Georgia/Russia Conflict

[KGSodie 0]

I truly hate to enter the fray here, but I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on China, Kirk. You use the phrase 'respect and engagement', but there's a fine line between that and appeasement, and with the wrong type of leader/government/madman, this can be exactly the wrong approach. My mind isn't made up on China yet.

[mox 298]

I truly hate to enter the fray here, but I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on China, Kirk. You use the phrase 'respect and engagement', but there's a fine line between that and appeasement, and with the wrong type of leader/government/madman, this can be exactly the wrong approach. My mind isn't made up on China yet.

Come in...the water's fine.

The term "appeasement" is really a loaded term these days, and it's often used by politicians to indicate weakness and acquiescence to unreasonable demands (i.e., "my opponent wants to appease the terrorists."). The most famous use of appeasement was of course the Munich Agreement, and it's where the negative connotation comes from. But up until that point, appeasement simply meant negotiations with your enemy, a give and take that mostly satisfied all parties. It's an anathema idea to this "do as we say not as we do" ideology that America has adopted in recent years (and not just under Bush).

Russia and China share one really important quality, which Kevin I'm sure you are truly aware of: they are extremely sensitive to insult. The Bush administration, to their credit, seem to understand this about China, and have avoided the damaging rhetoric they use for every other country in the world. I personally don't think they've done enough to engage China on important topics such as human rights, but for this administration, the fact that they haven't irretrievably damaged any relationship with China is sadly their greatest foreign policy accomplishment. Why they don't understand this about Russia (especially with Condoleezza Rice in their midst) is beyond me. The more demands we make of Russia, the more they dig their heels in, and the harder it makes it for Russia to take any other position than belligerent. I'm not saying we should treat Russia with a light hand, but that needs to be done in back rooms and back channels. Again, like we do for China.

The China model is a model we need to use with Russia. As much as the hawks harken for the good old days, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and they're not trying to go back to their old "sphere of influence" days. But they're also not going to tolerate a Western sphere of containment either, and they won't tolerate being hemmed in by NATO. So it's no wonder that they were itching for a fight in Georgia, and it's no wonder they're dragging their heels on the way out. Russia have sent a message to the world that they're not going to tolerate NATO expansion any longer, and the West had better sit up and listen. If we want peace with Russia, we're going to have to give something up, and that means giving up NATO membership for Georgia. That's what appeasement is really about.

Edited August 19, 2008 by mox

[1HappyGuy 45]

Bobalouie, you might find this hard to believe, but I actually agree with you. Russia is using these tactics to show the world, especially western Europe, what true economic power they have. Anyone that thinks Russia (i.e. Putin) is not longing for the return of the soviet times is just kidding themselves. Putin wants it all back and under his influence. His threats and strong arm tactics have been very evident, especially when any FSU looks for Nato membership.

I agree, that Russia was pretty weak after the breakup of the Soviet Union, but not as bad as all of the other FSU's. Now that Russia has found it's true economic power they are looking to recover what they still believe is theirs. This is why some of the FSU countries are looking toward Nato. Life under the soviet regime was not all that great, especially freedoms we in America take for granted.

We have not seen the last of Putin's aggressions.

[mox 298]

Anyone that thinks Russia (i.e. Putin) is not longing for the return of the soviet times is just kidding themselves.

The last thing Putin wants is a return to Soviet times. Putin is a smart, smart man. He's not one of these alcoholic ideologues like Yeltsin. He is an extremely shrewd man, and he knows that a return to Soviet authoritarianism will only doom Russia to the backwaters of economic progress. He also knows it's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. Putin wants Russia to be a superpower again, but he's going to do it in a Russian way. That does mean a certain level of authoritarianism and extension of power, but I think it could also be argued that Russia really doesn't work well under a true democracy anyway.

[Ilya R. 0]

Bobalouie, you might find this hard to believe, but I actually agree with you. Russia is using these tactics to show the world, especially western Europe, what true economic power they have. Anyone that thinks Russia (i.e. Putin) is not longing for the return of the soviet times is just kidding themselves. Putin wants it all back and under his influence. His threats and strong arm tactics have been very evident, especially when any FSU looks for Nato membership.

I agree, that Russia was pretty weak after the breakup of the Soviet Union, but not as bad as all of the other FSU's. Now that Russia has found it's true economic power they are looking to recover what they still believe is theirs. This is why some of the FSU countries are looking toward Nato. Life under the soviet regime was not all that great, especially freedoms we in America take for granted.

We have not seen the last of Putin's aggressions.

Living in Russia today is nothing compared to what it was in 60's-90's, and stop making a monster out of Putin. He might be a strict leader, but he gets things done, and his people (most) trust him. People in Russia are becoming more happier, make more money, afford new things, they want to live like westerns. You should visit Russia and see how much the standard of life has changed, nobody wants to go back to Soviet Union, except for maybe elderly population who are just too used to it to change. They want to live like the British like the Americans, but with culture of Russia. People in Russia express their feelings more open now, they are allowed to do whatever they feel like, they can afford much more. The only way you'll see Russia being aggressive again, is only if it is provoked, if its cornered. Precisely what NATO is doing right now. Just take a look at NATO and Rice, making Sakashivli the victim here, not one negative thing is said about him by most of ex soviet republics or USA.

[Bobalouie 0]

I truly hate to enter the fray here, but I'd be interested in hearing more of your thoughts on China, Kirk. You use the phrase 'respect and engagement', but there's a fine line between that and appeasement, and with the wrong type of leader/government/madman, this can be exactly the wrong approach. My mind isn't made up on China yet.

Come in...the water's fine.

The term "appeasement" is really a loaded term these days, and it's often used by politicians to indicate weakness and acquiescence to unreasonable demands (i.e., "my opponent wants to appease the terrorists."). The most famous use of appeasement was of course the Munich Agreement, and it's where the negative connotation comes from. But up until that point, appeasement simply meant negotiations with your enemy, a give and take that mostly satisfied all parties. It's an anathema idea to this "do as we say not as we do" ideology that America has adopted in recent years (and not just under Bush).

Russia and China share one really important quality, which Kevin I'm sure you are truly aware of: they are extremely sensitive to insult. The Bush administration, to their credit, seem to understand this about China, and have avoided the damaging rhetoric they use for every other country in the world. I personally don't think they've done enough to engage China on important topics such as human rights, but for this administration, the fact that they haven't irretrievably damaged any relationship with China is sadly their greatest foreign policy accomplishment. Why they don't understand this about Russia (especially with Condoleezza Rice in their midst) is beyond me. The more demands we make of Russia, the more they dig their heels in, and the harder it makes it for Russia to take any other position than belligerent. I'm not saying we should treat Russia with a light hand, but that needs to be done in back rooms and back channels. Again, like we do for China.

The China model is a model we need to use with Russia. As much as the hawks harken for the good old days, Russia is not the Soviet Union, and they're not trying to go back to their old "sphere of influence" days. But they're also not going to tolerate a Western sphere of containment either, and they won't tolerate being hemmed in by NATO. So it's no wonder that they were itching for a fight in Georgia, and it's no wonder they're dragging their heels on the way out. Russia have sent a message to the world that they're not going to tolerate NATO expansion any longer, and the West had better sit up and listen. If we want peace with Russia, we're going to have to give something up, and that means giving up NATO membership for Georgia. That's what appeasement is really about.

Why should Georgia or Ukraine not have the right of self-determination. By your appeasement, you do not allow them to determine and then persue what they feel is the best route for their country's future. As I recall, NATO has been "hemming in" Russia for its entire existance. The only difference between then and now was they had a buffer of other countries that provided time to coordinate a counter attack against an aggressor before that aggressor could make it all the way to Mother Russia. So, I find the logic that they are worried about NATO on their doorstep to be a little flawed. I can see where you are comming from, but they are trying to go back to the "old spheres of influence" days. How can you say that and in the same paragraph say that "appeasement" should perclude Georgia from NATO. Wouldnt that be putting Georgia firmly into the Russian "sphere of influence"? Wouldnt it be Russia's military actions that influenced the West not to persue that course of action?

I would hazard a guess (hold on while I put my armchair strategist hat on) that Ukraine and Georgia want into the EU and NATO because they have seen what happens when a former Soviet bloc country makes that move. EU money for roads, schools, better economy, etc. Just look at Latvia, Estonia, and the other Baltics that made the change. They also want a little bit of a hedge against the big hammer that Russia has historically smacked the little guys around with.

I do agree with you about Russia digging their heels in because of our rhetoric. It would be nice, if the administration would take a trip to Russia, like most of us have, and talk to the people on the ground, not the handlers, or govt officials. Everyone I have met doesnt care too much for alot of the things Putin has done, but they are willing to turn a blind eye to those transgressions because they value the stability he brings to the table. The sooner the West (especially our administration) gets off of their soapbox and figures out that Russian Democracy is not Western Democracy and never will be, but the PEOPLE are OK with that for now, the better off the world will be.

[mox 298]

Why should Georgia or Ukraine not have the right of self-determination. By your appeasement, you do not allow them to determine and then persue what they feel is the best route for their country's future.

Well there are really 2 things going on here: 1) Georgia's (and any former satellite's) desire for "self determination" in the form of NATO membership, and 2) the West's desire for former satellite membership into NATO. As to the former, yes of course NATO membership would be in their own self interest, or at least in their perceived self-interest. But as to the latter, NATO membership in Georgia's case is not in the West's best interest. The whole reason NATO exists is to contain the Soviet Union. Times have changed, but NATO's charter has not. So every time an Eastern European country joins NATO, Russia sees this as aggressionist (is that a word?) expansionism. And who can blame them?

As I recall, NATO has been "hemming in" Russia for its entire existance. The only difference between then and now was they had a buffer of other countries that provided time to coordinate a counter attack against an aggressor before that aggressor could make it all the way to Mother Russia. So, I find the logic that they are worried about NATO on their doorstep to be a little flawed. I can see where you are comming from, but they are trying to go back to the "old spheres of influence" days.

I think the differences are subtle but signifigant. Obviously NATO's been containing Russia/USSR for its entire existence, but that's why the USSR saw these satellite countries as so important. It was a buffer between Russia and what was seen as Western aggression. And that's really the point. By expanding NATO, we are sending a message that Russia are right about Western aggression.

It's interesting that so many people see Russia as trying to maintain their old satellite system, but nobody gets that the West is trying to maintain their old containment system. Something's gotta give, and it's not gonna be Russia. Russia sees NATO as a threat, and they're not going to be happy with it sitting on their doorstep. I think a lot of parallels could be drawn between this situation and the Cuban Missile Crisis. I.e., there was no way in hell the US was going to allow missiles right on our front doorstep, and no amount of negotiation was going to change that. I see the situation as similar with Russia...they're simply not going to tolerate this continued expansion.

How can you say that and in the same paragraph say that "appeasement" should perclude Georgia from NATO. Wouldnt that be putting Georgia firmly into the Russian "sphere of influence"? Wouldnt it be Russia's military actions that influenced the West not to persue that course of action?

Not at all. Because I also think it would be a mistake for Russia to pursue another "Warsaw Pact" type structure. Both East and West need to stop drawing battlegrounds.

But I also think Georgia is a pretty unique situation. There is a little "mini-Russia" (you heard the term here first, folks!) inside Georgia, and that causes all kinds of problems. For NATO to really protect a country, the borders have to be unquestionable. South Osettia see themselves as independent, and until that situation is resolved (read: not in my lifetime) there can't really be a credible case for a Georgia protected by NATO.

I would hazard a guess (hold on while I put my armchair strategist hat on) that Ukraine and Georgia want into the EU and NATO because they have seen what happens when a former Soviet bloc country makes that move. EU money for roads, schools, better economy, etc. Just look at Latvia, Estonia, and the other Baltics that made the change. They also want a little bit of a hedge against the big hammer that Russia has historically smacked the little guys around with.

Sure. Having the protection of NATO would be a huge security blanket, and I don't blame any of the former satellite countries for seeking it. But it does absolutely nothing good for relations with Russia. The West needs to come to terms with the fact that Russia's going to be a superpower again, or at least an economic superpower. So the question is, do we want a Russia that's comfortable with dealing with the rest of the world, or do we want a Russia that's constantly paranoid about the West and our intentions?

[franklie 0]

here is a link to site that shows a bit of what is happening in Georgia

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551

I don't read Cyrillic.

Warning: some of the pictures are pretty intense.

[slim 1,523]

Beers on me if our paths ever cross Slim.

I'll take you up on that! And once again, shouldn't it say when instead of if?

As for the rest of the posts on here..... I feel like I'm back in History class again debating the finer points of the geo-political climate. OUTSTANDING JOB!!! It's not very often on VJ that you get to see a long list of "debated topics" before you see someone drop the "Oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up your dad cause you're a poo-poo head." Bravo, gentlemen. Bravo.

[Brad and Vika 129]

hey mox anyone you know? she not showing much yet ill post some more later when she gets bigger

I thought she was supposed to be four or five months along oh.... two months ago? What gives? Does the Korat Kalendar work differently?

[mox 298]

Beers on me if our paths ever cross Slim.

I'll take you up on that! And once again, shouldn't it say when instead of if?

Definitely!

[mox 298]

Oh, and as I was saying...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/20...sile/index.html

Wasn't she just saying "this isn't the cold war anymore" just a couple days ago?

[NavarreMan 10]

On That Note>>>

Have a beer on me

[mox 298]

On That Note>>>

Have a beer on me

Break out your yellow ribbons folks...it's Day 1 of the Russian Humvee Hostage Crisis!

In all seriousness, I wonder how long it's going to take before we see a resurgence in the "Ruck Fussia" bumper sticker industry. (second only in popularity, if memory serves, to the "Ayatollah Assahola" bumber stickers.)

[NavarreMan 10]

Yep,

One of my co-workers was razzing me yesterday saying "Tell your wife we want our Hummer back!"