Brave little Georgia is screwed. We’re next in line. And Russia, although they think they’re so clever, is next after us. They’ got China at their back.

Just a short while ago at the Romanian NATO meeting, Georgia’s request to join NATO was approved in principle. No date was set for the formal joining of NATO. While not yet a member of NATO, ignoring Georgia’s present plight by NATO once again demonstrates the overall weakness of the current alliance. This is not the NATO I thought I knew, to play on an Obamaesque phrase. NATO sends forces into Afghanistan, yet precludes most NATO forces from being involved in combat operations, setting a strignent set of rules of engagement, and a few NATO member states in Afghanistan have stood idly by, in the manner of the UN in Srebernica, as Taliban and pro-Taliban elements in Afghanistan carried out attacks at will with no response from NATO troops within range of Taliban attacks. So, why send NATO troops to Afghanistan at all, is a very good question.

As far as the United States is concerned, we have maintained military trainers in Georgia for a few years, and most recently had a contingent of US forces (numbering between 1000 to 1500 in Georgia providing hands on training and exercising to allow for close interoperability between Georgian forces and US forces. We still have about 150 military trainers in Georgia, most military, the rest civilian contactors. The bombings carried out by the Russians seem to have been targetted in part to those military bases in Georgia where US military trainers are stationed. All of our overseas military training missions, from Georgia to Mali and beyond, have been dutifully approved by Congress. They are legal. They are necessary.

The movement of the size of Russian forces sent into Georgia by Russia demonstrate the assault by Russian forces was not an ad hoc response to a flare up, but rather something that has been in the works for a significant period prior to the 7 August movement of Russian forces into Georgia. Thus, one can derive that the Russian movement into Georgia was pre-meditated. From the logisitcs aspect alone, this can be the only conclusion drawn.

As for the other now independent countries that broke away from the former Soviet Union, in their standing idly by, biding their time, demonstrates that they do so at their own peril. The Medvedev/Putin government (ruling oligarchy) are bent on keeping the newly independent nations, the near abroad, firmly in the Russian sphere. Rather than concentrtate on the development of Russia, they intend to maintain the Russian empire. Rathher than consolidate the vast though mostly broken infrastructure within Russia to the benefit of all Russians, Moscow has chosen to look to the common “overseas threat” as being more vital. Insofar as Russia, vis-a-vis those now independent former parts of the Soviet Union, economic inducements will not work, ideologicial inducements are moot, thus, military force, the taking down of an upstart independent nation, Georgia, by force, is apparently enough, in the eyes of the Medvedev/Putin government to show the other states (Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, et al) that if they do not tow the line, get in line, stay in line, Russia will make sure, by force, that they do.

Prior to the Helsinki Accords, the Soviet Union maintained that they could define borders and loyalties of subject nations on their terms. They accepted Helsinki. They declared that national borders were inviolate. Now, today, though there is no such Helsinki agreement regarding borders of newly independent states, the Russian government ignores international law, and custom, and has made it clear that borders are mere trifles and they can do whatever they wish, for what ever reasons they come up with, regarding their occupation, invasion, or strong-arm influence over any country that they still consider part of the Russian Empire…their near abroad is their territory in the eyes of the Medvedev/Putin government. The nationlaists in Russia are using this concept of the near abroad being a part of a greater Russia as a means to rally nationalistic Russians, claiming that any “foreign” influence on “their” territories, the near abroad, is an assault on Russia proper. Thus, independence, recognition by the United Nations, recognition by other countries and the world community, of a nation’s independence is meaningless to Russia. The only country that recognizes Ossetian independence is Russia. But, at the same time, Russia handed out Russian passports and identity documents to any and all Ossetians, and have voiced their claim that they are in Georgia to “protect” Russian citizens as well as “protect” Russian peacekeepers. So, are Ossetians independent? Russia recognized their independence. Or are they Russians? You cannoit have it both ways.

Do we let this Russian invasion of Georgia, on a pretext of protecting “independent” Ossetia, an independence not recognized by any other nation other than Russia, stand? If we allow it to stand, if we allow Russia to piecemeal reclaim their former territories under the gun, what does this say about the entire concept of independent free states across the globe? Is independence just a throw-away bumper sticker or is there any real meaning to independence?

Further, if the Russians were merely trying to “protect” their peacekeepers, peacekeepers who were arming and training Ossetian rebels, why then did the Russians carry out bombing raids on Poti, a Georgian port city and oil facility far far removed from the ground conflict in Ossetia? If the Russians are merely trying to “protect” their peacekeepers in Ossetia, why have they armed Ossetians, Ossetians who are operating in the manner of Radivic Karadzic’s “popular” forces in the former Yugoslavia. This goes well beyond “protecting” Russian peacekeepers. Well beyond.

OldEnglish on August 9, 2008 at 4:17 AM

Nice try. It was spawned in Germany, intended for Germany and the industrialized nations of the West, but implemented in Russia (and NOT by Jews, although there were Jewish Communists as well as Gentiles). The Germans threw off an attempted Communist takeover after the First World War and, while they gained some political power in Britain, it was not begun there. Case in point, the language of the Internationals (1-3) was GERMAN, in the hopes of bringing Germany into the Socialist/Communist fold. If your comment about it being executed by Jews is a shot at Marx and Engels being Jewish, well, I really can’t speak to that as I have heard the rumor but never had it confirmed (if it’s not, that’s a pretty ignorant statement. Jews were not much more involved in the Movement than any other religion and certainly did not lead it). However, to say that the statist system we call Communism was spawned anywhere other than Soviet Russia shows a rather shocking ignorance (willful or otherwise) of the history of the Movement.

After all, there is a very good reason that all the Communist heroes have Russian names and that internationalists to this day bear the name of Trotsky.

Darth Executor on August 9, 2008 at 12:04 AM

Actually, Darth, it was spawned in England, and first executed in Germany – by Jews.

And is it true,there are about 1,000 Israeli Military
advisors in Georgia!

We have effectively turned our backs on the people of Russia, and a natural resources world power house, strengthening Russia’s concerns and “paranoia” that we were never against Communism, but were always against Russia.

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 5:21 PM

The “people of russia” should have been completely disarmed and an occupation force should still be there making sure they don’t have even the slightest thought of a new empire.
After they spawned an abominable ideology that has crippled nations across three continents their concerns and paranoia shouldn’t matter one bit.

Just goes to show that those in Russia who say that the US has never been against communism, it has always been against Russia, aren’t so crazy.

freevillage on August 8, 2008 at 5:09 PM

That’s pretty funny because I’m Canadian. I’m against Russia because it spawned the plague known as communism, by far the worst ideology to afflict mankind, and it looks like it’s ready for round two. You are right that many people are against russia, and for good reason. Maybe your fellow russians should worry more about amending the horrible, murderous errors of your past than concerning yourself with the anti-missile defenses of countries that will no longer put up with your interference in their affairs. Otherwise people might get the feeling that you’re still a bunch of cannibalistic parasites.

the peoples of Europe (incl. Russia) will be free again to forge their destiny.

Something like that may very well be in your future, although I doubt how free you will be. But as you say, it will be in your hands.

And how many gypsies, Jews, and homosexuals?

This conflict was a long time coming, but it started over recent shelling by separatists into {non secesionist}Georgia proper.

No obligation implied at all.

But as a matter of capitalism, it made good sense then and even now, well until this Georgian thing came up, maybe.

When Gorbachev began his “perestroika” there were no economists nor business experts in the whole of the Soviet Union (outside of the Georgian mafia/Armenia mafia who kept a healthy black market going for decades. Whereas Gorbachev actually believed that he was going to reform communism, he didn’t understand that placing capitalism in the heart of Moscow would undermine the communist economic structure, and once that was shattered, the entire reason for the communist party was pretty much moot. Which Gorbachev found out in 1991. Whgen Yeltsin came in there were about a half-dozen Soviets with any experience in dealing in Western markets and had an understanding of capitalism and faculty with actually running a real paying business.

When the Red Flag came down in December 1991, just about all the nomenclatura who had access to state properties essentially stole them and became “businessmen.” Russia is only now developing a true market economy and capitalism…they asre presently a controlled oligarchy, more akin to the Mob than to Wall Street. I was there when a former Soviet Aeroflot chief in Cairo appropriated a doizen Soviet aircraft as his own and started his own airline…with stolen aircraft.

We could have helped…and in doing so kept a lot of former nomenclatura from becoming the super rich oligarchs they are today, perhaps.

It wasn’t so much an obligation as a means to head off problems further down the road…problems were are now having to deal with.

With the screwed populaces getting fragged.

As for China, I expect that they are rooting for Georga.

Linh_My on August 8, 2008 at 7:32 PM

Sino-German cooperation has a long history and we have amicable relations except when our chancellor peddles liberal nonsense. A Sino-German partnership wouldn’t be the kind of unequal treaty we have with our liberators right now. The Chinese don’t project their power into Europe and the only place where our spheres of influence seriously overlap is Africa.

The Russians are not liberals eager to join your universalist brand of transnationalism. They’ll reforge their alliance with China and use the global economic system to subvert the West.

GermanAtheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Submit to Chinese authority perhaps. I doubt that China would accept anything less.

dhimwit on August 8, 2008 at 7:12 PM

A partnership with the United States will only seal their destruction, just like it has sealed our own. After “the West” goes down, the peoples of Europe (incl. Russia) will be free again to forge their destiny. It is possible for us to fail, but it will be in our hands.

GermanAtheist on August 8, 2008 at 7:02 PM

Again, I must ruefully agree with you. But I’m not selling transnational or universalism, rather good old fashioned national interests. Perhaps somebody brighter than either of our two brilliant presidential candidates would be able to point out to the Russians that after the West goes down, they’re the next evening’s dinner.

dhimwit on August 8, 2008 at 6:46 PM

The Russians are not liberals eager to join your universalist brand of transnationalism. They’ll reforge their alliance with China and use the global economic system to subvert the West.

GermanAtheist on August 8, 2008 at 6:09 PM

You’re quite correct. The high rollers played and died in Russia. But here we are today and my poor USA needs a friend with Kugeln(?), which the Russians still have. I’m for dragging these two reluctant lovers to the geopolitical alter.

coldwarrior on August 8, 2008 at 5:21 PMHad

I don’t think that it was our obligation “to put more American experienced businessmen and economic and financial wizards at the disposal of Russia”.

dhimwit on August 8, 2008 at 5:24 PM

Don’t worry, the valuable Germans already died in our failed invasion of the Soviet Union, long before the US was able to overcome its paralyzing fear and actually set foot on Continental Europe. We killed 10,700,000 Soviet soldiers. How many soldiers fell on the Western Front? How many died during the entirety of the Cold so-called War?

Thankfully, there were many orphans after WWII in Germany.

Certainly not a yes or no question.

Of course, oil/money (resources, economic growth, feeding one’s population/jobs/health care, advancement etc.) are major factors. But, look at the Caucasian “shatter belt” in the region. Ethnicities separated by a single mountain range in many cases, or living higher or lower in a river valley. Ethniciities many that have been around over a thousand years. Each subject to invasions and consolidations under the Tsars or the Soviets, or even neighboring countries in the region, such as Turkey or Iran.

The Nationalities Problem was raised by Lenin back in the 1920′s. Never fully answered. In 1979, though not part of the Caucasus, the Uzbeks constituted I believe the fourth largest nationality within the Soviet Union. Euro-Slav ethnicities have had declining birth rates since the Stalin era. The “nationalities” for the most part kept on having babies. Most were kept out of the leadership or upper classes within the Soviet Union. When the USSR collapsed under Gorbachev, all of these nationlaities seemed to want to follow the Baltic model…independence was within their grasp. Unfortunately, for most, the infrastructure for a smooth transistion to independence was not there. It rested in the hands of Russians, primarily. Independence was not nor could not be a final destination. Once freed of outside control, each nationality had every right to stand up for their own homelands. But, over the centuries, those homelands overlapped most often, and the relatively weak states that did stand up were still under the thumb of whichever stronger political entity was next door, or were kept under Moscow.

Our fundamental error, I beleive was that we encouraged independence but offered neither the tools nor expertise, nor the involvement of Russia in the effort.

There are no simple answers or solutions to the ongoing nationalities problem. But, allowing the Russians to dictate terms exclusively…well, it seems a bit much. Allowing each nationality to have at it, and have dozens of mini-wars to grow in the region doesn’t seem to cut it either.

Maybe we do need the Russians to be a major part of the solution. At least involvement and transparency might go a long way towards alieviating Russian nationalist concerns.