russia/ georgia

[Schneed10]

This is a pointless discussion anyway. Russia would not invade Poland for a number of reasons, most notably they don't want to start a nuclear standoff with the United States.

Keep in mind, just as it was in the Cold War, nobody ever launched their nukes because they knew the other side would just end up doing the same... mutually assured destruction.

No country would ever have the incentive to actually launch nukes unless:

1) The enemy's nukes were no longer a threat or
2) The country's back was against the wall and had absolutely no other recourse.

[saden1]

Where did I say invade? Never ever have I said invade. I likened this situation to the Cuban Missile Crises from the start. Russia taking out bases in Poland is very realistic scenario, certainly more realistic than us jumping to defend Poland by pulling out of Iraq and bombing Russia with stealth bombers. You're not dealing with some two bit country like Iran here. This is Russia!

Also, they have a draft, we don't. So any action on the part of the US would require the reinstatement of the draft...you're making Dmek point for him BTW.

[Beemnseven]

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Here's a pretty short piece that was written some time ago on why Russia appears to be getting a little ansy.

Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

excellent points. I mean, no, we're America, We're ALWAYS RIGHT!!!

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Here's a pretty short piece that was written some time ago on why Russia appears to be getting a little ansy.

So a country that is "supposed" to be our ally is scared of us and that makes it ok for them to act like geo-political asses? I don't but it that much. I understand the missile shield is provocative but so are Russia's however many nukes.

I believe the missile shield excuse is providing convenient cover for them to be aggressive in a way that they wish they'd never given up.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

So a country that is "supposed" to be our ally is scared of us and that makes it ok for them to act like geo-political asses? I don't but it that much. I understand the missile shield is provocative but so are Russia's however many nukes.

I believe the missile shield excuse is providing convenient cover for them to be aggressive in a way that they wish they'd never given up.

The Russians probably regret giving up their aggressive tendencies after witnessing the recent actions of the United States government. It was the United States who stopped acting like an ally to Russia. Some might even point to the very election of Vladimir Putin, a former KGB strongman, as an announcement to the world that Russia will no longer put up with what they perceive to be increasing encroachment around their borders.

Russia is doing exactly what we would have done with only about half the intensity.

[GhettoDogAllStars]

But [Colonel Christopher Langton, Senior Fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies] said Russia's campaign in Georgia left many questions about its military capability unanswered.

"There is no way they could say from this operation that they are capable of carrying out operations against something as sophisticated as NATO forces," he said. "It wasn't a serious test for them."

Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed | U.S. | Reuters

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

But [Colonel Christopher Langton, Senior Fellow at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies] said Russia's campaign in Georgia left many questions about its military capability unanswered.

"There is no way they could say from this operation that they are capable of carrying out operations against something as sophisticated as NATO forces," he said. "It wasn't a serious test for them."

Georgia war shows Russian army strong but flawed | U.S. | Reuters

Good article.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Beems,

Fair point. However, I don't think Putin's foreign policy decisions are rooted solely, or even in large part, on a fear of U.S. power. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the worst political development of the 20th century. He appears to be bent on restoring Russia to its former glory (i.e., domination of the old Soviet Republics). I wouldn't blame Russia's newfound aggressiveness on NATO's expansion, even though there is a strong tendency among some circles of our society to blame anything and everything that goes wrong on the US and its foreign policy.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

Beems,

Fair point. However, I don't think Putin's foreign policy decisions are rooted solely, or even in large part, on a fear of U.S. power. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the worst political development of the 20th century. He appears to be bent on restoring Russia to its former glory (i.e., domination of the old Soviet Republics). I wouldn't blame Russia's newfound aggressiveness on NATO's expansion, even though there is a strong tendency among some circles of our society to blame anything and everything that goes wrong on the US and its foreign policy.

I'll bet there were some in this country who didn't want to see the collapse of the Soviet Union. Namely, the military-industrial complex, along with certain chickenhawks in the current administration and elsewhere in the government. Remember, the best way to keep their stranglehold of power over the sheeple is to have an neverending pseudo "war" with vague, non-distinct enemies. It keeps everyone in fear, allows for the state to take more of our money and liberties, and paints anyone who challenges this "threat" as traitorous, unpatriotic, and un-American.

Putin is only responding to our government's zeal to "spread freedom" throughout the world -- which, as we all should know by now, including the Russians, is an elaborate ruse. The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war, and long for the days of having an "evil empire" to contend with. It's only human nature.

I don't put the blame solely at the feet of today's Bush Administration. America's long history of "tough" foreign policy goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and World War I and can be directly traced to many, if not most of the world's problems we see today.

I'm sure there will be some who'll be foaming at the mouth upon reading this. But the truth usually has that effect.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'll bet there were some in this country who didn't want to see the collapse of the Soviet Union. Namely, the military-industrial complex, along with certain chickenhawks in the current administration and elsewhere in the government. Remember, the best way to keep their stranglehold of power over the sheeple is to have an neverending pseudo "war" with vague, non-distinct enemies. It keeps everyone in fear, allows for the state to take more of our money and liberties, and paints anyone who challenges this "threat" as traitorous, unpatriotic, and un-American.

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? This seems like you're going off on a bit of rant/tangent.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Putin is only responding to our government's zeal to "spread freedom" throughout the world -- which, as we all should know by now, including the Russians, is an elaborate ruse. The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war, and long for the days of having an "evil empire" to contend with. It's only human nature.

So you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that. Our foreign policy is influenced by 1 President, 1 Vice President, dozens Executive Branch advisors and employees, a Congress of over 400 people and thousands of Congressional advisors, thousands of lobbyists (including, yes, corporate lobbyists), and MILLIONS of members of the voting public like me and you. It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I don't put the blame solely at the feet of today's Bush Administration. America's long history of "tough" foreign policy goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and World War I and can be directly traced to many, if not most of the world's problems we see today.

I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? . . . [do] you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that . . . It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military sent advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps training the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose? Why does NATO even exist anymore?

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

I could go on and on pointing to various interventions, violent overthrows of foreign governments, and covert operations all over the face of the Earth that the United States government organized, funded, or initiated since the earliest days of the 20th century which would prove my point. Thankfully, you're aware enough of history so that I won't have to rehash them all. But I don't think it's out of the question to say that this country -- this government, if you prefer -- is headed in the wrong direction when it comes to foreign affairs. But make no mistake, this trend is real. It permeates our government's outlook towards foreign policy to this very day by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And it's going to get a whole lot of people killed if we're not careful.

I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops positioned on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

You also make reference to the notion that I'm looking at this as if it's black and white, or that it's a simple case of the good guys against the bad guys. It's the neocons and the blowhards in talk radio who characterize it that way. There's a lot of gray area in war, just as there is here. I've always understood that.

The United States is the best country in the world, and there's no place I'd rather live. But I also know we make mistakes -- a lot of them recently, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. I'm also upset by the casual attitude Americans take towards war, and the reflexive willingness to wrap ourselves up in the flag while refusing to take the time to look at issues like these from a different point of view; to recognize that we don't always carry the banner for righteousness -- that maybe our government is up to no good. Why is it we admit that can be the case on domestic issues, but with foreign policy we always walk amongst the angels?

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

[KLHJ2]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia.

I enjoyed reading the majority of your previous post. While I think that bring up some valid points I have reservations about believing the eyewitness account of US troops fighting in Georgia. I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that it did not happen. I am going to point out why it is not likely.

First, I will start out petty and work my way up.

1. The woman said that us markings were worn on the forearm. We wear them on the shoulder. Petty... I know, words can get lost in translation.

2. Most U.S. service members fight in large groups and wear the standard ACU uniform. On these uniforms the U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA. is worn. These uniforms are not "black".

3. There are smaller operations teams (I don't have to name them all) that do perform missions like this. However when they do, no one would be able to (positively) identify them as U.S. Troops. This is because there would be no names, no rank, no U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA., and no U.S. Army (Navy or Marines) on those "black" uniforms.

4. Often times U.S. service members will buddy-up with Foreign Service members and exchange items such as uniforms, flags, rank, bayonets etc. It is not a stretch of the imagination that Georgian forces that train with or who have met U.S. troops, have exchanged some items.

It almost seems as if someone wants people to believe that there was U.S. involvement.

FYI, we train just about any allied nation that wants to be trained...to an extent.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

I would like to know how exactly you know that Putin/Russian action in Georgia is a response to "policies set forth by the chickenhawks." Unless you are Vlad himself, you cannot tell me what is motivating Russian action in Georgia.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

See my comments above. Also, I think it is noteworthy that the Russians put the smack down on the Chechen rebels well before the chickenhawks came into power. I suppose they were just anticipating that Bush would get elected, fill his cabinet with chickenhawks, invade Iraq, and put an anti-missile system in Poland?

Don't get me wrong, I think our foreign policy and superpower status irks the hell out of Putin. And, to be fair, many of the Bush administration's policies reek of arrogance and offend many people around the globe. But, Putin seems to long for the days of the USSR - that beast that openly and explicitly declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military sent advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already fighting in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps training the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose?

Wait a second. Your other posts were within the world of reason. If I am reading this post, it is well outside the world of reason. Are you suggesting that our government is deliberately trying to start another Cold War?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

NATO is a defensive alliance and, unlike the Warsaw Pact, did not regularly engage in offensive operations against "innocent states." Moreover, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were totally different animals. NATO is an alliance of independent states, formed for defensive purposes. The Warsaw Pact was a sham; Moscow controlled every move, decision, and action of the Pact. Moreover, there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. So, do you really think Russia should view NATO as some threat that might ultimately parade through Moscow some day?

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

What do you mean by "one set of people." If you mean a bunch of old, rich, white dudes smoking cigars and pulling levers behind a giant curtain, then no I don't share your view. People on the fringes of the left and right tend to view the government as one giant corrupt force controlled by a few select individuals (in that "V is for Vendetta" sense).

In reality, our government and its foreign policy is influenced by millions of people. The President often defers to advisors, who receive reports and recommendations from subordinates, and the Vice President. The President also considers "special interests," whether those be NGOs advocating on behalf of certain humanitarian causes or greedy corporations advocating on behalf of their shareholders. The President also has to consider how his policies will be viewed by the general public - that pesky group of 300 million that has the power to vote his ass, or his friends' asses, out of office.

After the President formulates policy, he has to go consult that pesky group called Congress. Yes, the President may make unilateral moves, but the big pricey decisions have to be vetted by Congress. Congress can be spineless, but the President rarely disregards it. Moreover, Congress is made up of about 500 congressmen and thousands upon thousands of staffers. On top of that, you've got tens of thousands of lobbyists representing both "good" and "bad" special interests effectively giving money to congressmen for votes.

In sum, fortunately, there are so damn many people trying to influence policy, that no single group dominates.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops positioned on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

I can't agree with the bolded part above. I don't know who "started" the conflict. Some say the Russians did and others say the Georgians did. Russia can be compared to a guy that starts banging his neighbor's wife (i.e., S. Ossetia), the neighbor (i.e., Georgia) finds out and smacks his wife, and Russia then firebombs his neighbor's house. Russia has been trying to provoke Georgia into a military confrontation for quite some time. Moreover, Georgia never attacked Russia. Georgia attacked militants within its own borders.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

Maybe, maybe not. I've been living in college towns for the past few years and I'm surrounded by the "I don't eat chicken because I'm not a murderer like you, the U.S.-Israeli government (singular, not plural) masterminded 9/11 so it could take over the world, America is nothing but a bunch of dumbasses, the communists had it right, unlike the rest of America I see reality and am not blinded by the man" crowd.

[saden1]

Now this is ballin'...evil genius shit!