If there's a consensus about the confrontation between Russia and Georgia, it's that the conflict has seriously strained the relationship between Moscow and its Western counterparts--namely, the United States and NATO. Now that the worst of the conflict seems over, it appears that the harshest measures suggested in the first days of the conflict, i.e., expelling Russia from the G-8, won't materialize. Despite all of the disagreements and mistrust, each party seems to understand that severing ties between Russia and the West isn't realistic.
The problem is that while G-8 membership is highly visible and symbolic, it isn't the most important element of the partnership between Russia and the West. This partnership is only as strong as the network of concrete agreements and bureaucratic arrangements that allow governments to work closely together, creating what someone aptly named "habits of cooperation." Today's sorry U.S.-Russian relationship is a direct result of Washington and Moscow neglecting in recent years the few existing cooperative arrangements between the countries.
The danger is that in the emotional atmosphere of the aftermath of the Georgia conflict, the United States and Russia could damage the foundation of their relationship further, strengthening elements in both countries that are either indifferent or hostile to the idea of a partnership. Already, the early signs seem to indicate that we're moving in that direction.
Military cooperation between NATO and Russia may be the conflict's first political victim. For instance, Moscow has decided to halt joint military-to-military projects with NATO--a move that would cancel about 10 joint exercises scheduled for this year. And while both NATO and Moscow are leaving some room for normalization, the mood in the Kremlin seems to be that Russia has nothing to lose if it severs all ties with NATO.
The U.S.-Russian agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation is another likely casualty of the conflict. Although the agreement probably wouldn't have entered into force during the Bush administration--the administration got the timing wrong--now it's probable that Congress will pass a resolution explicitly rejecting it, making it difficult for the next administration to bring the agreement back--even if that administration decides that the agreement is an important means in which to cooperate and secure a powerful Russian ally, Rosatom, the Russian nuclear agency. I should note that Rosatom representatives are upset that the conflict in Georgia could potentially prevent the agreement from becoming a reality.
It's also unlikely that any of the proposals for transparency or cooperation regarding European missile defense will get a chance--especially given that the Georgia conflict quickly led to Washington and Warsaw finalizing a deal that would feature Poland hosting missile defense interceptors. Russian generals responded by threatening to add Poland to Moscow's nuclear target lists--a particularly ominous threat.
At this point, no one knows the full extent of the fallout from the Georgia conflict. Some pessimists have gone so far as to ask if Russia will pull out of the Cooperative Threat Reduction program and other efforts to reduce the danger of nuclear weapons or curtail access to the International Space Station. Personally, I don't envision this happening--precisely because these are established programs that have substantial internal support in Russia.
Of course, setbacks are inevitable--it's difficult to make a case for continuing a partnership in the midst of a crisis. But we should try to remember that cooperation isn't a reward for good behavior or a bargaining chip. Rather, "the habits of cooperation" are important building blocks of a stable, trusting, and equitable relationship that would make conflicts such as the one in Georgia impossible.
The book
Comments
[...The danger is that in the emotional atmosphere of the aftermath of the Georgia conflict, the United States and Russia could damage the foundation of their relationship further, strengthening elements in both countries that are either indifferent or hostile to the idea of a partnership. Already, the early signs seem to indicate that we're moving in that direction...]
Pavel, what exactly do you think is “the foundation” of American-Russian relations today?
Frank Shuler
USA
What concerns me most is the Bush administrations apparent "encirclement" policy of Russia. ABM systems and radars with US manning in Poland and Czeckoslovakia, and possible NATO membership for UKR and Georgia can serve no other purpose than to start a new cold war. The "Russia is the bad guy here" spin put on the conflict by the US and NATO is despicable. In the 2006 referendum, South Ossetia voted 99% in favor of independence from Georgia with a 95% voter turnout and 38 western observors to boot, and no one has challenged those results. This is the Saakashvili administration's fault (with the help of the US). This is not to say that the Russian operation was executed as a "humanitarian" one, but too few people in the west ever put themselves in Russia's shoes.
I only hope that the new US administration, or congress, will cancel the ABM system and honor the agreement made by Bush senior to keep NATO's borders from extending eastward beyond Germany, even if that means dismantling it. That is the only just solution I can see to this crisis
Frank: That's more or less my point - there is not much left of "the foundation" these days.
@Jon Grams: you couldn't have explained it better
We must ask ourselves, what's the real purpose of extending NATO to Russian borders? US expects Russia to accept its explanation about ABM and insists it's a missunderstanding and Russia's paranoia while scientific comunity clearly said that the shield has no purpose for which it is allegedly made. In other words, you are expecting intelligent people to accept your explanation fabricated for the large masses and broadcasted on TV and ignore the proffesional oppinions. This is a real indication for Russian government who is the real target.
Let's just for a moment compare Georgia crisis with Kosovo war. In the case of latter, we had one millitary alliance (NATO) claiming something which was not recognized by the UN and since it was a dispute (no matter who is right or wrong), they said, "well, we cannot agree but the situation is that we have to intervene millitarily". Tell me, what's the difference? One millitary alliance is one millitary entity, just like Russia, which has it's own interests involved and has equal (or less) rights than a state. In the aftermath of the war, NATO countries (which are also the EU countries) recognized indipendance of Kosovo. They attacked internationaly recognized state and later took part of its territory. Let's just go to the speech of the american ambasador to the UN concerning Georgia crisis, and most of the representatives of EU: they said, you cannot change borders of internationally recognized state, there is no way South Ossetia can become independant, you don't have the right to interevene militarily,...Exactly the things their countries did in Kosovo. Why would it be any different? Their message is clear: while it is our interests in question, international law can be avoided and with Russia's interest's it must be respected.
Let's look at the Georgian crisis now. Georgian leader attacks province (with almost 100% of Russian population) which he mustn't because of the ceasefire agreement dating more than a decade. In that province, there is a peace keeping force largely made of Russians and kills many of them in what seems to be everything but precision attack. Further, he kills around 2000 people in 2 days (also russians) during the Olympic games opening ceremony. Let's be reasonable and ask ourselves: what should have Russia done? What were the options? Let's just remind ourselves of great russian minority in a number of ex-soviet states, which is really not in a good possition (there are disputes in almost all the states). If Russia did nothing, it would be an open message to everybody, that Russia won't do anything to protect their citizens.
Russia in my oppinion, lost much due to this conflict. They spent around 17 bilion dollars of their state reserves, moved farther away from membership in WTO, lost much of its international reputation,...but it didn't have a choice. Also, Russia has more to loose that to get with recognition of Abhazia and South Ossetia. Russia has a large territory and it doesn't need more land. But with this, inevitably in many countries frozen conflicts will be awaken and Russia will again start to be viewed as an enemy by its neighbours and she doesn't need that. Remember that Putin has been trying to avoid a new cold war because he needs to repair his economy and not just waste the "oil money" into weapons. If you look at the numbers and put asside the harsh language of generals and polititians, there hasn't been major rearmament in Russia and it seems it won't be in the future. Russian army is getting smaller. It's number of planes, tanks, submarines,... is decreasing.
Soviet Union was weakend by the arms race and it had far better possition than Russia. Ronald Reagan's Star Wars was just a trick to make USSR increase millitary budget to a point which they couldn't afford anymore. This might be the case with Russia now if other states start to view her as an enemy. It might not have a choice because these things go both ways.
You want to know who is to blame for all this thing with Georgia? Well, just look what everybody had gained and lost. The one who had the biggest gain was the one who caused that. Just my oppinion.
I wonder what will be Russia’s reaction to NATO extending Membership Action Plan(s) (MAP) to Ukraine and Georgia in December?
Frank Shuler
USA
I fully agree with what Ivan explained. Now Russia has recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and pledged to protect them from any military attack. I think Russia hardly had any option but to recognize them after Russian Parliament passed the resolution in favor of their independence. Well, now the real confrontation will be started. West may impose some kinda sanctions on Russia but I think the US and NATO hardly have any real leverage to undermine Russia. Yes, Georgia and Ukraine may be included into NATO but that is not the end of everything. Life always goes on. Russia will exist and west will have to rely on Russia in many matters. Georgia and Ukraine can provide nothing to the west but just military presence. And I think even in the worst situation, NATO would think twice to start war with Russia. This war (god save) between NATO and Russia could result the ruin of the world. So who wants to die?
One thing I cannot understand what the US and NATO want to achieve from Georgia at the expense of Russia? Why they support a person who is talking about democracy, about freedom but doing something undemocratic, inhuman. Which democracy teaches him to kill innocent civilians in day light and in sleeps? Which democracy gives him license to undermine oppositions? A person who deliberately wants to join military alliance to get license to kill innocent people to regain control of breakaway regions, cannot be a true democratic leader. If the people of an ethnic region which parted away during the breakup of USSR want independence, don't like to live with Georgia , what's wrong with that? Why the west doesn't want to understand that the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia don't want to live with Georgia. They want independence! And democracy teaches us to respect the opinion of individuals.
Some analyst have already argued that the west will lose more rather than Russia if they impose sanction on Russia. So, by isolating Russia, west will get nothing. I think America is responsible for creating unnecessary problems for Europe. I am sorry to say that America wants instability around the world so that they can establish their military presence. Circling Russia with NATO forces is part of that military doctrine of America to rule Russia and the world.
I would say without hesitation that isolationism IS good. That's why I would have wanted to vote for Ron Paul. The central goverment of the world IS NOT in Washington, though I would let each individual reason for him/herself where that place is. BTW I would also go ahead and sell Iskander to Syria. Israel asked Russia not sell them and Russia obliged, now that both Israel and USA have taken Georgia's side I would forfeit that promise. Further strengthen ties with the Shangai group and forget about Europe except to point a few nuclear rockets at it to assure it's destruction in case of hostilities.
Gentlemen
One thing that history teaches us is that all war’s, big or small, have unintended consequences. The Russo-Georgian War of 2008 will be no exception. Russia has risked much for South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Whether the risk taken will be worth the cost is yet to be determined and may not be known for years with certainty. One thing we all can agree on is that this conflict brings a pyridine shift in Russo-Western relations; things will never be the same. Will the European Union impose sections on Russia? Of course not. The shift in political opinion will be much subtler and indirect. Watch as capital, both Western and Russian begins to flow out of the country as the risk for business and profits increases. There will be other such examples.
As for the United States, all this comes at a most inopportune time. The US has been trying to take our military down to the lowest level possible in Europe and those efforts will now probably be at an end. Our military forces alone in Germany had dropped from over 200,000 Cold War solders to the present 65,000 with a farther drawdown to less than 25,000 planned; I suspect that drawdown will now stop. The decision to remove American tactical nuclear weapons from Europe may be reversed. Romania wants a full-time American naval base established at Constanta to patrol the Black Sea. Lithuania wants any kind of American base we want to establish. Latvia and Estonia want the same. A missile defense system that had only a 50% chance of passage in Poland and the Czech Republic will now undoubtedly be approved by their Parliaments and the next American President, whoever he is. Poland agreement to host the GBI missiles hinged on the American agreement to furnish a single Patriot surface-to-air missile battery complete with the 100 American troops to man the system. Having 100 American solders on Polish soil, in harms way in the event of an altercation with Russia, was deemed essential by Warsaw. There will be other such examples.
Wars have many unintended consequences.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, You may be noticed, old Europe doesn't want big American military presence on their soil. Only the ex-Soviet controlled states want American military presence on their soil. They are suspiciously desperate to get American assistance not necessarily only military but also monetary. I think this is a very short-cut method to get Aid from America. Very simple, allow American military, and you will get whatever you want. Who want to miss this easy opportunity to get huge money to host few missiles! The fear factor (of Russia) is non-existence for NATO member countries. Even a child won't believe that Russia would start a war with NATO! I think America should think seriously about the spineless leaders of these countries who only like to get aid in return of military presence. These people cannot help America in case of any military conflict. They hardly have any courage to build their country on their own capacity.
You may agree that there is no pride to live under roof of someone and act in line with whatever your shelter(country/person) wants to do. You can be a pride man if you can live independently. I really feel sorry for these leaders of ex-communist countries who always talk about the evils of Soviet Union but now go under similar kind of shelter they used to be under. There is no change whatsoever. Just master is changed!
Now see what few people are talking about: Saakashvili doesn't go to the bathroom without calling the U.S. Embassy. So America, a great country, a great military power is now doing everything to protect these spineless people at the expense of Russia! I really feel sorry for America and the West to depend on these people to ensure their absolute security, which is unnecessary. American and NATO's absolute security is always guaranteed. Even USSR never dared to undermine NATO, do you think Russia will do? Never! America alone can take any military power of the world, doesn't need military aid from other countries. NATO is always there to assist America though.
I am sorry to say that America (administration) is always suffering from a fear-phobia! An unknown fear of course! That's why they want to bring all the countries of the world under their roof. Whoever go under this roof is treated as democratic, free world leader. Whoever defies to go under their roof is leveled as a dictator or undemocratic leader even if he has been democratically elected. This is a clear double standard. Democracy doesn't mean you have to do whatever your master wants to do! Democracy means you have to do whatever you need to do for the interest of your own people .
Frank, America won't get anything but a new cold war if she wants to totally isolate Russia. America doesn't provide any economic privilege to Russia (as it provides to China). So if America imposes any economic sanction on Russia that won't have much effect. I don't think Europe will isolate Russia. Well, an isolated Russia could be more harmful for America than a free Russia.
Several things to consider. Israel did stop selling arms to Georgia last year under Russian pressure. Secondly, the regions were initially in large part Georgian in population, and only the war of the 90's drove the Georgian population out of the regions. That borders on migratory genocide. Thirdly despite the general optimistic notes, things are not looking good for Russia on the political stage. Russia has much to lose, and it looks like it's set to lose it.
Parimal Debnath
[...The fear factor (of Russia) is non-existence for NATO member countries...]
I think you greatly misunderstand the feelings of nations within a short tank drive of Russia. The fear is real; the anxiety authentic.
I’m not sure what defines a democracy but in the United States is the orderly transfer of government between opposition parties freely elected by their citizens. By that definition, the governments of Eastern Europe qualify but we here in American always wonder about Russia. When we hear in the Russian press how the Duma supports government policy unanimously, we wonder where is the “opposition”? In 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor and destroyed our Pacific fleet and President Franklin Roosevelt went to Congress for a formal Declaration of War, that Declaration was not passed unanimously. Even with war thrust upon America, there were elected Congressional representatives that voted their conscience and opposed America going to war; any war. That’s democracy.
The United States hasn’t isolated Russia. It seems to me that Russia found herself with a historical choice. Russia could economically integrate with Europe and be a major player in the European Union and eventually a dominate member of NATO or return to the old days of “empire”. Perhaps it is Russia that is “suffering from a fear-phobia”, afraid to let go of the past to embrace a new future. Sadly the Russian economy build around its vast oil & energy reserves, gives Moscow an unprecedented chance at prosperity and greatness. I sincerely hope that chance won’t be thrown away.
America doesn't provide any economic privileges to China, honest. China is just an easier place to do business with a dynamic banking industry, open stock markets, skilled labor and a government that encourages successful partnerships. Russia, by comparison, is a most difficult place to invest and start businesses. Capital, in the Global Economy, flows to markets that encourage it. China does; Russia doesn’t.
Frank Shuler
USA
Parimal Debnath
And...
[...Frank, You may be noticed, old Europe doesn't want big American military presence on their soil...]
While the Italians aren’t too excited about expanding our base at Vicenza to support the 173rd Airborne Brigade, that has more to do with increased traffic and urban sprawl than any real resentment against the American solders. Germany is ecstatic that the United States may plan to stop its troop drawdown. That has less to do with keeping Germany safe from invasion that simple economics. American bases have been good for the local economies of German towns and cities for over 50 years. Iceland is still upset that the US pulled out of Keflavik. I can’t think of a single instance whereby a NATO country was glad America pulled out its military. And, the United States only maintains a small portion of its European forces in former Warsaw Pact countries; measured in the hundreds.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, Can you count how many military bases America have around the world and how many are going to be established? If you can count then you would be surely realized who is suffering from fear-phobia! Yes Russia has security concerns and these concerns are for these military buildup of America and NATO around its very border. Can you imagine what will be the reaction of America if Russia places missiles/strategic aircrafts in Cuba or in Venezuela? (P.S. I believe Russia won't place nuclear capable carriers systems outside its border though) One statement from America was released when Russian press were talking about possible placement of Russian strategic bombers in Cuba; that statement was pretty furious!
Yes China's economic policy is liberal these days and American companies are benefitted from China. That's it, American companies are getting some profits from China and they forget about democracy, freedom etc etc. You forget that China is a communist country and it has nothing to do with democracy and America has no choice but democracy! But America still have no problem to work with China. Isn't a double standard they maintain in their policy? I think you may be aware of the fact that China enjoys the most favorable trade partner of America and that's why America's trade deficit with China is huge, probably the biggest if I am not wrong!
My point isn't China, my point is American policy. I always admire America, it's a great country, great democracy, great people but I am sorry to say foreign and defense policies are not great. America has one policy in Afghanistan, one policy in Pakistan, one policy in Iraq, one policy in Balkan, one policy in Israel and one policy in Georgia! No need to mention many more! If you analyze the policies of America in those regions, you can easily understand the contradiction (double standard) of American policy. Saddam Hossain made mistakes, America punished him, Milosovic made mistakes America punished him, Saakashvili made mistakes but America rewarded him!
The Georgian conflict was deliberately imposed on Russia. Anyone who can't see this simple truth is only being ignorant. Could anyone beleive that Saakashvili could dare attack S.Ossetia on his own? Obviously it's the U.S. which is behind this plot. It's like the U.S. attacking 'Oregon' state by rockets killing 2000 Americans and destroying its capital. Can such action be done if a country considers the region as one's own country and its own people. It's only when a country considers such a state and its people as foriegners such an attack can take place. By the same reason the attacking country no more deserves to rule the attacked state and looses its soveriegnity. Obviously the U.S. is behind the plot to get in the area, create a war zone and make its own arrangements for anti-missile shield aganist Russia and use Georgia as a base for attacking Iran. The more the U.S. engages in such dubious plots the more it looses its credibility in the eyes of all but the most ingnorant.
Frank, as I know (please correct me if I am wrong) America is the only country which places nuclear weapon (tactical) outside its territory that's in Europe near Russia! The rationale behind this placement surely to counter Russian tactical nuclear weapons although two European NATO members have nuclear weapons. Russia didn't place any nuclear weapon outside its territory. If Russia even tries to place nuclear weapon near America I mean in Cuba or so, that could spark a genuine war probably a nuclear (god save).
I don't like to draw any military comparison between America and Russia. Russia is always inferior to America by huge margin. Russia won't match with America at all in future as well even if she spends huge some of money. You would agree with me that Russia cannot deal militarily with America and NATO. Recent military conflict in Georgia shows the acute weakness of Russian military (conventional forces). In case of strategic forces, you know much better than me, Russian nuclear forces are just sinking! After withdrawal of SS-18, SS-19 and SS-25, Russian forces would be reduced to Chinese level!
As far as the American forces in Europe is concerned, your assessment is correct at this moment but you will see the big changes soon. It has already started by American plan to place ABM system in Poland and Czech Republic. We will see many American troops in former Soviet backyard in future. Before building permanent bases in these countries, America needs to upgrade their military and military facilities. Well, my point was the motive behind this vigorous appeal of these countries to America to build military bases in their territories.
Parimal Debnath
The United States can’t even report to Congress how many military bases we have in Iraq much less how many we have in the “world”. When the US began their drawdown of forces in Germany, the State Department was stunned to learn the US was a property owner of over 10,000 buildings going back to the 1945 Occupation that we had lost track of. The Pentagon probably owns small countries and lost the paperwork. (smile)
Why would Russia place missiles/strategic aircraft in Cuba or in Venezuela? What would be gained?
I will gladly concede the point that America has a foreign policy of “double standards”. I think all nations do. We economically support both China and Saudi Arabia and no one will confuse either as a democracy. Russia speaks of the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and how in a free election voted over 90% to leave Georgia but when was such vote given to the people of Chechnya? Russia speaks of “historical land rights” and yet refuses to sign a peace treaty with Japan ending World War II and return the Kuril Islands and the historical land of Japan on Sakhalin Island. “Historical land rights” or just politics? It is impossible, and dangerous, to make grand gestures and speak of every situation of conflict in the world being the same. “Taking away” Kosovo from Serbia is a crime. If that is true, Russia needs to be prepared to return Königsberg (Kaliningrad) and the rest of East Prussia to Germany.
The general policy of the United States is to provide a “nuclear umbrella” to our allies so as not to encourage those allies to build nuclear weapons themselves. (read Germany and Japan) In many ways, the post-WWII American foreign policy as been to proxy the political wishes of Berlin and Tokyo while encouraging those countries not to “rearm”. Think of it this way, who is the indispensible member of NATO? The United States? No, far from it. Germany. If Germany announced tomorrow it was leaving NATO and asked the United States to vacate our joint military bases on German soil what do you think the reaction in Moscow would be? Great suspicion followed quickly by horror. Would the world be better served by Germany armed with nuclear weapons? Would Russia?
Good conversation.
Frank Shuler
USA
Feanor:
Please get your facts straight, S. Ossetia had a majority non-georgian populations since before Stalins time, indeed he made sure that part was included in Russia and part in Georgia(the country that gave him birth)and the map of the USSR was at whim changed and altered artificially many times during the soviet and emperial times alike. Heck Crimea didn't even come to be a part of Ukraine until another dictator birthed there(Nikita)"tranfered it" to his beloved Ukraine. That sounds so fishy as to maybe have good grounds for a Russian territorial claim(which I do not advocate personally)
To Americans please tell me how this examples are different.
1- Wasn't Texas part of the Mexican territory?
2- Wasn't its population of mostly Americans?
3- Didn't the Mexicans at one time try to remove(today it would be called ethnic cleansing) the American population from their territory?
4- Didn't the Americans not only "protect" their citizens by sending the army to Texas and anexing it to the USA, but also sending troops down to Mexico down to their own capital and humiliate them? Wasn't that maybe also overreacting?
The people in S. Ossetia should be saying remember the Alamo to the Wests we are all Georgians now.
Boris Buliak
Your point is well taken. In October 1835, the Texas War of Independence was fought from October of that year to April 21st 1836 between Mexico and the Texas (Tejas) portion of the Mexican state of Coahuila y Tejas, settled mostly by expatriated Americans. The war ended at the Battle of San Jacinto where General Sam Houston led the Texian Army to victory in 18 minutes over a portion of the Mexican Army under Generalissimo Santa Anna, who was captured shortly after the battle. The conclusion of the war resulted in the creation of the Republic of Texas. The Republic of Texas petitioned the United States government for entry into the US and was annexed by the United States of America in 1845. California has a similar history of independence and then union with the United States. However, at no time did the US government or its military intervene is what was essentially a civil war between the “break-a-way” republics of Texas and California. Only after independent republics had been established in Texas and California, and those governments petitioned Washington, did the United States begin the legal process of annexation. In 1846, “The Mexican-American War” began over lingering border disputes between Mexico and the new American State of Texas after Mexico reneged on its pledge of recognizing the Rio Grande River as the border.
In time, I expect the “independent” nations of South Ossetia and Abkhazia will petition Russia for annexation. Before Moscow agrees, I would suggest a negotiated agreement with Georgia to determine what exactly the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia really are. Otherwise a future war is inevitable.
Just my opinion.
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank, I can also give you many examples of territorial disputes. (Hey, once upon a time Alaska was a part of Russia, smile, smile). Well, world map was totally changed after WWII. And after the fall of communism, Europe's map was also changed and changing continuously. If situation demand then anything can happen. Even map can be changed.
American double standard is really regrettable. If you can support the independence of Kosovo then what's wrong supporting South Ossetia and Abkhazia? My personal opinion is no country should encourage the separatism. Every country has some kinda ethnic problem, Russia has, UK has, Spain has, Ukraine has, even America has. So you cannot escape the consequence. When America attacked Iraq, they didn't have any UN or any lawful mandate. Clearly America broke the law. I won't say all the policies of Russia are good, they also make mistakes but America sets the example again and again.
May be an off-topic matter, but I like to remind you one thing. The evil forces which cowardly attacked America were fed by America during the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. I can still remember how American military officials were concerned about the sophisticated arms they provided to these evil forces. I am pretty sure they couldn't recover those sophisticated arms from the evil forces. They are now successfully using those arms (and also lost Soviet arms) against America. When that Taliban regime came to power in Kabul only three nations ( if I am not wrong) recognized them namely Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE. Surprisingly America never raised any question about this recognition, yes the rationale was, they are America's strategic parters. If America could isolate that regime in that time then we might not see the sad episode of 9/11. And America and NATO would not need to fight there and lose their valuable souls. Afghan episode is a clear result of this regrettable double standard of America. I do think America can avoid many such untoward incidents if they can avoid double standard!
Frank, one different question, what do you think about the new warhead tested during Topol's flight test other day? You can answer this question in the Topol test launch topic! Thank you!
Parimal Debnath
Remember the United States had no territorial disputes with the Tsar over Alaska. We bought the area that became Alaska from the Russian Empire on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million. (about at 2 U.S. cents per acre). Another smart American business decision! (smile)
You have made my point about territorial & ethnic disputes. All must be taken on their own merits; comparing “historical examples” is meaningless. And also remember, “double standards” work both ways. Russia is not innocent here.
Most of the American arms that flowed to the Afghan fighters in their war against the Soviet Union were Soviet arms. The pipeline is well documented, Israel to Pakistan to Afghanistan. The two exceptions were the introduction of the American-made Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and purchased Swiss 20mm Oerlikon anti-aircraft guns that were so deadly against Soviet helicopters. The American Stinger missiles have long fallen into disuse. However, your point is well made. Situations you create today can come back to haunt you tomorrow.
Frank Shuler
USA
Boris there was a large Georgian population in Southern Ossetia before the war in the 90's. They were mostly pushed out of the land. I suggest you check the facts yourself, as this is considered common knowledge by even the most pro-Russian sources. The population of S. Ossetia is by no means culturally Russian, so the pretext is a rather flimsy one. Handing out Russian passports of course helped solidify it.
To all
First, very interesting discussion :) Secondly..about historic claims, rights,etc. Of course many nations have unsettled issues, untold history and so on. The important milestone however is the end of WWII when it was agreed to settle the principle: there is no more border change! (unless it is agreed with every side involved). What happened before is to be forgotten. Is this fair? For some yes, in many cases no. What is the gain then? Well, there hasn't been a major war with a major human life lost (mainly because of this principle IMO).
The principle...How does it work? You have an unsettled issue and you are thinking to go to war, but then you remember that you won't get anything for sure! That is, if the principle has been followed.
Now, after 50 years, the principle is in question. You cannot say something goes for Kosovo and doesn't go for some other region. You can try to talk like that (like U.S and British policy makers) but you won't fool anybody! Many nations are now in a que to get their own "rights".
The world is becoming a very unsafe place. I hope that nations which haven't made their mind yet about Kosovo or South Ossetia or some other region will see this and not recognize anyone. If this doesn't occur, then we are back in the times where nothing is certain and only strength of ones army decides whats right or wrong. I hope it doesn't come to that...
The present Americans have not only occupied America, the land that belonged to the Red Indians but killed most of the race. One can watch countless Westerns based on this theme. So no one can say S.Ossetia does not belong to Russia, least of all Americans who have no say in the matter. But the intention of America in entering Georgia and supporting home grown Saakashvili is only to create a puppet govt. whom they can manipulate to create a base for their anti-missile shield.
Frank:
Since breakup of USSR Abkhazia and S. Ossetia declared independence. Lets correct with the disolution of USSR Georgian govt. of the time decided to recind automonous status from both regions in order to legally anex them. Following that decision by Georgian side Abkhazia and S. Ossetia declared independence. That was early 90's whats is not clear? Since then consistently they've voted for indepence, what's different from Texas?
Feanor:
Never mind.
Boris Buliak
I’m not disagreeing to anything you have said. Nor, will I attempt to interject morality or right into these discussions; it is all about politics. I guess the difference between Mexico, the Republic of Texas (later state in USA) and the United States and any of today’s situations is the “global-ness” of politics. In 1846 all these issues had no bearing on world events; they truly were local issues to be decided by the local countries involved. Today, no international issue is “local”.
Frank Shuler
USA
K.A.Sharma
Your point is taken, but I think we can all agree that the concept of “indigenous people” is a rather abstract term at best. Russian people also came from somewhere. (smile)
If you think Georgia is a future site of an American anti-ballistic missile base, do you think such a facility endangers Russia?
Frank Shuler
USA
The Russians apparently have a very deficient memory. Last time there was a "Cold War" with the U.S. THEY LOST !! If they think they have their MoJo back and are now set to reassert their influence in the "near-abroad" they are sorely mistaken. If anything, their actions in Georgia will FASTRACK the acquisition of the Ukraine by NATO, with Georgia following close behind. If the Soviets thought they were encircled by the alliances like NATO, SEATO, the Baghdad Pact, etc, then the vise should squeeze even tighter as NATO absorbs these former SOVIET republics.
Frank,
I definitely think America's Anti-ballistic missile shields surrounding Russia endangers it seriously and Russia must respond to it. The question why is America interested in Georgia can only be answered by analysing what it stands to benefit. I think the U.S. doesn't do anything without a specific purpose and that purpose is to threaten Russia with another front and set up missiles there. Mr. Bush and Nato leaders talk only about disproportionate use of force by Russia. Why aren't they asking why Georgia killed nearly 2000 Russians and almost completely destroyed Tshinvali. Obviously they seem to be aware of the plan.
K.A.Sharma
I think the United States is interested in Georgia for two reasons. First, the US has a stated national policy to encourage emerging democracies and Washington takes that responsibility seriously. Secondly, the location of Georgia controls the vital entry to the oil & energy reserves of Central Asia. While the United States isn’t dependent on that energy, Europe is or will be in the near future. That makes Georgia a special point of interest for America.
Other than maybe a potential radar base to keep an eye on the Iranians, Georgia seems a poor choice for anti-ballistic missile defense systems to “threaten” Russia. Georgia just seems to be located too far away from existing Russian ICBM bases to be much a factor.
Media coverage here in America was very limited during the conflict; I think “who stated the war and why” is still being widely debated. The average American cannot imagine the tiny country of Georgia being a threat to Russia. Georgia deciding to wage a war against Russia makes as much sense as Guatemala declaring war on America and marching on Washington. Why would Tbilisi start a war it had no chance of winning?
How do you see this playing out in long-term Russo-American relations?
Frank Shuler
USA
Frank,
The question you asked is exactly the same as mine. Why did Georgia attack South Ossetia and destroy Tshinvali and kill Russians if it felt that it cannot win? It's because the U.S. offered to support them and wanted to create a permanent threat for Russia through someone of the same region who is a willing representative of America. American foreign policy is to support small groups of dissidents through enormous military and financial assistance to create troubles in other countries so as to retain its sole super power status. De-classified documents after Ronald Reagan's annoucement of the 'New World Order' clearly show this policy of America. Everyone knows that Sakaashvili was a U.S. Lawyer and a right and willing candidate for the job. People such as Yushchenko and Saakashvili were hoisted by the U.S.- Nato combine to keep Russia in tension.
Dick Cheney's statement of Georgia being a young democracy and worthy of support is a cruel joke when you consider that America supported the successive military governments of Pakistan financially and militarily against the biggest democracy India for over two and a half decades causing the massacre of sixty thousand civilians and over a half million Hindus to be displaced from Kashmir. India repeatedly pleaded against this support. These Kasmiri Pandits have not gone back to Kashmir till today due to the continued military support that Pakistan receives from the U.S.
K.A.Sharma
It is hard to accept that Georgia is a “permanent threat for Russia” in the context of all this. How has America gained by the Russo-Georgia Conflict? It seems to me that all sides lost.
Russia wants its position in the former Soviet republics of the Caucasus and Central Asia to be recognized. For want of a better expression, Russia wants its “sphere of influence” in these lands acknowledged by Washington and respected. The United States refuses to do this. Why? Well, I guess for one thing the United States can. Second, if such a “sphere of influence” is acknowledged by the US, what does Russia have to trade in turn? The US agrees to respect Russia’s “sphere of influence” in the Caucasus and Central Asia and Russia agrees to what? Remembering, you can only give up what you have, what does Russia have to trade?
If America’s goals are as you have stated, the Russo-Georgian “War” of 2008 was a resounding political victory for the United States. Internationally, Russia has never been seen as so powerless and isolated. However, I honestly think this was a series of really bad decisions the world will have to live with. The repercussions of all this will take time to resolve.
I enjoy your perspective and respect your opinions.
Frank Shuler
USA