A New Home For The Sixth Fleet?

And the first and mst obvious area for retaliation by Russia for any actions we might take will be in the one area where they are providing services we depend upon and, after 2010, will not be able to replace for some substantial amount of time -- human space transport. We have several working vehicles today that could fill the gap. Maybe we should -- I dunno -- make plans to use them? At least Bob Bigelow has actually been doing something about this.

Yeah, Jim is on to something. Let them have the ISS. With Bigelow modules, we could build better, bigger, cheaper and more stations. As we all know there are at least 2 near-term options to the Stick. Nothing like a new cold war to light a fire under Congress' ass, not to mention NASSA's.

I hate to say this, but I don't see the Europeans ever voting to allow Ukraine or Georgia into NATO. The European NATO members were skittish before this latest move by Russia and are certainly more spooked than before. I can see McCain pushing for such a move on strategic grounds, but I don't see Obama ever doing so.

I'm afraid Russia will get away with their defact-annex of Georgia soon as they can orchestrate regime and probably a LOT more before the West finally wakes up to the fact we are indeed in a new cold war.

As Mark Twain said, "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." It seems we are on the brink of another such occasion.

Blood-curdling. See extended comments at

http://blog.bbbeard.com/2008/08/15/russian-roulette/

What I don't get around to saying there is that I don't see anyone in the political firmament, with the possible exception of Senator McCain, with the guts to make these "constructive suggestions" happen.

BBB

Sevastopol is mostly Russian although in the Ukraine which gives Russia the same excuse for invading as they had in Georgia. My ex-wife is from there and right now we are not talking. She loves Putin as many Russians do.

Strategically, if we deny the black sea, we really cut off Russia legs. Which is why we should do exactly that.

My ex-wife, her sister and her father all have Masters degrees in ship building/construction.

Simferopol has the main airport in the area I think.

Turkey is the big question mark, even though they are a NATO member.

more...

http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/13/is-the-ukraines-sevastopol-the-next-ossetian-war/

Without Russian oil and gas, Ukraine's economy withers quickly. Related the pipelines do not exist to supply Ukraine except through Russia.

If Ukraine joins NATO, the Ukrainian people freeze that next winter.

I'm surprised there isn't more sympathy for the Russian position, or at least more criticism of the Georgian leadership. Politically, Georgia upset a precariously balanced apple cart, and worse, they killed innocent civilians while doing it. Russia overreacted, but they were responding to a provocation. Analogies to the situation in Kosovo in 1999 can be applied, with Russia taking the role of the USA --- except, in Kosovo, the USA was defending Albanian Kosovars, while in South Ossetia, Russia was defending fellow Russians....

Anon, that's total BS from the script.

This was not any kind of response. This was a planned invasion. Russians don't make a move unless it's thought out twelve steps ahead with a specific goal.

Ask anybody that understands logistics, not to mention that the cyber attacks on .ge started before the supposed provocation.

Ossetia was a planned situation, created and improved by the Russians, just to get others tangled up in a war of words. It's all part of the playbook.

Including your innocent display of wonder.

What people don't understand about this situation is that the Russians are now trapped. They have only two supply lines, a mountain tunnel and the black sea.

The initial phase of the war did not go as well as the Russians planned and they didn't get to install a puppet.

They failed, but they are confident they can turn that failure into success. I can't explain it, but Russians are both over confident and insecure at the same time.

What we need to do is drag out negotiations, quibble over minor points, while engaging in a massive foreign exchange program. Get the young and old civilians out of harms way in exchange for Russian speaking volunteers preferably with military training. Issue Georgian passports and uniforms. DENY EVERYTHING. Add plenty of antitank weapons and lots of reflagged warthogs (A10).

Last thing, negotiate a no fly zone and give raptors a reason to earn their pay. It'll just be the Georgians driving the Russians out of there country. No reason for the Russians to get itchy nuke trigger fingers. The goal is to get them out of ALL of Georgia, preferably leaving behind a lot of equipment to replace what they destroyed. Russian passport is a free ticket to anywhere but here.

WE WIN, THEY LOSE ...the only outcome we should accept.

How about this for a strategic option? Letting Europe take care of Russia and getting the hell out. Their economy is larger than ours, they're closer to the problem, with the new NATO members they have pretty good interior lines, while the US would have to use ships and aircraft for logistics. They're also looking for a reason to unify and up to now have used the US as their boogyman. Well, now they have a real one right on their own back doorstep. Tell them we'll be cheering them on. And also, you Euros might want to increase your defense spending.

If anyone hasn't noticed, we're just finishing up a war. One that's taken a huge bite out of our economy and the money taps are still full on. The name Sevastopol should be familiar to anyone who knows the history of the British empire. It would be nice if we can avoid the same fate.

Not our problem? Let somebody else do it? They're just a bunch of ungrateful [fill in the blank?]

Where do you think the Russian speaking people with military experience are going to come from? Mostly the Ukraine, which is probably about to experience their own invasion in the next year or so. We need to keep a good eye on Russian troop movements which we seem to have left off doing after 'winning' the cold war.

Russia is the worlds problem and we are the leader of the world. Sucks to be us but there you have it.

In the particular case of Georgia, we told them we were their friend and asked them to step up. Unlike the rest of ungrateful Europe they did.

I don't know about other people, but I really do not like letting true friends twist in the wind. America has a bad reputation for doing that until finally they step up to the plate. Look how close Georgia is to the edge. We knew the Russians were putting pressure on Germany to prevent Georgia from joining NATO and we let them get away with it.

Per capita, Georgia may be the best friend we have on the planet. Per capita, they are a better friend than we are to ourselves. That's pretty damn rare. We need to do the right thing. The right thing is to stand with those that stand with us.

While I understand it, I am rather disgusted with those that say, thank god Georgia wasn't in NATO. Why? Because they don't want to do what NATO says we must do for members, which we are morally obligated to do for friends regardless of any formal arrangement.

I am tired of an ungrateful world not standing with us. France wanted to be a counterbalancing force to us??? But then the French voted the bum out, so there may be hope for them yet. But it doesn't matter. We still need to stand for something. To always be that shining city on the hill. Damn I wish we had Reagan today. Piss'n our pants is not an option. Turning our backs on an ungrateful world is not an option (even though a nice fantasy.) Winning is the only option.

"Russia overreacted, but they were responding to a provocation."

That is BS. Look at the timeline of the events that started on 1st of August. And look at the previous Abkhazian July report of the UN SC. The provocations were entirely by ossetians/russians/abkhazians, georgia made a fatal blunder in responding to the provocations ( and they were warned against doing that )

Again, lot of people make a mistake in thinking everything started on August 8th, when the war hit the headlines. Well, it didnt start then, go back in news archives.

So right Kert. That blunder may also be what saved them (if they are ultimately saved.) It had the effect of stalling the Russian invasion (I'd like to know how much of the 58th was destroyed) giving them perhaps an extra day or so.

It was foolish to promise NATO membership to nations on Russia's borders. How would we like it if Russia inducted Mexico into a military alliance? Like it or not, Russia is a nuclear power - a big nuclear power - and claims a sphere of interest, just as we ourselves do. We should not needlessly provoke them.

yeah, go back in the archives. Georgia and it's Thug-in-Chief reaped what it sowed; and it got spanked. Despite the technical inferiority of Russian forces, they could have easily taken Tbilisi, had they wanted to. Just because Georgia and its Thugocracy is a "friend" of the US doesn't make Russia the bogey man in this situation. Take off your rose-colored blinders and do some objective fact-finding.

I have no doubt the Russians planned the invasion in advance. Why wouldn't they? Contingency planning is a requirement of good (or at least competent) leadership.

Ken Anthony wrote:
"Strategically, if we deny the black sea, we really cut off Russia legs. Which is why we should do exactly that."

What you're talking about is blocking the Bosporus. If effective the Russians would respond (and indeed would be forced to) invade northern Norway. Both actions have been studied in detail as NATO scenarios and are two of the three main opening moves in Europe for World War III (the third being a panzer-slaughter of unbelievable proportions including plenty of tactical nukes through Germany and in our days through Poland first).

The NATO plan for the northern scenario involves what amounts to the national suicide of Norway to buy 24 hours for US troops to arrive. If that fails it's all nukes.

But you're right about lots of other things and that Anonymous is full of bullshit.

Martin wrote:
"It was foolish to promise NATO membership to nations on Russia's borders. How would we like it if Russia inducted Mexico into a military alliance?"

I'm a Norwegian and Norway which has a border with Russia was one of the founding members of NATO. It's almost like you don't realize why NATO was brought into existence in the first place: to contain Soviet/Russian aggression.

If Georgia had gotten NATO membership the current situation would not have happened. If Georgia had gotten on a EU fast-track for membership parts of the Russian government would have thought twice and maybe they wouldn't have done this.

Ken Anthony,
I'm perfectly willing to believe that Russia set this up as a trap--but that doesn't mean that Saakashvili isn't an idiot for walking right into it. Supposedly he even did it against our warning not to do anything stupid. If he were the only one suffering for his stupidity, it would be a just world. Alas, as is typical, the people who pay for arrogant and brash leaders' mistakes is their people, not them.

Responding to the question of if the Russians got mauled by this? I think it highly unlikely. The main reason they didn't swallow-up the rest of Georgia already is that AFAICT, they don't actually want or need all of Georgia. They know that outside of the two provinces they've more or less annexed, that they are not wanted, and they have no desire to repeat their Afghanistanian misadventure. They've gotten what they want out of this conflict so far:

a) revenge for Kosovo
b) a chance to show our allies that at least right now our promises are a lot of hot air (that we're not going to get into a war with a nuclear armed country just to save the bacon of a friend that starts writing checks their bodies can't cash)
c) a reminder to Europe that those pipelines that bypass Russia can be turned off by Russia just as easily as turning off their own pipelines

I know some aging hipsters are thrilled by the idea of reliving those glory days of the Cold War, but I'm personally glad that ended when I was still 12, and have no desire to see *those* reruns.

~Jon

I know some aging hipsters are thrilled by the idea of reliving those glory days of the Cold War

Aging hipsters on BOTH Left and Right. How they miss those days!

Ilya,
Yup, it is interesting how many of the current group of people pining for the Cold War were at some point in the past leftists. Not saying that there are many of that sort in this particular crowd--should I have used the term grumpy old farts instead? ;-)

Seriously, Russia is in no state to do much more than make some trouble with small border nations. They are nuclear armed, but most of the rest of their military is just a shadow of its former self. Their economy is still third-rate. They're not a serious threat to most of Europe, and the best way to minimize the threat to their neighbors is to not try and treat this like Cold War II. There are ways to contain and discourage Russian aggression without being actively obnoxious and confrontational. But that requires subtlety, intelligence, and lots of patience.

There are other pages in the books of history than 1939.

~Jon

It's been mentioned elsewhere that having taken the oil pipeline in Georgia, Russia is in a position to substantially cut off the oil supply to Europe. Against that kind of reprisal, I expect European response to be restrained and ineffective.

If the Russian supply lines are mostly constrained to seaways and a tunnel, cutting the supply lines by action of covert forces may be part of a winning strategy.

There are good reasons wars aren't routinely fought by assassination of political figures. Where nuclear weapons are involved it may be worth reevaluating such policy.

Georgia and it's Thug-in-Chief reaped what it sowed.

She was asking to be raped, eh? So, innocent Russia just couldn't help itself. Nobody is claiming the Georgian president is a saint. You obviously didn't get my point about logistics and it's implications.

Russian forces ... could have easily taken Tbilisi, had they wanted to

You imply they didn't want to? You don't think world leaders of other nations flying in made any impression on Putin? Interesting theory. OTOH, Russia has made it crystal clear they want a change in leadership and they propose Pinocchio. Why? Because Georgia has their number and actively opposes them. The rest of the world needs to catch up. Nobody looks for the good old days of the cold war any more than they want the good old days of Al Capone. When the tommy guns are blasting you can't wish them away. People are dying. Right now. Between the words of these sentences. Nobody normal is wishing for that.

Thanks for the info HH. I take slight issue with 'forced to' because it assumes Russian ambitions can not be throttled. I remember hearing Putin whining to the world like a petulant child, "but we've still got nukes" as if any had forgotten. I do agree that whatever we do we've got to be smart about it. I just strongly disagree, emphatically, with the do nothing, moral equivalence crowd.

Russia is in no state to do much...

Ah, but there is change that they believe in! Russia is not a superpower even with their remnant of superpower weapons. The USSR was a superpower. Do nothing and Russia will again become a superpower. The former republics don't want that and we don't want that. They don't play nice with power.

Your right Jonathon, Russia can easily call their situation in Georgia a win. We shouldn't let them. This is just my opinion. I think this invasion tells us pretty much all we need to know about Russia (well, actually we need spies telling us, much, much more.)

McCain has made in clear in the past that he thinks human intel needs to be greatly upgraded. His early response to the Russian invasion gives me reason to overlook most of his past record. I can't imagine we could let the dingbats elect Obama now. I actually wonder if Hillary can pull a fast one at the convention. She might even be a good cold war president. [shuddering] Did I just say that? I must be channeling Ann Coulter!

What is it about oil wealth that turns a country into a despotic monster? It's like some kind of Midas-touch curse.

I have complete contempt for the bullshit arguments about carbon-footprints (too much CO2? easiest problem in the world to solve: plant more trees, duh), and the ludicrous fantasy that someday Real Soon Now we'll all be driving battery-powered minivan hybrids -- and our fresh vegetables will be arriving in battery-powered 40-ton tractor trailer trucks (mmf! giggle!) -- all powered by clean blue solar panels on the roof of every home.

But the argument that we should vigorously seek out alternatives to fossil fuel combustion, just to prevent the massive flow of money to regimes like Venezuela, Saudia Arabia, Iran and Russia, is one with which I am in full sympathy. I'll happily pay $4 or $5 a gallon for switch-grass methanol or whatever, in order to see Putin's and Ahmadickhead's regimes starved of the Western oil cash that keeps them going.

Russia is the worlds problem and we are the leader of the world

I find it interesting that many conservatives and even libertarians are dead set against massive government spending, unless of course it involves us acting as "LEADER OF THE WORLD".

We could fix our infrastructure.

We could increase the standard of living and boost the economy by lowering taxes.

We could fund increased research and development, which would enhance our long term security.

Or, we can be the "LEADER OF THE WORLD".

How about we keep take the job of keeping the sea lanes open, which is plenty expensive and a big contribution to the world scene and leave the Asian land wars to the folks closest to the problem?

Ken Anthony wrote:
"I take slight issue with 'forced to' because it assumes Russian ambitions can not be throttled."

I agree, I should have worded it a bit differently. Instead of "forced to" I should have written "feel forced to".

The biggest problem I see is this fatalistic view that there is nothing we can do because they have nukes. As long as we believe that, Putin wins and will not stop.

This is why we have to make it a total fight in every dark corner and deny everything every inch of the way. We do have to be careful and even with the best of care there are no guarantees. We've already fought this war, we just deluded ourselves into thinking it was over.

K, spiderman taught you all you need to know. With great power comes great responsibility. So what's this either/or crap? Actually, go through Rand's reader favorites for some inspiration. I do.

I don't see any inconsistency in wanting to get rid of 90% of government but increase defense spending.

We didn't asked to be leader, we just are. Sucks to be us.

K, historically speaking, you have it backward. The reason a country has great infrastructure, i.e. is relatively more wealthy than any other country, is because it's the world leader. Being the world leader has all kinds of nice side-effects:

(1) You get the best immigrants. There's been a huge brain drain from Russia as their economy has tanked. Where do you think they've gone? Hint: in the 1990s one out of every 20 physics professors hired in the US was a Russian immigrant.

(2) Your quid is worth more quo, economically speaking. When you make trade deals, folks don't jerk you around, because you're the Big Guy.

(3) Your citizens can go more places with greater immunity than those of another nation.

(4) Your language is the lingua fraca of international trade, and your currency dominates the world monetary system, giving you all kinds of "home field" advantages when it comes to international trade.

(5) Your economy drives the world economy, rather than the other way around. So your prosperity is as much in your own hands as it's possible to be. You don't get driven into a depression because some other bozos can't manage their economy sensibly.

Problem is, you're focussed on the military cost of being world leader. It's nontrivial, you bet. But the economic benefits are real and substantial, and, I suggest, dwarf the military costs.

That's not to say there isn't a point where it does make sense to decline being the world's beat cop. But, see, the nice thing about being top dog is you get to choose. The US can choose whether and how much to punish Russia for this crap. The Europeans, by contrast, have just got to bend over and take it, because there is exactly squat they can do about it, and Putin of course knows this.

" Habitat Hermit wrote:

"It's almost like you don't realize why NATO was brought into existence in the first place: to contain Soviet/Russian aggression."

I'm quite aware why NATO was founded - to contain a Soviet Union led by Joseph Stalin. Neither it, nor he exist anymore. I'm glad that NATO worked, although I suspect it was American nuclear weapons, far more than NATO ground forces that kept the peace. If NATO is to work than it has to have limits. If you want to protect Poland, the Czechs, and the Hungarians, then you have to punt on the Ukrainians and the Georgians.

It is not 1939. Nor is it 1949. 410 A.D., might be more like it, and we should act accordingly.

" ken anthony wrote:

This is why we have to make it a total fight in every dark corner and deny everything every inch of the way. We do have to be careful and even with the best of care there are no guarantees. We've already fought this war, we just deluded ourselves into thinking it was over.

K, spiderman taught you all you need to know. With great power comes great responsibility. So what's this either/or crap? Actually, go through Rand's reader favorites for some inspiration. I do.

I don't see any inconsistency in wanting to get rid of 90% of government but increase defense spending.

We didn't asked to be leader, we just are. Sucks to be us."

Your plan is a road to ruin - a carnival for government creeps who want to play chess with real people. But thanks for the Spiderman reference - at least we now know where you get your geostrategic insight......from comic books.

"Carl Pham wrote:

Being the world leader has all kinds of nice side-effects:

(1)....(5)"

And which of your five points are any longer true? We get the best immigrants? We also get the worst (and far more of them). Numbers (2) and (3) are now right out the window. Number (4) is half-way there, and number (5) is well on its way. Empire may make you rich in the short run, but it can make your descendents (should you be lucky enough to have any) poor for a long long time.

Condi says they will not have Georgia enter an agreement that hurts them...

Russian General makes direct threat to nuke Poland...

http://johnibiii.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/russian-general-says-poland-a-nuclear-target-as-condoleezza-rice-arrives-in-georgia/

Martin, you so funny!

I guess Turkey isn't a question mark anymore...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/48293.html

And which of your five points are any longer true?

All of 'em. No, the US does not get "the worst" immigrants. To whom are you referring? I can guess -- but where do you come up with that racist crap? Just because someone is a poor brown person who crawls through the desert across the border with only the shirt on his back -- you're going to look down on him? He doesn't have a PhD in physics like the Russian emigrant professor, but what he does have, self-evidently, is heart and guts and determination and a love of liberty and opportunity. In my book, that makes him the best the world has to offer, and generally speaking, I'm glad to have him.

(2) and (3) are out of the window? What are you smoking? Are you aware of any trade agreements that substantially discriminate against the US? The shoe, my ill-informed friend, is normally on the other foot. The Brazilians have excellent reason to bitterly complain about American tariffs on sugar, but there isn't a thing they can do about it. Ditto for Korean steel.

As for (3) -- remember the Iran Revolutionary Guard taking the British seamen hostage and parading them in front of the tube? Funny thing, it hasn't happened to any Americans, even though they're just as accessible to the Iranians, and certainly a higher-value target. Remember the Italian journalist taken hostage, for which the Italians paid a huge ransom? Hasn't happened to any Americans. Weird, huh? Bombs on Spanish trains and English buses -- none on American. Is that because Homeland Security is just really good with their X-raying of shoes and confiscation of shampoo bottles over 3 fluid ounces? Or does it have something to do with what kind of response would-be kidnappers and bombers can anticipate?

And number (5) is "on its way out", eh? Right. 'Cause the Chinese are going to catch up and surpass the United States Any Day Now(TM). Or maybe it will be the EU? Of course, if you're older than, say, 40, you'll recall that people have been saying exactly the same thing for more than half a century. The Soviets were going to bury us, then the Japanese, then the "Asian Tigers," then the EU, China, blah blah. Always about to happen -- never actually happening. And if you look at actual data, you'll find that the American economy has held steady at about 20% of the world economy for the past 40 years. In fact, no one is "catching up," and it's not especially likely they ever will. Certainly nothing in US demographics, record of innovation (where are the technologies of tomorrow being invented, e.g. biotech?), or economic growth (the EU would kill for the GDP growth rate we consider nearly a recession) suggests otherwise.

" Carl Pham wrote:

And which of your five points are any longer true?

All of 'em. No, the US does not get "the worst" immigrants. To whom are you referring?"

Mexicans. Whom do you think I am referring to? There are too many of them who want to come here, and they don't belong here. This is our country, not theirs. Do you really want 500 million people within our borders by mid-century. The US isn't crowded enough for you already?

And where do you come off with that "racist crap" crap. Yeah, just call anyone you disagree with a racist - that'll shut down any discussion. Know what? I don't care if you call me a racist. The word no longer has any meaning.

And I'm tired of all of you chickenhawks beating your breats for wars which you will never have to fight. Are you willing to sign up, and go fight for Georgia? I bet not. Coward.

Martin,

Is it possible to have a reasonable discussion with you without the name calling? Are you aware that lashing out at someone when you have no fear of reprisal is the cowardly act? Russia has something like a 40 to 1 military advantage over Georgia in both equipment and spending. So along with everything else it is, Russia's invasion was a cowardly act.

In days of old, name calling could lead to ten paces, turn and fire. People were very careful about speaking abusively of others in that case. But here, you have no fear for slandering others. So if you wish to see a coward, look no further than the mirror.

Do you not see the logical fault in your argument? You appear to have strong feeling about America being invaded but no concern that Georgia was invaded. Perhaps you think Georgia's invasion has nothing to do with us, so why not feed them to the wolves (or bear?)

This is not just cowardly, this is despicable. While I really don't like the idea of silencing anyone, I really wish you'd do us all a favor and just STFU and go read some comic books. OTOH, if you would stop the name calling and present a reasonable and rational argument, I'm sure we'd all be happy to give it all the consideration it is due. Disagreement can be healthy, name calling seldom is. Please forgive me Rand if I've overstepped my bounds in this instance.

HH, you might find this amusing. I've actually been on the Bosporus. I went to Istanbul in January of 2001 (if I'm reading my visa stamp correctly.) They have these water taxi's that I'm told transport over a million people a day commuting back and forth from the European and Asian sides. I rode one of these and remember they had these independent entrepeneurs selling the pulpiest OJ I'd ever had.

I visited a castle on the European side that I'm told was connected by chain to another to deny access by invading fleets. Quite the strategic location.

What's funny is I don't remember ever hearing the name Bosporus, so you have provided me with some education that I really do appreciate.

"ken anthony wrote:
If you would stop the name calling and present a reasonable and rational argument, I'm sure we'd all be happy to give it all the consideration it is due. Disagreement can be healthy, name calling seldom is. Please forgive me Rand if I've overstepped my bounds in this instance."

I didn't call you any names. I just pointed out that you think (according to you own words) that we should look to comic book maxims for wisdom in the affairs of state. I did call Carl Pham a name (coward), as he called me one (racist). My arguments were reasonable and rational. Yours are too. I also happen to believe that they are wrong.

"Do you not see the logical fault in your argument? You appear to have strong feeling about America being invaded but no concern that Georgia was invaded. Perhaps you think Georgia's invasion has nothing to do with us, so why not feed them to the wolves (or bear?)"

There is no logical fault. I am an American, not a Georgian. I am more concerned with the fate of my own nation than with that of others. Do you mean to say that you care every bit as much about Georgia as you do about the U.S.? We can not solve every problem on the face of the earth, and it is folly to try.

I am an American, not a Georgian. I am more concerned with the fate of my own nation than with that of others.

Understood. Do you think it's possible that how we deal with the Russians regarding Georgia may have an impact on our fate?

Questions for Ken Anthony and other likeminded readers:

Why should Americans not support self-determination for South Ossetia?

Is there any reason why Americans should be against changing the Georgian border?

The Georgians held OSCE-certified free elections. That makes them good guys. But aren't they repressing South Ossetia and Abkazia? If not, why not?

What Russian response would have been reasonable, given that Russian peacekeepers were in the area that the Georgian's attacked on Aug 7th, violating the cease-fire Georgia had just signed, under Russian mediation, with South Ossetia?

If the Russians overreacted, aren't they just following the Powell Doctrine? How is the Russian overreaction different from the American approach of using overwhelming force, once the decision to use force has been made? (Presumably Americans will take more care to limit injury to innocents than the Russians, but that's an ethical difference, and I'm interested in geo-strategic differences.)

The BBC website currently has up a timeline of the events in Georgia and Ossetia. Do you disagree with their timeline?

-- Bob, back from a summer in Croatia, Luxembourg, the UK, Italy, + visits to Slovenia, France, Germany, Belgium, and Herzegovina (Bosnia). It was no vacation. Impressed with Luxembourg, culture-shocked by Croatia, at home in England, and glad to be back in the USA!

Hey Bob, ken anthony's brain is rather strange and unique. Would you mind introducing him to the like-minded?

Why should Americans not support self-determination for South Ossetia?

Because, as in many parts of the world, self determination is a red herring. The majority of Ossetians and Georgians get along just fine. The separatist issue is about destabilizing a region that is friendly to the U.S.

Is there any reason why Americans should be against changing the Georgian border?

...and giving it to Russia or it's puppet? Yes.

The Georgians held OSCE-certified free elections. That makes them good guys. But aren't they repressing South Ossetia and Abkazia? If not, why not?

Americans repress inner city street gangs. That's what government are. Not many think the anarchy is the best form of government.

What Russian response would have been reasonable, given that Russian peacekeepers were in the area that the Georgian's attacked on Aug 7th, violating the cease-fire Georgia had just signed, under Russian mediation, with South Ossetia?

No, I'm not going to play your game. It wasn't a response. It was an invasion. You lose all credibility with this bullshit.

If the Russians overreacted, aren't they just following the Powell Doctrine? How is the Russian overreaction different from the American approach of using overwhelming force, once the decision to use force has been made?

overreacted??? Are you freakin kidding me? Again, bullshit. What part of this was a planned invasion don't you understand?

That moral equivalence argument does not fly. The difference is IMPERIAL AMBITION As Powell said, "We only want 6 feet to bury our dead" defending your asses!!! (to whom ever ass applies)

The BBC website currently has up a timeline of the events in Georgia and Ossetia. Do you disagree with their timeline?

You'll have to forgive me, I'm still sorting through all the Russian propaganda.

It seems to me that one can view the Russians with distrust and contempt, and yet still find merit in the principle of self-determination (with protection for minorities). Similarly, one can view the Russians as being imperial bullies and theives, and yet still not find much merit in Georgia's actions.

This article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081401360.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008081401253&s_pos=
was linked to by several blogs I read -- it was described as "even handed". It presents the case that both Georgia and Russia screwed up. For example, on how Georgia screwed up:

"It is unclear how the simmering tensions between Georgia and South Ossetia came to the boil this month. The Georgians say that they were provoked by the shelling of Georgian villages from Ossetian-controlled territory. While this may well be the case, the Georgian response was disproportionate. On the night of Aug. 7 and into Aug. 8, Saakashvili ordered an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali and sent an armored column to occupy the town. He apparently hoped that Western support would protect Georgia from major Russian retaliation, even though Russian "peacekeepers" were almost certainly killed or wounded in the Georgian assault."

"ken anthony wrote:

Understood. Do you think it's possible that how we deal with the Russians regarding Georgia may have an impact on our fate?"

Yes. Yes, I do. That's why I wrote what I wrote. I don't trust the Russians. They have a tendency toward paranoia, but even paranoids have enemies. I would support a deal with Russia - we don't push NATO up to Russia's borders, and they don't push Russia up to NATO's (Norway would be grandfathered in, as it's long been a member of NATO). The baltic nations, Belarus, and Ukraine would be left as neutrals, leaving a buffer zone. That may suck for them. As you say, it sucks to be us. Well, it sucks to be a small neutral country too. Tough.

You wrote before: "WE WIN, THEY LOSE ...the only outcome we should accept.". As one eventually comes to realize with age, the choice one faces in life is seldom between getting some of what you want and all of what you want. The choice is between getting some of what you want, and none of what you want.

My wife told me a Russian joke that I guarantee you will not get...

The Italian foreign minister asks Putin, "What do you call the mafia in your country?"

Putin, "Mafia is an Italian word."

Bob, here's the deal...

1) 'Response' is the word all the propaganda outlets have been pushing from day one. The big lie!

2a) Pointing out that the Georgian President is not a saint, may be foolish, etc. is irrelevant given one important fact.

2b) This invasion was planned with MONTHS OF PREPARATION and MONTHS OF IMPLEMENTATION.

While Putin is eating his spaghetti in the family owned restaurant while his boys are making the hit.

Er, I mean attending the opening of the games.

All this response bullshit is smoke and mirrors to distract from the main fact that Putin, planned it, executed it, and isn't done. Georgia is the key to grabbing back at least half of the former soviet republics. It's strategic location is more than just the pipeline.

Martin,

I've lived half my life as well (not according to the doctors but they can all go jump in lake.) I'm 49 and plan on another 49. It's been a traumatic 49.

I certainly understand the half-a-loaf philosophy.

We tried to let the Russian's sit at the adult table.

IT WAS A MISTAKE!

I know we've done more than our share during the American century, but if we fail to stand up, the Russian boot will be on our neck, not just some far away country with people we've never met.

Martin, I don't think you're a racist and I do think you care about strangers. I think you're just fed up with the bullshit too.

But if I've misjudged you it doesn't amount to much. If we misjudge the Russians or any others that would take advantage of the weak, eventually our grandchildren will live without liberty.

The reason WE WIN, THEY LOSE is the only way to play the game is because it's their game. They're making the rules. They're laughing at us for being so stupid that we don't understand the rules.

Freedom and Liberty are not Russian words (ok, dummies, don't tell me the translations. See joke above.)

"ken anthony wrote:

Martin, I don't think you're a racist and I do think you care about strangers. I think you're just fed up with the bullshit too."

Mr. Anthony,

Correct on point three. Not so much on point two. And point one is, I claim, irrelevant. I've come to the conclusion that the proper response when someone calls me a racist is: "Okay, whatever. I don't care what you call me. Answer my question." The term has lost any meaning and is simply a totem invoked to shut down discussion.

Also, I believe that the greatest danger to our liberty is not from the russians, or any other exogenous entity. The greatest danger to it is to be found within our shores. Liberty is more often given away, or its exercise simply forgotten, than it is taken.

Anyway, you and I have both tried to persuade one another of the wisdom of each others view. And we are both of that age (I'm 44) where opinions don't change much, so I guess we can call it a game. I wish you another 49 years - I hope they are more pleasant, and less truamatic than the first 49.

All best,

- Martin

The greatest danger to [liberty] is to be found within our shores.

Yes.

Germany coming about...

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gDNLWfQWKrQc48pITBUg9KT_6oVwD92K2SE80

Got a dead mouse, surviving on mousekeys! One day I'm going to have to get a real computer. Anyone know where I can get a cheap linux laptop?

It would be a colossal mistake to grant NATO membership to a country which has persistent armed conflicts and is effectively in a state of war such as Georgia.