had to look up Uighur  ;D ). I know you have an advantage with your job but what's the expat situation like over there? Is it common enough to run into foreigners (from wherever)? You know what the situation is like in London, you can hardly turn a corner without hearing a different language. I guess though it's not quite like that there yet.

It's not like London, but there are plenty of foreigners here. Not as many as there used to be, though - visa regulations are tighter, and they now prefer to hire skilled local workforce rather than expats.

QuoteI'll be over there soon enough, that is for certain. In fact there can only be two things that'll stop me, one being a complete breakdown of UK-Russian relations, which unfortunately is not impossible  :'(. I'm aiming for St. Petersburg 2010, which is the only city, aside from a few places in northern Italy and southern/central France, that I still wish to visit. 1.5 - 2 years will give me enough time here to have bought a house once this credit crunch turns in a year's time or so. As soon as that is done, and I can put my dearly beloved relative in it, I'm off and will see you there :)

Ya know, it's not that complicated - all you have to do is get a visa, a ticket and go  8)

Granted that the situation with the breakaway of South Ossetia and the other province is complicated, and Georgia is not simply an "innocent victim".
But if you think Russia is at all concerned with liberating their Russo-Ossetian brothers, then you are missing the point. Russia only began to make noises in this direction in the context of being alarmed and pissed off at the integration of the old Eastern Soviet states into NATO and the placement on US strategic defense weapons in such states.
Russia is newly resurgent with lots of money from gas and oil, and it is determined to impose at least some of its hold over some of its client states. Or at least show to the West it is strong again, and will not be contained and surrounded.

To think the West should not take in these states, like Georgia, into its camp, including NATO, because that will work up the Russians and lead them on a more aggressive foreign policy, is foolish. Russia is run, both politically and economically, by ex-KGB thugs. If you think that is an exaggeration -- read The Economist's issue of about 1 year ago with the cover on the people who rule Russia, it will scare the hell out of you. If you think Bush and the neo-cons are nasty, prepare to go into another whole different league.
So, whatever the West does, Russia, ruled by ex-torturers and totalitarian scum, is bent on a path of resurgence, bullying, and force.
One final proof of this is the statement made yesterday by one of the top Russian generals, that if Poland and other Eastern states allow US defensive system within their borders that "Russia may react militarily to them" and that Poland may become exposed to nuclear attack by Russia.
Russia -- threatening EU member countries with nuclear attack if they decide what weapons to have on their sovereign territory -- if the message in this of Russia's current nature and future path is not evident, I don't know what is!

The main thing the West can do about this, besides bundling those countries into our camp and being firm, is to cut at the source of Russia's resurgence and of the EU's dependence on Russia -- oil and gas. We need to develop a more renewable-energy-based society, then we won't need Russian gas.
The technology is here already, and it is getting better. The thing is the traditional energy lobby, which is the richest industry and the most powerful lobby, is bent on holding renewables back, because it is their death toll. The campaign of misinformation in the media is unbelievable, the completely uninformed stuff said about renewable energies, always like it is a minor thing, too expensive, maybe in 100 years is a steaming pile of BS. The politicians and media have been totally bought by the traditional energy lobby.
Wind energy in many areas is now at same price or cheaper than traditional energy -- a few countries are being smart about it: Denmark now draws 30% of its energy from wind. In the UK for example the government agencies in league with the traditional energy lobby have done everything to hamper any installation of wind energy -- despite the fact that the UK, especially in the North, has the best wind areas for energy use in the whole of Europe -- the UK could easily meet most of its electricity needs through wind energy. But the result is less than 2% of energy in UK is renewable.
Solar energy, thanks to government programs in a few enlightened countries like Germany and Japan and Spain is getting more developed and falling in price by 5-8% per year. It is estimated by 2015 it will be as cheap as traditional energy.
These technologies become cheaper as there are more people that use them, allowing money to flow in for more research and improvement, and leading to mass production, which cuts the costs sharply. That is why some initial government support was vital at first, like with a lot of technologies. But now the ball is rolling already with cost-reduction and development that very little support is still needed -- renewables are on a path of drastic reduction in prices over the next 10 years and of becoming cheaper than traditional energy.
Those countries still hesitating by the wayside and being directed by the energy lobby for their energy policy are going to pay dearly, as oil and gas will continue to become more expensive.
Nuclear energy, which is being promoted as the alternative, is actually much more expensive than alternatives, because it always receives massive subsidies, which are never included in analyses presented to the public.
Whoops, wrote a bit much -- some of this should also be in the "oil" post section, I guess.

Quote from: mozartsneighbor on August 16, 2008, 12:50:18 AM
In the UK for example the government agencies in league with the traditional energy lobby have done everything to hamper any installation of wind energy -- despite the fact that the UK, especially in the North, has the best wind areas for energy use in the whole of Europe -- the UK could easily meet most of its electricity needs through wind energy. But the result is less than 2% of energy in UK is renewable.

This is true. The government's non-action on wind power is nothing to do with it getting no coverage - this statistic has been constantly mentioned in the media, so I can only conclude that the government is simply criminally negligent.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 16, 2008, 12:23:33 AM
Ya know, it's not that complicated - all you have to do is get a visa, a ticket and go  8)

Yeah well, you never know what might happen. I like to think I might go sooner but it depends when I fulfil something. I'd like to spend some time there, like you are doing, and not have to worry about rushing back for anything in particular. How's the Moscow musical life and countryside?

I agree with that Lethe.

Some very interesting posts, thanks. I have not written much here, but it looks like it is turning out pretty much as I indicated at the start of this thread. My opinions key in very much with mozartsneighbour. Even if this situation calms down soon, we have all been warned.

Mike

Quote from: mozartsneighbor on August 16, 2008, 12:50:18 AM
Granted that the situation with the breakaway of South Ossetia and the other province is complicated, and Georgia is not simply an "innocent victim".
But if you think Russia is at all concerned with liberating their Russo-Ossetian brothers, then you are missing the point.

Well, I'm not going to dispute that. I've always thought the notion of "humanitarian intervention" was a crock, no matter who's doing it.

QuoteTo think the West should not take in these states, like Georgia, into its camp, including NATO, because that will work up the Russians and lead them on a more aggressive foreign policy, is foolish.

To repeat myself a little - a military alliance requires one country to go to war for another. Do you really think Americans should be ready to die in order to preserve the territorial integrity of Georgia? That's what it boils down to.

Also - who actually wants into NATO anyway? For example, the majority of Ukrainians are against NATO membership for their country; only 20-25% are in favor. It's only their current political leadership that is really pushing the idea. But in Western media, this gets translated as, "Ukraine wants into NATO!"

QuoteRussia is run, both politically and economically, by ex-KGB thugs. If you think that is an exaggeration -- read The Economist's issue of about 1 year ago with the cover on the people who rule Russia, it will scare the hell out of you. If you think Bush and the neo-cons are nasty, prepare to go into another whole different league.

There are plenty of nasty, corrupt people in positions of power here, many of them with backgrounds in the security organs and the Communist Party. That is simply the norm for post-Communist states, especially the ones that emerged from the USSR itself.

As for the Economist article, I think I know the one you're referring to. This eXile article shoots a few holes in it:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&IBLOCK_ID=35

To get a good feel on what's really going on here, I think this piece by Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin is one of the best summaries I've read:

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200703.kotkin.russiademocracydictatorship.html

QuoteThe main thing the West can do about this, besides bundling those countries into our camp and being firm, is to cut at the source of Russia's resurgence and of the EU's dependence on Russia -- oil and gas.

I've already disagreed with you about the "camp," but I certainly agree on the need for energy independence. It'll be good for the West, and good for Russia in the long run, because at that point they won't be able to just turn the spigot and take the lazy man's way to riches.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 16, 2008, 01:21:26 AM
How's the Moscow musical life and countryside?

1. Very complicated. There are more orchestras and ensembles than I can keep track of. Most the concerts I go to are at the Great Hall of the Conservatory (Большой зал Консерватории), or its chamber music offshoots. Of course one gets to hear the major Russian conductors & soloists (Rozhdestvensky, Gergiev, Polyansky etc) plus ones I've never heard of, plus foreigners. Programming tends to be fairly conservative and Russocentric, but there are deviations - for example, Rozhdestvensky conducted a nice Nielsen mini-festival last year; and I went to an all-Arvo Pärt concert on the occasion of his 70th birthday. So there's all kinds of stuff. Sometimes the programming decisions are rather strange - e.g. a concert consisting of 3 cello concertos - (bit of overkill I think).

2. If you mean countryside around Moscow, I rarely spend time there. It has its attractions, but I'd rather go to someplace completely different & far away (like Karelia or Kazan, to mention 2 places I've been to).

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 16, 2008, 01:35:08 AM
Well, I'm not going to dispute that. I've always thought the notion of "humanitarian intervention" was a crock, no matter who's doing it.

To repeat myself a little - a military alliance requires one country to go to war for another. Do you really think Americans should be ready to die in order to preserve the territorial integrity of Georgia? That's what it boils down to.

Also - who actually wants into NATO anyway? For example, the majority of Ukrainians are against NATO membership for their country; only 20-25% are in favor. It's only their current political leadership that is really pushing the idea. But in Western media, this gets translated as, "Ukraine wants into NATO!"

There are plenty of nasty, corrupt people in positions of power here, many of them with backgrounds in the security organs and the Communist Party. That is simply the norm for post-Communist states, especially the ones that emerged from the USSR itself.

As for the Economist article, I think I know the one you're referring to. This eXile article shoots a few holes in it:

http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=10127&IBLOCK_ID=35

To get a good feel on what's really going on here, I think this piece by Princeton historian Stephen Kotkin is one of the best summaries I've read:

http://www.fpri.org/enotes/200703.kotkin.russiademocracydictatorship.html

I've already disagreed with you about the "camp," but I certainly agree on the need for energy independence. It'll be good for the West, and good for Russia in the long run, because at that point they won't be able to just turn the spigot and take the lazy man's way to riches.

Thanks, the Kotkin article is quite interesting, though nothing very new.
The eXile article seems to me rather ineffective. They raise a few quibbles here and there, rant a bit, slander the Economist and generally the British upper-class in a silly way, but don't deal with any substance.

Russia is ruled by people and in a way that is toxic and disgusting, and there are numerous symptoms of that disease in the Russian body politic:
-- journalists shot in the streets
-- inconvenient dissidents poisoned with plutonium
-- a conviction that it can still dictate policy to sovereign countries in Eastern Europe, and if necessary threaten military action and even nuclear attacks
-- a rancid kind of nationalism, often with religious overtones: I have read and heard Russian nationalist rhetoric, and it is completely psychotic. A great of deal mystical mumbo-jumbo about "Mother Russia" being the salvation of the world. American nationalism based on pride of their creative society and enduring democracy, and the belief in exporting that democracy abroad, may be a bit arrogant, but at least it is something that is grounded on some actual things, if a bit naive. The belief in Russia having anything to contribute to the salvation of the world demonstrates a level of nationalistic psychosis that only occurs in truly screwed up places.
-- no freedom of religion: protestants, catholics, and others are impeded from proselytizing and there are laws stopping the spread of any religion but the orthodox.
-- the orthodox church is now a nationalistic state tool, with the patriarch conducting blessing ceremonies with new nuclear weapons. Also look up article in Wall Street Journal about orthodox priest that defended one of those imprisoned oligarchs and criticized Putin, and was promptly defrocked and only given a job as a street sweeper after he had signed a humble retraction.
-- the media and the intelligentsia are quiet as mice and say nothing out of tone

Going on to that "camp" you disapprove of and NATO.
I would not have Western forces fighting for South Ossetia.
But that is not the only thing in play -- Russia is making threats of military action towards Poland and other Eastern European sovereign states that are part of the EU, presuming to bully them into not installing defensive weapons on their territory.
Then, as a follow up to the question of the South Ossetians being more Russian, and Russia being entitled to absorb them -- where does it stop? The Baltic states have very large Russian minorities. I read they were greatly alarmed at these latest developments.
Shall we just stand by in case Russia develops an appetite for some more pieces of its former empire?
Or are you such a narrow isolationist that you think American troops should only be employed when foreign troops land on the banks of the Potomac?

I am sure you have a pleasant life in Russia. I am sure you know many wonderful Russian people. I live in Austria and I know wonderful people who lived at the time of Hitler. One of them is my boyfriend's grandfather who fought at Stalingrad -- he is the sweetest most tolerant person. But that does not change the nature of the regime he lived under, the people who ruled it, or the aims of the army he fought in.
Most people do not have enough independence of mind or courage to recognize or oppose a bad regime that rules their country -- many of them are still nice people. Doesn't change the nature of the regime though.
And your expat bubble lifestyle maybe doesn't bring you into contact into some of the more unsavory aspects of today's Russia.
Hell, I lived through most of the Bush years in the US and had a great life, and I think a great of the American people in general. But I have never kidded myself that the Bush administration is not disastrous and sometimes bordering on the illegal and certainly callous in their outlook and actions.

Well, neighbor of Mozart, I didn't really intend to spend all afternoon answering your post - but what the hell, it's fun  ;)

Russia is ruled by people and in a way that is toxic and disgusting, and there are numerous symptoms of that disease in the Russian body politic:
-- journalists shot in the streets

The killing of journalists began just after the USSR collapsed (i.e. in Yeltsin's time), and has been going on ever since. This is a phenomenon which Putin inherited; he didn't create it. These killings seldom, if ever, have anything to do with the government; rather, they are connected to business and organized crime, and areas of unrest (like Chechnya). For example – Paul Klebnikov, the Forbes editor gunned down in 2004, wasn't a critic of Putin; he was a supporter of him. Almost certainly, his murder was connected to either his book about a Chechen warlord, or his book about exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky.

A friend of mine expressed it best: "Nobody is killed here for expressing an opinion; rather, they are killed for writing about someone else's money." That's because Russia's two biggest problems are the high level of corruption, and the lack of a well-functioning legal system.

-- inconvenient dissidents poisoned with plutonium

The word you're looking for is "polonium," and this extremely murky case is far from being resolved. For a view which contradicts the standard Western one, I recommend this article:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/specter-that-haunts-the-death-of-litvinenko/73212/


-- a conviction that it can still dictate policy to sovereign countries in Eastern Europe, and if necessary threaten military action and even nuclear attacks

I don't argue with this. In terms of foreign policy, they are very good at scaring their neighbors and shooting themselves in the foot in the process.


-- a rancid kind of nationalism, often with religious overtones: I have read and heard Russian nationalist rhetoric, and it is completely psychotic.

Again, this is a general hangover from post-communism. The neighboring countries have their own versions of such rhetoric. None of it means very much to the average person in the street.

-- no freedom of religion: protestants, catholics, and others are impeded from proselytizing and there are laws stopping the spread of any religion but the orthodox.

About proselytizing precisely, I don't know; state religious policy changes quite often here. If you're actually interested in reading up on it, here's a report:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9061-33.cfm

Otherwise, your claim that there is "no freedom of religion" is absurd. Certainly the Catholic cathedral, where I sometimes go to concerts, is thriving. So are the various Protestant churches, the synagogues, and the mosques. It's not just onion domes on the skyline. No one cares what house of worship you visit.

-- the media and the intelligentsia are quiet as mice and say nothing out of tone

Wow – you have no idea how wrong this statement is. I can go to a kiosk 5 minutes from my home and openly buy publications expressing every anti-government opinion you can think of, whether it's liberal, conservative, communist, fascist, you name it. I can go to my local American-style mega-bookstore and buy the books of opposition politicians like Irina Khakamada and dissidents like Vladimir Bukovsky, and nobody will stop me. Anyone who thinks the intelligentsia is "quiet as mice" hasn't spent much time with them lately.

Then, as a follow up to the question of the South Ossetians being more Russian, and Russia being entitled to absorb them -- where does it stop? The Baltic states have very large Russian minorities. I read they were greatly alarmed at these latest developments.

I know a few things about the Baltic case, having written last year an article on Baltic Russian identity formation. Basically, it takes two to tango. Unlike in Ossetia, there are no separatist movements of any kind in the Baltics, and the Russians living there (with the exception of some Soviet diehards) tend to be pretty cynical toward the Russian government anyway. So it's not really a comparable case.

Shall we just stand by in case Russia develops an appetite for some more pieces of its former empire?
Or are you such a narrow isolationist that you think American troops should only be employed when foreign troops land on the banks of the Potomac?

I believe the purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to protect and defend the United States, not to "spread freedom," and certainly not to extend security guarantees to an ever expanding list of foreign countries. If you want to call that isolationism, I won't object.

And your expat bubble lifestyle maybe doesn't bring you into contact into some of the more unsavory aspects of today's Russia.

Apart from what I write on this site, you have no idea what my lifestyle is. I ride the Metro like everyone else, visit out-of-the-way places, live in a normal apartment, shop at local markets, read local media. How is this a "bubble"?

Hell, I lived through most of the Bush years in the US and had a great life, and I think a great of the American people in general. But I have never kidded myself that the Bush administration is not disastrous and sometimes bordering on the illegal and certainly callous in their outlook and actions.

Glad we agree on something.

Quote from: mozartsneighbor on August 16, 2008, 02:50:53 AM
Thanks, the Kotkin article is quite interesting, though nothing very new.
The eXile article seems to me rather ineffective. They raise a few quibbles here and there, rant a bit, slander the Economist and generally the British upper-class in a silly way, but don't deal with any substance.

Russia is ruled by people and in a way that is toxic and disgusting, and there are numerous symptoms of that disease in the Russian body politic:
-- journalists shot in the streets
-- inconvenient dissidents poisoned with plutonium
-- a conviction that it can still dictate policy to sovereign countries in Eastern Europe, and if necessary threaten military action and even nuclear attacks
-- a rancid kind of nationalism, often with religious overtones: I have read and heard Russian nationalist rhetoric, and it is completely psychotic. A great of deal mystical mumbo-jumbo about "Mother Russia" being the salvation of the world. American nationalism based on pride of their creative society and enduring democracy, and the belief in exporting that democracy abroad, may be a bit arrogant, but at least it is something that is grounded on some actual things, if a bit naive. The belief in Russia having anything to contribute to the salvation of the world demonstrates a level of nationalistic psychosis that only occurs in truly screwed up places.
-- no freedom of religion: protestants, catholics, and others are impeded from proselytizing and there are laws stopping the spread of any religion but the orthodox.
-- the orthodox church is now a nationalistic state tool, with the patriarch conducting blessing ceremonies with new nuclear weapons. Also look up article in Wall Street Journal about orthodox priest that defended one of those imprisoned oligarchs and criticized Putin, and was promptly defrocked and only given a job as a street sweeper after he had signed a humble retraction.
-- the media and the intelligentsia are quiet as mice and say nothing out of tone

Going on to that "camp" you disapprove of and NATO.
I would not have Western forces fighting for South Ossetia.
But that is not the only thing in play -- Russia is making threats of military action towards Poland and other Eastern European sovereign states that are part of the EU, presuming to bully them into not installing defensive weapons on their territory.
Then, as a follow up to the question of the South Ossetians being more Russian, and Russia being entitled to absorb them -- where does it stop? The Baltic states have very large Russian minorities. I read they were greatly alarmed at these latest developments.
Shall we just stand by in case Russia develops an appetite for some more pieces of its former empire?
Or are you such a narrow isolationist that you think American troops should only be employed when foreign troops land on the banks of the Potomac?

I am sure you have a pleasant life in Russia. I am sure you know many wonderful Russian people. I live in Austria and I know wonderful people who lived at the time of Hitler. One of them is my boyfriend's grandfather who fought at Stalingrad -- he is the sweetest most tolerant person. But that does not change the nature of the regime he lived under, the people who ruled it, or the aims of the army he fought in.
Most people do not have enough independence of mind or courage to recognize or oppose a bad regime that rules their country -- many of them are still nice people. Doesn't change the nature of the regime though.
And your expat bubble lifestyle maybe doesn't bring you into contact into some of the more unsavory aspects of today's Russia.
Hell, I lived through most of the Bush years in the US and had a great life, and I think a great of the American people in general. But I have never kidded myself that the Bush administration is not disastrous and sometimes bordering on the illegal and certainly callous in their outlook and actions.

I don't remember who it was--Dostoevsky I think, though perhaps Tolstoy and probably others--who went on to say that Russian people and the Russian character needs a certain control and will not prosper (for lack of a better term right now) under complete "freedom". There is perhaps a small amount of truth in that. I'm not sure, perhaps our native Russian member here can offer his or her opinion. You obviously know a lot about about the outside of the Russian political situation -- my point, by mentioning Dostoevsky above, is how much you know about the native internal organs, because I get the feeling, wrong as it may be, that you're skimming over it or perhaps missing it entirely. Seems a little gun-ho on your part, honestly (pot...kettle). When I have some time later I will look at your first long post.

Bruno thanks for the links. Two new sites for me, will go through those next week. I hope the woman you regaled at the Petersburg Dostoevsky hotel last year is still enjoying the finest in American intelligence!  ;)

Quote from: ezodisy on August 16, 2008, 05:06:32 AM
Seems a little gun-ho on your part, honestly (pot...kettle).

It's gung-ho, actually. But in the circumstances the mistake is very apt!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung-ho

Spitvalve, Thanks, also Tony.

Mike

Quote from: Jezetha on August 16, 2008, 05:52:10 AM
It's gung-ho, actually. But in the circumstances the mistake is very apt!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gung-ho

lol! Hardly a day passes when you (I mean myself) fail to realise how stupid you are :) Stick with me and I'll soon be able to fill most of your online time with my mistakes  ;D

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 16, 2008, 05:01:43 AM
Well, neighbor of Mozart, I didn't really intend to spend all afternoon answering your post - but what the hell, it's fun  ;)

Russia is ruled by people and in a way that is toxic and disgusting, and there are numerous symptoms of that disease in the Russian body politic:
-- journalists shot in the streets

The killing of journalists began just after the USSR collapsed (i.e. in Yeltsin's time), and has been going on ever since. This is a phenomenon which Putin inherited; he didn't create it. These killings seldom, if ever, have anything to do with the government; rather, they are connected to business and organized crime, and areas of unrest (like Chechnya). For example – Paul Klebnikov, the Forbes editor gunned down in 2004, wasn't a critic of Putin; he was a supporter of him. Almost certainly, his murder was connected to either his book about a Chechen warlord, or his book about exiled oligarch Boris Berezovsky.

A friend of mine expressed it best: "Nobody is killed here for expressing an opinion; rather, they are killed for writing about someone else's money." That's because Russia's two biggest problems are the high level of corruption, and the lack of a well-functioning legal system.

-- inconvenient dissidents poisoned with plutonium

The word you're looking for is "polonium," and this extremely murky case is far from being resolved. For a view which contradicts the standard Western one, I recommend this article:

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/specter-that-haunts-the-death-of-litvinenko/73212/


-- a conviction that it can still dictate policy to sovereign countries in Eastern Europe, and if necessary threaten military action and even nuclear attacks

I don't argue with this. In terms of foreign policy, they are very good at scaring their neighbors and shooting themselves in the foot in the process.


-- a rancid kind of nationalism, often with religious overtones: I have read and heard Russian nationalist rhetoric, and it is completely psychotic.

Again, this is a general hangover from post-communism. The neighboring countries have their own versions of such rhetoric. None of it means very much to the average person in the street.

-- no freedom of religion: protestants, catholics, and others are impeded from proselytizing and there are laws stopping the spread of any religion but the orthodox.

About proselytizing precisely, I don't know; state religious policy changes quite often here. If you're actually interested in reading up on it, here's a report:

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9061-33.cfm

Otherwise, your claim that there is "no freedom of religion" is absurd. Certainly the Catholic cathedral, where I sometimes go to concerts, is thriving. So are the various Protestant churches, the synagogues, and the mosques. It's not just onion domes on the skyline. No one cares what house of worship you visit.

-- the media and the intelligentsia are quiet as mice and say nothing out of tone

Wow – you have no idea how wrong this statement is. I can go to a kiosk 5 minutes from my home and openly buy publications expressing every anti-government opinion you can think of, whether it's liberal, conservative, communist, fascist, you name it. I can go to my local American-style mega-bookstore and buy the books of opposition politicians like Irina Khakamada and dissidents like Vladimir Bukovsky, and nobody will stop me. Anyone who thinks the intelligentsia is "quiet as mice" hasn't spent much time with them lately.

Then, as a follow up to the question of the South Ossetians being more Russian, and Russia being entitled to absorb them -- where does it stop? The Baltic states have very large Russian minorities. I read they were greatly alarmed at these latest developments.

I know a few things about the Baltic case, having written last year an article on Baltic Russian identity formation. Basically, it takes two to tango. Unlike in Ossetia, there are no separatist movements of any kind in the Baltics, and the Russians living there (with the exception of some Soviet diehards) tend to be pretty cynical toward the Russian government anyway. So it's not really a comparable case.

Shall we just stand by in case Russia develops an appetite for some more pieces of its former empire?
Or are you such a narrow isolationist that you think American troops should only be employed when foreign troops land on the banks of the Potomac?

I believe the purpose of the United States Armed Forces is to protect and defend the United States, not to "spread freedom," and certainly not to extend security guarantees to an ever expanding list of foreign countries. If you want to call that isolationism, I won't object.

And your expat bubble lifestyle maybe doesn't bring you into contact into some of the more unsavory aspects of today's Russia.

Apart from what I write on this site, you have no idea what my lifestyle is. I ride the Metro like everyone else, visit out-of-the-way places, live in a normal apartment, shop at local markets, read local media. How is this a "bubble"?

Hell, I lived through most of the Bush years in the US and had a great life, and I think a great of the American people in general. But I have never kidded myself that the Bush administration is not disastrous and sometimes bordering on the illegal and certainly callous in their outlook and actions.

Glad we agree on something.

Thanks for the reply and the insights on the media and intelligentsia and on the Baltic case. Very interesting.

When I referred to the journalists murdered I was referring to, among others, Anna Politkovskaya:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Politkovskaya_assassination

I think her own words are quite eloquent:
"We are hurtling back into a Soviet abyss, into an information vacuum that spells death from our own ignorance. All we have left is the internet, where information is still freely available. For the rest, if you want to go on working as a journalist, it's total servility to Putin. Otherwise, it can be death, the bullet, poison, or trial - whatever our special services, Putin's guard dogs, see fit."

And, yes I did polonium. Sorry!
Again Litvinenko was pretty clear in his mind, as he was dying, who had poisoned him: Putin. He wrote:
"You may succeed in silencing me but that silence comes at a price. You have shown yourself to be as barbaric and ruthless as your most hostile critics have claimed. You have shown yourself to have no respect for life, liberty or any civilised value. You have shown yourself to be unworthy of your office, to be unworthy of the trust of civilised men and women."
And Litvinenko was an ex-member of the FSB, successor of the KGB, so I am inclined to think he wasn't exactly just making a wild guess.

And another neighbor that has suffered from the excessive interest of the Kremlin has been Ukraine -- there was another very entertaining poisoning in that case as well. Yushchenko poisoned with dioxin because he contested the electoral victory of his pro-Russian-puppet rival -- the suspected poisoners with connection to Ukrainian and Russian secret services are hiding out where?
Russia, but of course.

This is just a whole lot of assassinations and poisonings, done on a very elaborate scale, always in the case of people standing in the way of Kremlin interests. Of course, neither I nor anyone have conclusive proof -- but you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to smell a rat, one with residence directly on the Red Square.

And in my estimation, if other religions are impeded from proselytizing, then that is not freedom of religion. It's like saying you can have contrary opinions, just as long as you don't share them with anyone but your family.

But I stand corrected on some other things, and I appreciate your insights. Sorry to have made any assumptions about your lifestyle, that was foolish -- I guess I have just met too many expats, and my reaction is just a bit knee-jerk.

I am also glad we agree on the Bush administration! ;)

Hope to see you (or read you) around.  :)

Quote from: mozartsneighbor on August 16, 2008, 10:05:37 AM
Hope to see you (or read you) around.  :)

Yes, nice talking to you. I just want to comment briefly on those cases you mentioned, then I'll shut up for the night.

My view is that I do not blame or absolve anyone for any of these in particular - these cases have so many angles to them, and have been played so much for PR (check, for instance, Berezovsky's involvement in managing the media response in the Litvinenko case), that I don't want to draw any firm conclusions from them.

Take the latest twists in the Yushchenko case - Yu. is now blaming his former campaign manager for poisoning him; meanwhile his former campaign manager is saying it was just food poisoning. Do I know who did it? No, and I'm not gonna guess.

Just another day in the world of post-Soviet politics.

I think I have witnessed (am witnessing) one of the best discussions on GMG.

My compliments to all concerned.

Quote from: mozartsneighbor on August 16, 2008, 10:05:37 AM
Bush

Bush is falling into oblivion soon, I am more excited at who is going to take him over.

(http://www.caglecartoons.com/images/preview/%7BD27CBC86-748F-4F49-98BE-735B809345DA%7D.gif)

Quote from: mozartsneighbor on August 16, 2008, 12:50:18 AM
then you are missing the point.

QuoteTo think... is foolish

Quoteit is determined to impose...

QuoteRussia is run...by ex-KGB thugs

Quoteit will scare the hell out of you.

Quoteprepare to go into another whole different league.

QuoteRussia, ruled by ex-torturers and totalitarian scum

I took a moment to highlight just some of the comments that, thankfully, wouldn't even make it into The Sun. By all means go ahead and debate, just try to stick to facts, because this wide-eyed, foaming-at-the-mouth claptrap above, coming as it does from someone who appears so aggressively pro-Western, really is quite embarrassing. I happen to have a somewhat tenuous link to one of the ousted Russian oligarchs who now lives in London, and though I don't know this for certain, I can guess that he would be interested in using some of the above for one of his post-dinner speeches, so if you're willing to farm it out you just might, quite ironically, become one of the leading voices of New Russia.

Your points about wind power and renewable resources are more interesting. I have a small vested interest in a leading UK manufacturer of electric vehicles and would like to hear what you think of this burgeoning industry, one which looks likely to take off with recent governmental backing and expected purcashing/tax cuts over the coming months and years.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 16, 2008, 05:01:43 AM
How is this a "bubble"?

But you never forget that as long as you have your American passport in the pocket, your life is different. :)

Although I am flattered by what Spitvalve wrote and freaked out at Mozartsneighbour's based-on-the-media post, they are both right in some ways. The truth is neither and much more complicated. Certainly, there are many problems in Russia, as in many other countries; the Soviet and nationalistic heritage is present, somewhat substantially, but in spite of all this it is not that scary as the Western think. And, after all, it is my Sweet Home.

I like talking about new sources of energy more. Not because I am concerned about Russian gas monopoly but because of the polluted environment - in that case it doesn't really matter who's stronger, we just all die. >:D Recently I've read a book about pollution-linked diseases and thought of considering a career in environmental or fuel engineering - at least a small asset in the gigantic progress.

Mozartsneighbor, is your job related to the search of new energy sources?

Quote from: ezodisy on August 16, 2008, 01:34:33 PM
I happen to have a somewhat tenuous link to one of the ousted Russian oligarchs who now lives in London, and though I don't know this for certain, I can guess that he would be interested in using some of the above for one of his post-dinner speeches, so if you're willing to farm it out you just might, quite ironically, become one of the leading voices of New Russia.

Yes, the whole issue of the oligarchs v. Putin, and their media clout & ability to shape the debate, is something few foreigners are aware of.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 16, 2008, 11:09:10 PM
But you never forget that as long as you have your American passport in the pocket, your life is different. :)

Yeah, I don't have to pay bribes, and I can go home when things get bad  ;D

Scott....that is you now as Spitvalve I hope....thanks for the insight about Russian media being able to diasgree with the government. That is opposite of what the American  media has said over the last few years.

Quote from: johnQpublic on August 17, 2008, 07:43:12 AM
Scott....that is you now as Spitvalve I hope....thanks for the insight about Russian media being able to diasgree with the government. That is opposite of what the American  media has said over the last few years.

Yeah that's me, JQP.

I find about 70% of what the American media writes about Russia to be quite clueless, not just regarding politics. One of my favorite examples was in 2006 during the Shostakovich anniversary year. An article in the Chicago Tribune said that DSCH was neglected and forgotten in Russia, and there was only one concert dedicated to him in Moscow. I still can't understand how the poor reporter missed the complete symphony and quartet cycles, as well as the operas, conferences and seminars that went on here all that year.

I should add the caveat that Russian TV is indeed highly slanted and state-controlled. But you can find anything you want in print or on the Internet.

Interesting article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html?th&emc=th

An article on Bloomberg this morning regarding the use of public relations during the recent conflict. Not sure how revealing it is but I do find it amusing that both countries recently used US PR firms for their causes (last section below).

Why Alexei Pankin Frets Over `Inept' Selling of Putin's War

By Patrick Donahue

Aug. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Russia won the military war against Georgia hours after it started. Alexei Pankin, a columnist who writes for the state-run newswire RIA Novosti, said leaders in Moscow just as quickly bungled another war.

The Russian public believes the government was ineffective in trying to convince the world that the invasion was justified, said Pankin, a media analyst who also writes for the Moscow Times and blames the conflict on Georgia.

``Russian PR was inept,'' he said by phone from Moscow.

As Russia poured weapons and troops into Georgia this month, officials in Tbilisi launched a public-relations campaign over Western airwaves and the Internet. Moscow is just now trying to catch up.

Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, 40, has logged in five hours of air time in 20 appearances on CNN, the BBC, Sky News, Bloomberg News and other outlets since the war with Russia began on Aug. 8. Georgia's public-relations firm, Aspect Consulting, has dispatched some 200 e-mailed press releases to journalists, said Christina Roosen, spokeswoman for the firm.

``I can't recall another conflict, or any government at another time of crisis, using CNN the way the Georgian government is,'' said Lincoln Mitchell, a professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs in New York. ``One would think that Saakashvili has a regular show on CNN and Lou Dobbs and the other hosts are his guests.''

Slow to Respond

The latest on-air dustup involved Russia's assertion that it had begun withdrawing its invasion forces into the pro-Moscow breakaway republic of South Ossetia, as required by a cease-fire agreement. Georgia and the U.S. said Russia was staying put, holding onto the central city of Gori and paralyzing road and rail movements. The West sees Georgia as an ally, in part because its oil pipeline to the Black Sea bypasses Russia.

Sluggish to respond at first, the Russian government under President Dmitry Medvedev, 42, and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, 55, now arrange regular televised briefings with military and other officials and a steady barrage of e-mails. Russian officials also spoke to reporters on background, according to Paul Cohen, a spokesman for PR firm Ketchum Inc., which advises Russia on media matters.

``Russia is starting behind the eight ball a bit,'' said Columbia's Mitchell. ``Both sides are now realizing that public opinion in the West matter.'' Saakashvili is ``head and shoulders above almost everyone'' in Russia, Mitchell added. ``Medvedev goes on TV and looks like a caricature of a Soviet apparatchik, a bureaucrat. Putin looks like one of the Russian mobsters from the Sopranos. They have no idea how to do this.''

`Bias Against Russia'

Pankin said Russia's ramped-up public-relations effort may do little good.

``They may be improving, but there's such bias against Russia that the best possible PR wouldn't do anything,'' he said.

Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of Russia's General Staff, suggested the effort wasted time.

``We've spent significant efforts justifying our actions,'' he said at a press briefing yesterday. ``Instead of spending so much time justifying ourselves, we could have done more on the ground to help people.''

The media war started almost as soon as the real war. Saakashvili, who was educated in the U.S. and speaks fluent English, sat for a 20-minute interview with Bloomberg News on Aug. 8 as Russian tanks rolled over the border, one of several interviews he did that day.

Georgia as Victim

On television, he accused Russia of executing a ``well- planned invasion'' aimed at punishing a U.S. ally.

``He's gotten his message across very effectively, that Georgia is a victim of the Russian attack,'' said Janusz Bugajski, director of the New European Democracies Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

It's doubtful Saakashvili's media blitz altered the course of events in his favor, said Jan Techau, a security analyst at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin.

``It didn't help the war,'' he said, ``and it didn't help the impression that the Georgians overplayed their cards and miscalculated badly'' by moving to retake South Ossetia on Aug. 7, which prompted the Russian invasion.

An initial response to Saakashvili was delivered by a Putin spokesman, who told reporters that ``war has started today in South Ossetia.'' Medvedev's appearances were confined to choreographed meetings with Putin and top security officials. ``We will not allow the deaths of our compatriots to go unpunished,'' Medvedev said on state TV.

``Any interviews they do are carefully prepared and managed,'' Bugajski said. ``They didn't want awkward questions.''

U.S. PR Firms

Russia has paid U.S.-based firms for lobbying and related services, according to the Justice Department's most recently available Foreign Agents Registration Act filings, for early 2007. It had a $1.9 million contract with New York-based Ketchum, which arranged interviews, podcasts and opinion articles related to ``energy security, reducing infectious diseases and improving education,'' the department said.

Three other U.S. firms worked for Russia: Venable LLP and the Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart in Washington and Qorvis Communications LLC of McLean, Virginia.

Georgia hired two U.S. lobbyist groups: Orion Strategies LLC received $120,000 to push the government's bid to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Squire Sanders Public Advocacy LLC helped with media outreach. Both groups are based in Washington.

The Georgia-Russia war of August 2008 carries a vital lesson: the small territories that broke from Georgia's control in the early 1990s have their own voice, identity, and interest. They must be active participants in deciding their own future, says George Hewitt, the leading scholar of Abkhazian linguistics and history (http://www.opendemocracy.net/article/abkhazia-and-south-ossetia-heart-of-conflict-key-to-solution)

And here's a very interesting analysis of the conflict by George Friedman of Stratfor ("strategic forecasting"):

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 01:19:24 AM
And here's a very interesting analysis of the conflict by George Friedman of Stratfor ("strategic forecasting"):

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power

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

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 03:19:45 AM
Excellent article. Indeed, Russia has never given up its imperial claims and will do everything, including war, to restore its former status and jurisdiction.

I'm wondering how you drew that conclusion, since the article doesn't really support it. What Friedman says is "If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn't all too shabby at the moment." A bit more cautious.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 06:02:40 AM
I'm wondering how you drew that conclusion, since the article doesn't really support it. What Friedman says is "If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment." A bit more cautious.

I agree. The article doesn't say that Russia wants to regain its empire, but that it has regained some of its regional status because the US is tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq and accords more weight to Iran than to the Caucasus.

I don't think you read the very last lines, which state as clear as daylight:

Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

BTW, have we discussed Putin? It looks like he's playing an a much higher "leaders league" than our political leaders. It looks like he (Russia?) stands for a more realistic point of view. Defending Russias interests and make no compromises. The European approach seems to be completely different, like "defend anybodies interest with means of compromises". I'm sure this won't work.

You should also take a look a Gorbachev's op ed piece, Russia Never Wanted a War (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/opinion/20gorbachev.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper&oref=slogin) in today's NYTimes.  It's a pretty lame apology for the events -- and clearly the official line being delivered by someone who is a familiar face here. 

The failure of Gorbachev to see the parallels between the Georgian government's action to preserve their geographical integrity and the Russian actions in Chechnya is telling.  Gorbachev is very concerned with the fact that the breakaway provinces (Ossetia and Abkhazia) have ethnic Russians as well as the fact that ethic Georgians also live in Russia.  Thus Russia has the right to invade and unite the ethnic Georgians of those provinces with the ethic Georgians living in Russia -- ergo these provinces had the right to break away. ::)

But, what about about Chechnya?  For some reason, the Chechens don't have the same right to break away from Russia that the Georgians of Ossetia have to break away from Georgia!  Too bad he didn't bring that up, but then he would have had to argue that Russia had the right to defend it's geographical integrity and how could he do that when he is arguing that the Georgian govt. doesn't have the same right?

Btw, the Russians have not honored the ceasefire and are not going to withdraw from any territory they have taken (far deeper into Georgia than Ossetia).  They have their eyes on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which is the only thing standing between Russia and complete control of Caspian Sea oil going to the West.  I think anyone who doesn't realize this is just fooling themselves about what the war is about.  Without that pipeline, I doubt Russia would care about those wretched acres in the Caucasus or about the problems of any ethnic Russians there.  It just wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 07:48:13 AM
Btw, the Russians have not honored the ceasefire and are not going to withdraw from any territory they have taken (far deeper into Georgia than Ossetia). 

Why should they? There is no Nato or US forces their to brush them back. Would you withdraw if you are the Russians, I sure as hell wouldn't.
There is one world leader that I would sure as hell not want to mess with and that is Putin. He just strikes me as one cold-blooded, calm and calculating SOB. The Georgian government better come to realize that they f*ucked with the wrong leader.

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 07:48:13 AM
They have their eyes on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which is the only thing standing between Russia and complete control of Caspian Sea oil going to the West.  I think anyone who doesn't realize this is just fooling themselves about what the war is about.  Without that pipeline, I doubt Russia would care about those wretched acres in the Caucasus or about the problems of any ethnic Russians there.  It just wouldn't be worth the trouble.

This is such a load of BULLSHIT that I don't even know where to begin!!!!!!

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 06:48:35 AM
I don't think you read the very last lines, which state as clear as daylight:

Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

I read 'em. This may seem a nitpicky point, but he doesn't go as far as you do:

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 03:19:45 AM
Excellent article. Indeed, Russia has never given up its imperial claims and will do everything, including war, to restore its former status and jurisdiction.

I take this to be a claim on your part that Russia wants to somehow annex or control all the territory that used to be part of the USSR. Is that what you mean?

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 06:48:35 AM
Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

I read this as meaning 'If you have been used to being an empire for so long, you'll try to become as big a player again as circumstances allow.' Because I don't think any country will ever be an empire in a global sense. Attempting it would risk globocide (word coined by German philosopher Günther Anders).

Quote from: Wurstwasser on August 20, 2008, 07:41:02 AM
BTW, have we discussed Putin? It looks like he's playing an a much higher "leaders league" than our political leaders. It looks like he (Russia?) stands for a more realistic point of view. Defending Russias interests and make no compromises. The European approach seems to be completely different, like "defend anybodies interest with means of compromises". I'm sure this won't work.

Anyone interested in figuring out what makes Putin tick ought to get hold of the interview collection he did in 2000 called First Person. (There's an English translation.) He says that his role models are Charles de Gaulle and Konrad Adenauer - i.e., tough, pragmatic SOBs who picked their shattered countries off the floor and put them back together. He also likes to refer to Franklin Roosevelt a lot. I don't think he has any ideology besides building a strong state. (Bismarck comes to my mind too - the German influence on Putin is very strong.)

Quote from: ezodisy on August 20, 2008, 08:11:09 AM
This is such a load of BULLSHIT that I don't even know where to begin!!!!!!

Oh please!  Do you think I am the only person who has noticed that Russia is not withdrawing and is actually pushing further into Georgia?  Give me a break.  Russia's only strategic interest in Georgia is the pipeline.  The very fact that we all admit that Putin and not Medvedev is still calling all of the shots should give you a clue to his real intentions: the consolidation of power and wealth in that area of the world so that Russia under his sole leadership will once again emerge as a global -- not merely regional -- power.  That means controlling all of the oil that flows west from the Caspian Sea and building up a military that is capable of, and ready to take back all of the territories it ceded "independence" to at the breakup of the Soviet Union.  If you think otherwise you are grossly underestimating him. 

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 07:48:13 AM
they have their eyes on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which is the only thing standing between Russia and complete control of Caspian Sea oil going to the West.  I think anyone who doesn't realize this is just fooling themselves about what the war is about.  Without that pipeline, I doubt Russia would care about those wretched acres in the Caucasus or about the problems of any ethnic Russians there.  It just wouldn't be worth the trouble.

Who told yo that? Oprah? Martha Stewart?

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 01:25:56 PM
If you think otherwise you are grossly underestimating him. 

Of course, you are the Ultimate Authority.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 20, 2008, 01:31:01 PM
Who told yo that? Oprah? Martha Stewart?

Yes that really is it.

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 01:25:56 PM
That means controlling all of the oil that flows west from the Caspian Sea

Bunny, are you even remotely aware of the complexity of international relations between producers, pipeline shareholders, transporters, and refineries? I suggest you do a bit of research into this before you continue mouthing off about Russia and the BTC because pumping someone else's agenda as you are is going to make you look very stupid.

The same person who told me George Bush didn't invade Iraq to liberate the poor, oppressed Iraqis. 

When you listen to Medvedev, Putin and finally Gorbachev talking, you have to realize that they are also selling this action to the Russian people.  Apparently they've also sold this line to you.

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 02:04:41 PM
The same person who told me George Bush didn't invade Iraq to liberate the poor, oppressed Iraqis. 

When you listen to Medvedev, Putin and finally Gorbachev talking, you have to realize that they are also selling this action to the Russian people.  Apparently they've also sold this line to you.

Bunny, have you also failed in your attempts to sell goods to the Russians? Because you are behaving in the same ignorant way as over in the other thread about the Chinese.

Okay Bunny, let's presume you're right, that Russia "have their eyes on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which is the only thing standing between Russia and complete control of Caspian Sea oil going to the West." Can you please explain to me then how the Baku-Supsa and CPC pipelines come into this and what Russia will need to do to gain "complete control" over these? Can you also take a moment to explain how Russia will handle such countries as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to gain "complete control of Caspian Sea oil [and gas]"? If any time remains could you please ever so briefly hint at what Russia might do to persuade the dozen or two multi-national oil and gas companies involved in the region to pack up and leave?

In anticipation of your answers I await with receipt in hand to claim my refund from Russia for faulty ideological goods.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 08:25:25 AM
I take this to be a claim on your part that Russia wants to somehow annex or control all the territory that used to be part of the USSR. Is that what you mean?

Exactly.

Quote from: Bunny on August 20, 2008, 07:48:13 AM
 
The failure of Gorbachev to see the parallels between the Georgian government's action to preserve their geographical integrity and the Russian actions in Chechnya is telling.  Gorbachev is very concerned with the fact that the breakaway provinces (Ossetia and Abkhazia) have ethnic Russians as well as the fact that ethic Georgians also live in Russia.  Thus Russia has the right to invade and unite the ethnic Georgians of those provinces with the ethic Georgians living in Russia -- ergo these provinces had the right to break away. ::)

A note on annexation. Personally I doubt that Russia wants to annex S. Ossetia and Abkhazia directly. Why? Because such an action would send a positive signal to separatists within Russia itself. If Ossetians can secede from Georgia, why can't [name of ethnic group] secede from Russia?

An interesting piece of news came out this week. The peoples of Idel-Ural have set up a "Coordinating Council" to work together for defense of language rights, cultural autonomy, and other related things. Idel-Ural is Tatar for "Volga-Ural," it's an umbrella grouping of Tatars, Bashkirs, Chuvashes, and nearby Finno-Ugric peoples, such as the Mordvins and Udmurts. If they suddenly have decided to work together on things, this might set off alarm bells in Moscow. Incidentally, Tatarstan enjoyed something like de facto independence in the 1990s, and today it has about as much autonomy as a region can have without being actually independent.

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 10:44:16 PM
Exactly.

I disagree for a number of reasons. But I would be curious to know how you think they could accomplish this.

Quote from: Jezetha on August 20, 2008, 08:41:46 AM
I read this as meaning 'If you have been used to being an empire for so long, you'll try to become as big a player again as circumstances allow.' Because I don't think any country will ever be an empire in a global sense. Attempting it would risk globocide (word coined by German philosopher Günther Anders).

I don't claim that Russia tries to be a "global empire"? Not at all. All I'm saying is that Russia is trying hard to recover its former empire. As for circumstances and allowances, Russian leaders are only too clever to either exploit or otherwise create them. We have been accustomed after 1989 with the rhetoric of friendship, partnership and peaceful cooperation between EU and Russia or USA and Russia. I didn't buy this claptrap for a second. USA and Russia pursue relentlessly their own goals, while the weak, naive or double-playing (Schroeder anyone?) European leaders have turned UE into a powerless and coward "superpower". As Wurstwasser correctly mentioned, trying to compromise everything with everyone in order to preserve peace is not going to work. Actually, it's going to create more mess.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 20, 2008, 02:33:25 PM
In anticipation of your answers I await with receipt in hand to claim my refund from Russia for faulty ideological goods.

I hope it's not a standing queue.

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 11:01:42 PM
I don't claim that Russia tries to be a "global empire"? Not at all. All I'm saying is that Russia is trying hard to recover its former empire.

Well...hm...if Russia recovers its former Empire, then it can hardly be not called "global." Russian Empire: (includes Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Alaska, all small Caucasian nations, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and some other partial regions; light green - its spheres of influence)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Imperio_Ruso.PNG)

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 10:55:07 PM
A note on annexation. Personally I doubt that Russia wants to annex S. Ossetia and Abkhazia directly. Why? Because such an action would send a positive signal to separatists within Russia itself. If Ossetians can secede from Georgia, why can't [name of ethnic group] secede from Russia?

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

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 10:56:38 PM
I disagree for a number of reasons. But I would be curious to know how you think they could accomplish this.

By applying the good ol' principle: Divide et impera.

Annexation of certain territories is easy. South Ossetians and Abkhazians have been granted Russian citizenship. Ergo, any attack on them is an attack on Russia, who has the right to defend its own citizens. And if this can't be done because they belong to Georgia, then why not make them part of Russia? A referendum will be organized, the Kosovo precedent will be invoked. Who will interfere? EU and USA have done the same thing to Serbia, why can't Russia do the same to Georgia? The same applies to Transnistria. Actually, this scenario has been publicly stated by Putin right after the Kosovo secession. Moreover, this will give de jure status to a de facto situation.

Control is a little more difficult, they have to install puppet regimes in certain countries. But given their extensive expertise in the field I have no doubt they'll accomplish this task as well.

You may disagree, but time will tell.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 20, 2008, 11:19:47 PM
Well...hm...if Russia recovers its former Empire, then it can hardly be not called "global." Russian Empire: (includes the Ukraine, Poland, Belarus, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Alaska, all small Caucasian nations, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and some other partial regions, light green - its spheres of influence)

I was not referring to Tsarist Russia, but to the USSR.

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 11:24:42 PM
I was not referring to Tsarist Russia, but to the USSR.

Then it's not The Russian Empire, take off Alaska, Finland, and Poland.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Soviet_Union_Map.png/800px-Soviet_Union_Map.png)

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 11:24:42 PM
I was not referring to Tsarist Russia, but to the USSR.

Both had, more or less, the same aspirations, though.

Ok, what else does Russia need then? Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, all small Caucasian nations, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan? Time will tell.

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 11:21:11 PM
As if Russia has ever been respectful of international rights and laws... Remember Chechnya?

You have totally missed the point I was trying to make. Please read my "note on annexation" again. It has nothing to do with international law - it's a practical matter.

QuoteBy applying the good ol' principle: Divide et impera.

Annexation of certain territories is easy. South Ossetians and Abkhazians have been granted Russian citizenship. Ergo, any attack on them is an attack on Russia, who has the right to defend its own citizens. And if this can't be done because they belong to Georgia, then why not make them part of Russia?

Ossetia and Abkhazia are the smallest of small potatoes. How would Russia deal with a country like Ukraine (pop. 46 million, considerable military forces), Kazakhstan (8 times the size of France in area), or the Baltic states (EU and NATO members)?

Quote from: Sarastro on August 20, 2008, 11:29:01 PM
Then it's not The Russian Empire, take off Alaska, Finland, and Poland.

I took them off all right. :)

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 11:30:52 PM
You have totally missed the point I was trying to make. Please read my "note on annexation" again. It has nothing to do with international law - it's a practical matter.

That's my point too. 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.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 11:30:52 PMOssetia and Abkhazia are the smallest of small potatoes. How would Russia deal with a country like Ukraine (pop. 46 million, considerable military forces), Kazakhstan (8 times the size of France in area), or the Baltic states (EU and NATO members)?

Putin has already warned that should Ukraine be given NATO membership the eastern part of it might secede and unite with Russia. As for Kazakhstan, there is no need to annex it directly. Political control will do, as in Moldova who already has a staunchly pro-Russian government

The only former USSR countries that might have escaped forever from Moscow's orbit are indeed the Baltic States.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 20, 2008, 11:30:33 PM
Ok, what else does Russia need then? Ukraine, Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, all small Caucasian nations, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan? Time will tell.

Hey, no one is touching Lithuania without a fight!  >:(  >:D  :-*

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 20, 2008, 11:30:52 PM
Kazakhstan (8 times the size of France in area)

This one for me always boggles the mind. It is gigantic and extremely rich in natural resources. Even the Chinese are tapping it up for oil and it's only going to get more competitive.

And of course now Poland takes its "revenge". 8)

Quote from: Florestan on August 20, 2008, 11:38:42 PM
That's my point too. 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.

Whether they will "crush mercilessly" or not, it is entirely within their interest NOT to give minorities excuses to stir things up. Trying to wage war on the Tatars (Russia's largest minority) or Idel-Ural peoples would be devastating for the country as a whole, not just for those regions. It would be like Chechnya times 10.

QuotePutin has already warned that should Ukraine be given NATO membership the eastern part of it might secede and unite with Russia.

Let's consider Ukraine, it's the heavyweight here. Your use of language ("the eastern part might secede") suggests either that Eastern Ukrainians are just itching to secede, or that Putin can somehow make this happen. Very unlikely in both cases. Here are the words of Viktor Yanukovych, leader of Ukraine's Party of Regions, who is often dubbed as "a pro-Russian puppet" by the Western media:

"I come from Eastern Ukraine, where the first language of the majority of people is Russian... Some have suggested that the cultural influence of Russia and the linguistic origins of people such as myself are proof that the Party of Regions is pro-Russian. It is not."

In fact, the main ambition of Eastern Ukraine is to maintain its economic dominance over all of Ukraine. Most of the country's big businessmen come from there. They are the real players and are not going to respond positively to any call for secession from Moscow, since it would put there own economic interests at risk.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:10:06 AM
Whether they will "crush mercilessly" or not, it is entirely within their interest NOT to give minorities excuses to stir things up.

Do you really believe that (a) SO are not going to secede and (b) the Russian government will not encourage or support such a move? Then it's Medvedev himself who contradicts you, as he has clearly and publicly stated: whatever the Abkhazians and South Ossetians decide, Russia will guarantee militarily.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:10:06 AMLet's consider Ukraine, it's the heavyweight here. Your use of language ("the eastern part might secede")

It's not mine but Putin's.

Quote from: Florestan on August 21, 2008, 12:25:25 AM
Do you really believe that (a) SO are not going to secede and (b) the Russian government will not encourage or support such a move?

I'll wait and see. I still think annexing those territories could have potentially dire consequences for Russia as a unified state.

QuoteIt's not mine but Putin's.

Putin can say whatever he wants, but his leverage over Ukraine is limited.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:31:44 AM
I'll wait and see. I still think annexing those territories could have potentially dire consequences for Russia as a unified state.

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

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:31:44 AMPutin can say whatever he wants, but his leverage over Ukraine is limited.

Maybe, but I'm sure he's working on it...

By the way, speaking of handing out passports - two can play at that game:

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/20492

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:48:24 AM
By the way, speaking of handing out passports - two can play at that game:

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/20492

You're an absolute goldmine for interesting websites Bruno. Thanks again.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VILNIUS-Lithuanian Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Laimonas Talat-Kelpsa and other Lithuanian diplomats arrived in the Georgian city of Gori destroyed and seized by the Russian forces during the armed Russia-Georgia conflict.

The Lithuanian delegation had to cross four control posts to reach Gori.

Russian soldiers guarding the entrance into the city said they would not allow the delegation into Gori but contacted their leadership.

While the Lithuanians were waiting, ambassadors of Germany and Norway arrived at the entrance along with representatives of international organizations and transport with humanitarian assistance.

An hour later, the column of vehicles was allowed into the city.

Talat-Kelpsa told BNS that the inspection at the control post was harsh violation of international documents.

"An alien army in an internationally-recognized territory of Georgia demanded that Lithuanian diplomats produce their documents. A shipment of the United Nations (UN) humanitarian assistance was suspended for an hour. In our opinion, it is also a severe violation of the ceasefire agreement, which suggests that humanitarian assistance should be granted unimpeded access to the conflict zone," said the Lithuanian diplomat.

Gori's pre-war population of approximately 70,000 people is now down what Lithuanian diplomats say is less than 10,000 people.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:48:24 AM
By the way, speaking of handing out passports - two can play at that game:

http://www.baltictimes.com/news/articles/20492

The key of the issue is that

The Pechory district was part of the Estonian territory prior to World War II.

Nobody forced that territory down the throat of the Russian government. Quite the contrary, they were only too eager to swallow it. Now they can't complain having a hard diggestion.

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 ---it is bound to plant ticking bombs that someday will explode in its face.

Quote from: Florestan on August 21, 2008, 01:04:09 AM
The key of the issue is that

The Pechory district was part of the Estonian territory prior to World War II.

I'm not trying to make a point. I just thought it was an interesting case. I read elsewhere that the conscripts from Pskov prefer to serve in the Estonian army because they don't have to get up until 8 AM, and their rec room just got a new pool table. Don't know if it's true though.

You're an absolute goldmine for interesting websites Bruno.

Sid, speaking of interesting websites, you should enjoy this one, in the mentioned city of Gori:

http://www.stalinmuseum.ge/museumeng.html

An excerpt, in the site's charmingly fractured English:

"Exactly in this very city there is a State Museum of an outstanding person J.Stalin, where unique exhibits are collected: memorial things, presents, canvases, photo-film documents etc. Here is kept unique historical stuff connected with that epoch, in which J.Stalin lived and did his social work."

Stalin was a social worker?!? Who knew?  :D

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 01:17:38 AM
I'm not trying to make a point. I just thought it was an interesting case.

It certainly is. And potentially dangerous as well.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 20, 2008, 11:44:13 PMAnd of course now Poland takes its "revenge". 8)

(http://p3.focus.de/img/gen/c/d/HBcdEoQP_Pxgen_r_220xA.jpg)

Watch out for the potato twins! :D Has one of them been eaten btw?

I thought this article/post on the background to the conflict was really good. It's by Dmitry Orlov, who has a background in Caucasian linguistics:

http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2008/08/trouble-with-georgia.html

And further evidence for my contention that the Baltics are not like Ossetia:

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Business+New+Europe&articleid=a1219391655

Quote from: ezodisy on August 20, 2008, 02:33:25 PM
Bunny, have you also failed in your attempts to sell goods to the Russians? Because you are behaving in the same ignorant way as over in the other thread about the Chinese.

Okay Bunny, let's presume you're right, that Russia "have their eyes on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline which is the only thing standing between Russia and complete control of Caspian Sea oil going to the West." Can you please explain to me then how the Baku-Supsa and CPC pipelines come into this and what Russia will need to do to gain "complete control" over these? Can you also take a moment to explain how Russia will handle such countries as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to gain "complete control of Caspian Sea oil [and gas]"? If any time remains could you please ever so briefly hint at what Russia might do to persuade the dozen or two multi-national oil and gas companies involved in the region to pack up and leave?

In anticipation of your answers I await with receipt in hand to claim my refund from Russia for faulty ideological goods.

The BTU pipeline is the only source of Caspian Oil flowing to the West, that they do not control. Duh!

Do you think that oil and control of oil is not on the agenda when you invade a country where the only independent pipeline flowing West is running?  ::)

Why don't you try explaining the reasons why Russia cut their oil exports to the Czech republic by 50% the day after the Czech Republic joined signed an agreement to deploy the US Antiballistic Missile Shield? 

Other countries in the region that import significant amounts of both oil and natural gas from Russia, with the oil coming through the Druzhba Pipeline, are particularly concerned that Russia may gradually shift oil exports to the Baltic Pipeline system, which feeds Northern Europe. This would mean that most East European countries would have to pay more for oil because shipment fees would be higher.

Transneft cut supplies in early July, a day after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice signed an accord with her Czech counterpart to deploy part of the Pentagon's antiballistic missile shield on Czech territory. Russia denied then that the decision to cut supplies from a contracted July volume of 500,000 tons to 300,000 tons had been in retaliation for the signing.
(http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/30/europe/czech.php)

How does Poland get most of their oil and natural gas?  I suppose you don't see a connection between the agreement being signed for the same missiles to be deployed in Poland the day before Russia invades Georgia!  Do you think that's merely coincidence?

The Russians use oil to "punish" their former Iron Curtain allies who now seek alliances with the US. This is already proven.  If these countries have oil suppies that are independent of Russian Control (via the BTC Pipeline) then how will Russia exercise its clout in Eastern Europe?  Russia again wants to be THE POWER in Eastern Europe and Western Asia.  Control of Caspian Sea Oil traveling to the West is central to this aim.  They want to be able to set the price and control the supply of that oil so that they can punish any countries that do anything they don't like.    I repeat: Georgia is insignificant of and by itself except for the fact that a pipeline runs through the country.  Without that pipeline, only the establishment of NATO missiles there would make Russia blink.  You can also bet your bottom dollar that this little Russian troop exercise is also being done as a warning to every other former member country of the Warsaw Pact as well as Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. 

If, by some aberration you actually believe that the invasion of Georgia was motivated by a sincere desire to help the people of the region (actually only the Ethnic Russians are benefitting, not ethnic Georgians who are being dispossessed and bombed), then it becomes ugly because it's so similar to Hitler's invasion of Czechoslovakia to "protect" the ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland.   We all saw how appeasing Hitler worked out.

Just to remind you since your memories seem to be incredibly short:

Warsaw Pact Countries:

    * People's Republic of Albania (left in 1961 as a result of the Sino-Soviet split)
    * People's Republic of Bulgaria
    * Czechoslovak Socialist Republic -- now Czech Republic and Slovakia
    * People's Republic of Hungary
    * People's Republic of Poland
    * Socialist Republic of Romania
    * USSR

Joined later:

     * German Democratic Republic (in 1956) -- reunited with West Germany


What really gets my goat is that you all are so quick to ascribe the motives of GW Bush to lust for oil wealth and power, but can't recognize the same thing when it's being done by someone you need (for some unknown reason) to defend.  War mongering is war mongering, and I don't mind condemning everyone who does it.  But call me prejudiced and ignorant.  It's just so much easier than looking at a duck and calling it a duck when it's walking and quacking like a duck.

If Putin want to restore Russia as a great power
and the "spheres of influence" in Europe, you can't
blame him. It is and always has been Russia politics.
And he's ready to do anything it's necessary to that.
The same as USA.

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 07:21:55 AM
If Putin want to restore Russia as a great power
and the "spheres of influence" in Europe, you can't
blame him. It is and always has been Russia politics.
And he's ready to do anything it's necessary to that.
The same as USA.

Well put.  Both Russia and the USA go around invading other countries.  My fear is that the cold war will get back into high gear.  I haven't given any thought in recent years to a nuclear war between the two countries, but it's on my mind now.

Oh, I think you are safe, it is more likely some third country will catch it.

Mike

Quote from: Don on August 22, 2008, 07:31:55 AM
Well put.  Both Russia and the USA go around invading other countries.  My fear is that the cold war will get back into high gear.  I haven't given any thought in recent years to a nuclear war between the two countries, but it's on my mind now.

Exactly my point.  I hated the invasion of Iraq and now I hate the invasion of Georgia.  Both actions are about Oil and Geopolitics and it doesn't take more than ordinary commonsense to see this. 

Quote from: Don on August 22, 2008, 07:31:55 AM
Well put.  Both Russia and the USA go around invading other countries.  My fear is that the cold war will get back into high gear.  I haven't given any thought in recent years to a nuclear war between the two countries, but it's on my mind now.

I believe the the Cold War is already back and we have only the ham fisted idiocy of GW Bush and the cold, calculated dedication to power of the new Russian Tsar, V.Putin to blame for this. Thankfully America is getting rid of Bush.  Unfortunately, Putin is in power until he dies, and he looks very, very healthy.

Quote from: Bunny on August 22, 2008, 08:27:21 AM
Exactly my point.  I hated the invasion of Iraq and now I hate the invasion of Georgia.  Both actions are about Oil and Geopolitics and it doesn't take more than ordinary commonsense to see this. 

It is true that the the need to secure supplies or oil makes these regions important, but the invasion of Georgia was precipitated by a direct attack on Russian forces (peacekeepers, as they are euphemistically called) by Georgia.  South Ossetia fought a war against Georgia in 1992 to stay out of Georgia and remain part of Russia.  The US, by emboldening Georgia to make this idiotic move, has given Russia a pretext to assert its military influence in the region.  

Quote from: Bunny on August 22, 2008, 07:07:52 AM
The BTU pipeline is the only source of Caspian Oil flowing to the West, that they do not control. Duh!

I read through your little harangue, but after reading this first sentence, it is clear that you know absolutely nothing about the situation.

Fist of all, the CPC pipeline, which according to you Russia controls, is, as the name states--Caspian Pipeline Consortium-an international consortium where "three governments and ten companies representing seven countries participate in the project [1]". It is made up of shareholders, many of which, unbelievable as it might seem, are completely independent of Russia. Secondly, the Baku-Supsa pipeline was sponsored by the AIOC (Azerbaijan International Operating Company) which is made up of 10 companies[2], none of which has anything to do with Russia. It's under the operation of BP (British, thank god) and the original construction involved companies from Norway, The Netherlands, Greece and the US[3]. I suppose that the newspapers which you're pilfering from haven't yet mentioned that this pipeline, just like the BTC, runs from Azerbaijan through Georgia, though unlike BTC it ends at the Black Sea. Thirdly, and not at all surprisingly, you are also ignoring the well-nigh inevitable construction of the Trans-Caspian Oil Pipeline which will once again be out of Russian hands. Fourthly, your simplistic speech about "only source...flowing West...that they do not control" completely ignores that all of this oil comes from countries which are not Russian.

Next time try to do some research before you hurl yourself into attack, because as things stand your type is actually much worse than the people you're condemning. I will leave the rest of your points to anyone who wishes to easily dismantle them as I have this.

[1] http://www.cpc.ru/portal/alias!press/lang!en-US/tabID!3357/DesktopDefault.aspx (http://www.cpc.ru/portal/alias!press/lang!en-US/tabID!3357/DesktopDefault.aspx)

[2] http://www.bp.com/managedlistingsection.do?categoryId=9007997&contentId=7014999

[3] http://www.hydrocarbons-technology.com/projects/supsa/

Bunny, if you'd really like to learn more about the complex situation of pipelines, shippers, operators, shareholders and territory, there is a recently published online article available here on this excellent website which has some good pieces.

The Caspian Pipeline Consortium...remains to this day the only oil export pipeline on Russian territory that is not under the control of the state company Transneft.  (http://www.ifri.org/frontDispatcher/ifri/publications/russie_cei_visions_1111752534925/publi_P_publi_rus_dellecker_1213285800217)

Our Bunny is a playboy bunny, that's for sure. A blond playboy bunny.

Quote from: Bunny on August 22, 2008, 08:33:39 AM
he looks very, very healthy.

I believe you can piss him off to death. Try!

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 12:37:43 PM
Our Bunny is a playboy bunny, that's for sure. A blond playboy bunny.

well if that's true then I take back everything I said and will do my best to undress, er, address the matter at hand  :P

I actually agree with some of what bunny says, it's just the avoidance of facts and concomitant manipulation which annoys me. Some of the conclusions bunny reached are factually impossible without an all-out war.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 22, 2008, 01:01:00 PM
I actually agree with some of what bunny says.

I also agree with some things, but because it is just hard to disagree that the Earth revolves round the Sun, if you know what I mean. :)

A sane person would understand that Russia would act in its own self interest.  First we tell them that they have no right to feel threatened if their neighbors and former Soviet republics join NATO.  Then we goad one of these former republics to attack Russian troops, with US supplied weapons, no less.  It that supposed to encourage Russia to join the community of Western nations?

Certainly not. And besides, why should Russia've
interest on join the Western community? They
are only partially european. A great part of his
population is assiatic. And they never trusted nor
admired the Westerns. They stooped years ago
to interfere in the internal affairs of West countries,
but USA want to install missiles that can easily
get Russia. They've every reason to be pissed of.

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 04:28:22 PM
Certainly not. And besides, why should Russia've
interest on join the Western community? They
are only partially european. A great part of his
population is assiatic. And they never trusted nor
admired the Westerns. They stooped years ago
to interfere in the internal affairs of West countries,
but USA want to install missiles that can easily
get Russia. They've every reason to be pissed of.

I would think they aspire to a western standard of living, western values of freedom and human rights, and to put their economy in order in the long term they need western investment and technical knowledge.   The strategies that they have recently used, for instance contracting with British Petroleum to develop their oil fields, then denying BP employees visas so they can confiscate BP assets, will not help them in the long term.   I'm not sure that tradition Russian values of tyranny, poverty and oppression are to be preferred.   Russia may have achieved an overt victory in Georgia, but the penalty is not the NATO posturing, it is the precipitous withdrawal of foreign investment from Russia that has happened in the past few weeks.  That will hurt Russia in the long run.

By the way, the placement of those missiles may be an unnecessary irritation, but they can't "get Russia."  They are anti-ballistic missile defense systems, and can only be used to intercept offensive missiles, which are considered most likely to come from a rogue state in the middle east such as Iran.

Sure, they said that are only anti-ballistic missiles
and you do believe it?.
If you do, you can believe anything.

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 04:28:22 PM
They are only partially european. A great part of his
population is assiatic.

If thou mean that russians are asian then thou
mustlook at the data which says that
79,83 % (115 million) of russian federation
population is purely russian white and a
few more million are immigrants from europe and
a few are minorities from caucasus, like georgia
and the rest little bits are siberian native nationalities.
By the way the most of russia's population live
in the eropian part. That is statistics.

BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4579829.ece

Now, there is one more article in The Times, about "music and politics" :-\ "Should Gergiev be condemned for playing in South Ossetia?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4583096.ece

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 05:40:58 PM
Sure, they said that are only anti-ballistic missiles
and you do believe it?.
If you do, you can believe anything.

Yes I believe it, because it makes technical sense.  There only reason that missiles need to placed in a specific location is to intercept an enemy missile, which is most vulnerable during boost phase.   The US already has countless intercontinental ballistic missiles, the strategic air command, cruise missiles, and ballistic missile submarines.  There is no need to put a dinky missile launcher in Poland to target Russia.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 07:04:30 PM
BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there

He grew up in North Ossetia but was born elsewhere.

Beware of the French! (http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2008/08/watching-the-me.html)

Quote from: ezodisy on August 22, 2008, 11:30:25 PM
He grew up in North Ossetia but was born elsewhere.

Who cares? It's already pretty old and stinking stuff, like the war in Iraq, now people are more concerned with Obama's vice, America's most popular cars of 2008, and new scandals in the Olympics. :P

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 07:04:30 PM
BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4579829.ece

Now, there is one more article in The Times, about "music and politics" :-\ "Should Gergiev be condemned for playing in South Ossetia?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4583096.ece

I hope it's OK to quote one of the comments:
"It appears that every aspect of Russia's Georgian 'adventure' was orchestrated."
d. Los Angeles

ZB

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 07:04:30 PM
BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4579829.ece

Now, there is one more article in The Times, about "music and politics" :-\ "Should Gergiev be condemned for playing in South Ossetia?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4583096.ece

Why didn't he conducted some South Ossetian music? If there is no such thing as South Ossetian classical music, he could have chosen to play South Ossetian folklore of which I am sure there is plenty. Instead, he played Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky, making it an entirely Russian (and emphatically so) affair and showing one more time that it's all about Russia and that South Ossetia is just a pawn in the game.

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:31:44 AM
I'll wait and see. I still think annexing those territories could have potentially dire consequences for Russia as a unified state.

And yet the first step (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/25/2346011.htm) has been taken.

It's official: Medvedev has signed the decrees recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Annexation proper is just a matter of time.

Our aim is to suffocate aggression
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

LOL!

Quote from: ezodisy on August 27, 2008, 02:45:11 AM
Our aim is to suffocate aggression
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

:D :D :D

As a reply, USA could annex Alaska,Canada and Mexico

Quote from: DFO on August 27, 2008, 03:23:50 AM
As a reply, USA could annex Alaska,Canada and Mexico

Well, the USA bought Alaska long ago and it's been a state now for 50 years.  As for the rest, Mexico's in the process of annexing the Southwest, and Canada is at peace with Quebec.

Beware of the French! (http://timescorrespondents.typepad.com/charles_bremner/2008/08/watching-the-me.html)
[/quote]

I have been following this with interest as the same could happen here.

If it does happen can we then talk of the "Belgianisation" of Europe instead of the "Balkanisation"?

I would expect Wallonie to try and become part of France as it is unlikely to be able to survive on its own and it is the bone of contention with the Flemish in that it is they who believe that they are forever subsidising the French-speakers.

Curses! Independence for Tibet is illegal and out of the question. Mr Bush says it must remain forever an integral part of China.

Quote from: Florestan on August 24, 2008, 10:58:14 PM
Why didn't he conducted some South Ossetian music? If there is no such thing as South Ossetian classical music, he could have chosen to play South Ossetian folklore of which I am sure there is plenty. Instead, he played Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky, making it an entirely Russian (and emphatically so) affair and showing one more time that it's all about Russia and that South Ossetia is just a pawn in the game.

I am sure you understand that it is a very loose argument. Why do you think the orchestra knows some South Ossetian music? Why do you think they had time to learn and rehearse it? It was a hastily organized concert, they simply had no time after a long flight. There might many other human reasons why they played what they played, perhaps it was well-rehearsed beforehand and played many times, and the music matched the circumstances. What if South Ossetian music is merry and cheerful? Would it be OK to play it for the mournful event?

I see you've been posting only in this topic for the whole past week, so it seems that Russia bothers you.

Quote from: Florestan on August 19, 2008, 12:25:41 AM
My country would have been a far better place than it is now had it not been for the USSR and its puppet regime in Bucharest.

Amplifying your logic, one can also say that had it not been for the Roman Empire, Romania would have been a far better place that it is now. Who knows, maybe your ancestors were slaves during those times? Or had it not been for the First Bulgarian Empire, or had it not been for the Tatars, or had it not been for the Ottoman Empire, or had it not been for the Habsburgs' Austrian empire. And, by the way, in the 19-th century Romania was recognized as an independent state after the Russian-Turkish war and was granted freedom from the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in the war by the Russian Empire.

And, for instance, Russia was under the Tatar yoke for a couple of centuries and suffered from tribute and cruelty. Now the term "Tatar" is eliminated as it is offensive to the Mongols, so now it is just called "a foreign invasion." Had it not been for the Golden Horde, Russia would have been a faaaaaar better place than it is now. Stop complaining about and blaming Russia, it is disgraceful! Of course we will never forget vices of the Soviet government, but there is no puppet regime in Romania now, and its future is entirely in its own hands.

By the way, a true story, my friend's mother was run over by two speeding drunk Romanian guys, in Vienna, during her vacation. She's been in coma for three weeks, with haematoma in liver and concussion of the brain. Had it not been for those Romanians, she would have been in a far better condition. >:(

Quote from: Sarastro on August 29, 2008, 11:30:44 PM
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.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 30, 2008, 04:53:13 AM
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.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 30, 2008, 04:53:13 AM
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.

Quote from: ezodisy on August 30, 2008, 04:53:13 AM
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."

Quote from: Sarastro on August 30, 2008, 11:29:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 30, 2008, 11:29:58 PM
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?

Quote from: M forever on August 30, 2008, 11:45:16 PM
Exactly! It was so mean of the Nazis to drop the atomic bombs on Japan.

Oh, you understand everything so literally!

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.

Quote from: Florestan on August 31, 2008, 02:42:43 AM
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? :D

Quote from: Florestan on August 31, 2008, 02:42:43 AM
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.

Quote from: Florestan on August 31, 2008, 02:42:43 AMThat 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.

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

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

QuoteRussia 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.

QuoteRussia 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?

QuoteLook 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.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 31, 2008, 12:28:39 PM
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.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 31, 2008, 12:28:39 PMYou 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.

Quote from: Sarastro on August 31, 2008, 12:28:39 PMAs 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.

Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2008, 01:29:00 AM
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.

Quote from: Florestan on September 01, 2008, 01:29:00 AM
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.

QuoteThe 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.

Quote from: Sarastro on September 01, 2008, 10:07:09 PM
we'd better stop here.

Agreed.

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 (http://www.forbes.com/video/?video=fvn/business/pm_non090508&partner=blinkx)

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

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 (http://www.blinkx.com/video/investors-rush-to-exit-russia/G6zyGLXAzVFIWaWRW29xIA)

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

"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

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

Quote from: ezodisy on September 17, 2008, 03:30:20 AM
"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!  ;D

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.