More on the trouble in the Caucasus
This Times article looks at Russia’s nuclear threat to Poland against the backdrop of Georgia. There are references on the linked page to other articles. Michael Binyon’s piece here is an excellent and objective exposition of Putin’s strategy. He concludes:-
There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics – remember your geography. To Nato – do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi – do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington – does Russia’s voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.
Adam is of the view that we should look very carefully at what Russia is doing and adjust our strategic stance accordingly.
Sarkozy’s peace was clearly a sham.
Russia is seeking to extend it’s zone of influence and may wish to go as far as effectively re-colonising the ‘near abroad’ .
Watch for trouble in the Baltic!
I never said the USA could treat the Americas as vassal states, though they have tended to regard them as within their zone of influence.
nor did I condone georgian behaviour my point was about the issue of Russian behaviour overall.
By the way if you believe the Russians are concerned about the fate of their ethnic brethren then you are I suggest sadly mistaken.
Putin et al were KGB men not human rights activists.
russia is making a political point and setting out markers they are not making a humna rights stand. They would laugh at their concept.
“Umm, there must have been a good reason…”
Yep. They happened 20-50 years ago. Cold War stuff. In it’s short history, Communism has murdered some hundred million people, and it seemed a good idea at the time to oppose it.
JC
Adam: “Though on another tack, just because one country has ‘traditionally’ dominated another and even annexed it from time to time does not give such dominant power an immutable right to so dominate for ever and a day.”
Well, I have a lot of friends who would say to that, “To be sure, to be sure.”
Anyway, please tell me why it is fine for the USA to treat the Americas as vassal states, while the Russians have to stand by while the Georgians massacre mmebrs of a region split between Russia and Georgia, and not a few russians besides.
The Americas, you say? Of course Bay of Pigs wasn’t aggression. What, the US military were involved? Not really. Pity about Salvador Allende and a few thousand other innocent Chilenos, but that wasn’t aggression either, was it? Surely the CIA doesn’t count. Contras? Never. El Salvador? Guatemala? Just meddling. Like Nicaragua that was mostly sub-contracted. Grenada? Well, yes, hard to deny that one. Panama? Umm, there must have been a good reason…
JP
Binyon is right re geography, but not necessarily about history. Up to WWI Hungary, the Czechos etc were in the Austro-Hungarian sphere.
Russia was for much of it’s history an inward power of great size, but not really capable of projecting power effectively, until the advent of Stalin, himself a Georgian.
Though on another tack, just because one country has ‘traditionally’ dominated another and even annexed it from time to time does not give such dominant power an immutable right to so dominate for ever and a day.
JP
My reference to zone of influence was not to Georgia. It is logical to assume that Georgia may well be subject to influence from their ‘friendly’ neighbour.
My reference to zones of influence and to the ‘near’ abroad was more to do with the Poland, Hungary and the Czechos.
Where if my recollection is correct the zone was from the end of WWII.
JP,
As someone else has pointed out, give a Russian apologist a forum and he’ll destroy his own arguments.
The map of Europe shows that virtually all nations there are adjacent to many others, and they mostly rub along with each other, except for Russia and it’s former conquests.
It was the USSR that illegally occupied so much of Europe, put it under tyranny and a murderous ideology, and it’s Russia that is seeking to claw back it’s empire from nations that are largely democratic and have their own distinct histories and cultures.
By your logic, a sovereign and legitimate nation must subsume it’s national policies to the threats of the thug next door.
Like you, I can come up with a dozen reasons why it would be politic for Russia’s neighbours to not annoy the thug, but that ignores the obvious nature and history of the thug.. and very little of that is good for their health and long term survival.
It’s interesting that democracies rarely make war on one another and an ostensibly democratic Russia 1990 to just a year or two ago conformed with that fact. It appears no accident that a newly belligerent Russia has reappeared as it swings authoritarian.
JC
No Adam, Georgia is well within Russia’s zone of influence. What is it about that the neo-cons can’t grasp? If I may quote myself:
“The US neocons seemed to have missed the point that their encouragement of Saakashvili is the equivalent of the Russians talking to Mexico about an alliance, and then encouraging them to lay waste to would-be break-away state of Baja California, immediately on the border with California, killing many Americans. What would you expect the Americans to do faced with that?!”
I think you may have missed the point of Binyon’s conclusion about the lessons. But he should have added “history” to “geography”.
The Real Reason for the Georgia war!
http://morris108.wordpress.com/2008/08/16/immediately-after-us-losing-control-of-central-asian-gas-and-oil-bp-run-btc-pipeline-is-blown-up-war-provoked-in-georgia/