Russia's at it Again

[Gunter45]

Source: Reuters

So it looks like Russia has forces in the Abkhazia and South Ossetia regions of Georgia. Given Russia's recent activity in Chechnya, it's revival of Cold War-era military readiness exercises, and the fact that Vladimir Putin is still running the show, it's really no surprise they would say something so thinly veiled as "the local populations do not want to be part of Georgia."

Oh, and Georgia has expressed interest in joining NATO, the treaty organization that formed in opposition to the now-defunct Warsaw Pact. You have to hand it to Russia for being upfront as they are.

I'm glad to see that the US is taking this incredibly seriously. Sending the Secretary of State shows a concern for the situation that I think is fitting. Judging from the language Secretary Rice uses, I think it's clear what kind of message the United States is sending: Russia needs to stick to its borders instead of capitalizing on the in-fighting of the surrounding provinces.

My take on the situation? Russia is consistently proving me right. I've been saying that Russia is back to its old expansionist game for a while and it just looks like every move they make is a textbook example.

I'm anxious to see how they respond when our leadership changes in November. It's going to be an interesting few years. What do you guys think?

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 11:58 AM, ZOMG3 wrote: The US should stop interfering with the Abkhazian people. If they want to be annexed by Russia, then so be it.

Long live Russia.

I know you're a troll and all, but don't you think it's a little out of character for you to be praising capitalist expansionism?

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 01:14 PM, ZOMG3 wrote: No because the economy of Russia is increasingly under national control and not exploited like the 1990s, where neo-liberalism and corruption are rife. I support the rights of people to associate with whoever they want and if the Abkhazian people which to unite with Russia, then that is their choice as sovereign people.

Except Russia is still capitalist and the fact of the matter is that Abkhazian people want independence, whereas Russia is, almost certainly, going to manipulate the situation into expansionism.

Not exactly the sort of thing you're trying to get people angry about, but that's alright. I don't really think you're smart to begin with, but the troll thing works, you can, at least, pretend that your intention was to be ill-informed.

[BuddhaGeo]

I'm Georgian, I live in Tbilisi, and I can wholeheartedly say that I'm freaking tired of the situation in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Those are our bloody territories, and it is pretty blatant, even for a blind retard, that Russia has its so called "Peacekeepers" in there in order to control the territories illegally to fill the pockets of their corrupted politicians. And I'm pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't even give a jack shit about Abkhazia if it weren't for the auspicious port location and for the resort.
Maybe we should stop playing Diplomacy here, which certainly failed and will fail, and firmly have the UN declare Russia as the only aggressor in this situation? What were all these organizations made for if they can't cut a problem, rather than mediate and mediate on it in hopes of having the bad side giving up?

[gumOnShoe]

At 7/10/08 02:15 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: What were all these organizations made for if they can't cut a problem, rather than mediate and mediate on it in hopes of having the bad side giving up?

Thats just it isn't it? Everytime a group like that is made, each country demands special treatment and the formed group doesn't have any real power because they can't get over the hurdles they put in the way.

I'd like to see a list of accomplishments from the U.N. as I believe its fairly short and probably doesn't have much under its belt besides relief from natural disasters.

[BuddhaGeo]

At 7/10/08 02:21 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 7/10/08 02:15 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: What were all these organizations made for if they can't cut a problem, rather than mediate and mediate on it in hopes of having the bad side giving up?

Thats just it isn't it? Everytime a group like that is made, each country demands special treatment and the formed group doesn't have any real power because they can't get over the hurdles they put in the way.

I'd like to see a list of accomplishments from the U.N. as I believe its fairly short and probably doesn't have much under its belt besides relief from natural disasters.

Wasn't the League of Nations closed down due to it proving ineffective at handling acts of aggression? How is UN any different from it in its current state? If charity and help towards victims of natural disasters is all it can brag about, then I fail to see any difference between it and Bill Gates.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 02:15 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Those are our bloody territories, and it is pretty blatant, even for a blind retard, that Russia has its so called "Peacekeepers" in there in order to control the territories illegally to fill the pockets of their corrupted politicians. And I'm pretty sure that the Russians wouldn't even give a jack shit about Abkhazia if it weren't for the auspicious port location and for the resort.

I believe that's why the US has sent our Secretary of State to tell Russia to back off.

I think joining NATO would be a good step forward, having a member nation right next door to Russia, given the way things are going. To be honest, though, I don't think that playing softball with them is going to get them to stop. It's going to take more than telling them off to stop them from picking up the old Soviet satellite states and nobody's really in a position to do that. They're playing it brilliantly, moving just enough to where it can be justified as peacekeeping operations, but not so much as to warrant other nations getting involved.

[BuddhaGeo]

How would joining the NATO contribute to returning our lost territories anyway? The de facto Republics would simply ignore this and maybe even announce closer ties with Russia (if closer ties are even possible).
All I see right now is a pretty shitty situation with an Imperialistic Russia aiding rebels, that committed genocide of their own people (Abkhazians are Georgians), and the internationals organizations doing nothing but prolonging state of peace, with no actual plan of reuniting Georgia.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 02:45 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: How would joining the NATO contribute to returning our lost territories anyway? The de facto Republics would simply ignore this and maybe even announce closer ties with Russia (if closer ties are even possible).

That's my point. Stopping the current level of expansionism would require a declaration of war, or very close to it. It's a shame, but Russia's really making a well-orchestrated move.

All I see right now is a pretty shitty situation with an Imperialistic Russia aiding rebels, that committed genocide of their own people (Abkhazians are Georgians), and the internationals organizations doing nothing but prolonging state of peace, with no actual plan of reuniting Georgia.

Not to sound dismissive, but the reunification of Georgia is the least of your problems on the current course. Joining NATO, which Georgia is seeking to do anyway, is a stopgap to prevent any further losses to Russia's advancement.

And really, what do you expect? It's an internal matter. Russia's touch in the matter is just slight enough to keep the international bodies at bay. Even further, America risks losing even greater ground in the international community by sending peacekeepers of their own.

It's a clusterfuck and the situation troubles me as a precursor of more to come.

[Idiot-Finder]

At 7/10/08 01:08 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 7/10/08 11:58 AM, ZOMG3 wrote: The US should stop interfering with the Abkhazian people. If they want to be annexed by Russia, then so be it.

Long live Russia.

I know you're a troll and all, but don't you think it's a little out of character for you to be praising capitalist expansionism?

He PM me his virtual suicide note.

[BuddhaGeo]

At 7/10/08 02:56 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Not to sound dismissive, but the reunification of Georgia is the least of your problems on the current course. Joining NATO, which Georgia is seeking to do anyway, is a stopgap to prevent any further losses to Russia's advancement.

What else could we give up to Russia anyway? They've got everything they want: a port, a resort, a strategic location. They haven't left us absolutely anything.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 03:29 PM, BuddhaGeo wrote: What else could we give up to Russia anyway? They've got everything they want: a port, a resort, a strategic location. They haven't left us absolutely anything.

More territory. Russia has expressed a great interest in expansion. They've even said so, themselves. Their claim to the Arctic is the most notable of their desires to start pushing outward again. Putin's the man to do it, too. As frightening a character as he is, I can respect the moves he's making. He's definitely flexing Russia's muscles without overextending themselves. It's classic Russian directness with all the delicateness of a shrewd tactician. As an outside observer, it definitely makes for an intensely fascinating turn of events. I'm anxious to see how our next President handles the growing situation.

But, tangent aside, once Russia has reestablished itself and no longer needs to be quite so delicate about its aims, it would be nice to at least have some kind of military backing, don't you think?

[lapis]

This thread isn't going the right way. The whole issue has intensified ever since the US and its allies supported Kosovo's independence. Let's all argue why Kosovo (a breakaway province of Serbia, a nation that has friendly relations with Russia and its allies) deserves to have its own independent state while Abkhazia and South-Ossetia (two breakaway provinces of Georgia, a nation that has friendly relations with the US and its allies) do not. Because really, this is what matters to the Russians. They feel that the NATO is seizing territory that has historically been theirs and if there are reasons (that don't apply to Kosovo) to deny Abkhazia and South-Ossetia independence that surpass geopolitics (might is right) then it's those reasons that we should be talking about.

Seriously.

[BuddhaGeo]

I'm not sure about Kosovo's history, but I can freely assert sans any hesitation that Abkhazia has always been an indelible part of Georgia. Its striving towards independence is no different if Bavaria were to declare itself as a separate, fully independent government from Germany. The only reason why Abkhazians are out there whining about their independence is because of Russia's constant attempt to expand its borders and allay its lunatic fear of the European countries suddenly launching nukes at them.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 03:41 PM, lapis wrote: This thread isn't going the right way. The whole issue has intensified ever since the US and its allies supported Kosovo's independence. Let's all argue why Kosovo (a breakaway province of Serbia, a nation that has friendly relations with Russia and its allies) deserves to have its own independent state while Abkhazia and South-Ossetia (two breakaway provinces of Georgia, a nation that has friendly relations with the US and its allies) do not.

You won't get an argument out of me there.

Because really, this is what matters to the Russians. They feel that the NATO is seizing territory that has historically been theirs and if there are reasons (that don't apply to Kosovo) to deny Abkhazia and South-Ossetia independence that surpass geopolitics (might is right) then it's those reasons that we should be talking about.

Seriously.

The reason I bring Russia into it is because this isn't an isolated incident. Any single one of their moves could be interpreted as expressing their sovereignty or dealing with unrest along their borders, but, in combination, along with the absolute sham that was their Presidential election, the expansionist claims, and their resurgence of Soviet-era military readiness drills point towards something grander.

Feel free to talk about the unrest in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, of course, it's totally relevant. I just wanted, personally, to discuss how I feel this fits into what has become Russia's modus operandi of late and where I think it's going.

[animehater]

Yep, sounds like war is inevitable down there. I just wonder how the rest of Georgia can keep itself from being annexed into the Russian federation at the end of it. Anyone here actually wanna go down to Georgia and fight the Russians if that happened?

[lapis]

At 7/10/08 03:49 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The reason I bring Russia into it is because this isn't an isolated incident. Any single one of their moves could be interpreted as expressing their sovereignty or dealing with unrest along their borders, but, in combination, along with the absolute sham that was their Presidential election, the expansionist claims, and their resurgence of Soviet-era military readiness drills point towards something grander.

To be honest, I think Putin would have won their presidential elections even if his opponents were granted more time to broadcast their views. Anyway, if we're not discussing the comparison of the Abkhazian and South-Ossetian claims to a state to the Kosovar one I have this to say: The Russians, or at least Putin (but I think he has a lot of Russians behind him), are unhappy with the way Russia was marginalised after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. They want Russia to be a big player on the international stage again, they want it to have the prestige they think it deserves and I think they feel that this prestige is being hurt when the NATO flirts with nations that used to belong to the Soviet Nation and its allies. When nations that have a cultural and historical tie to Russia like Serbia get robbed of provinces (Kosovo) they feel attacked, and when countries like the Ukraine and Georgia are openly fraternising with the NATO they feel like they're being driven into a corner.

I personally think that a lot of the strong words that Russia has uttered lately (like the protests against the minor missile shield against Iran) and the actions to accompany them stem from a sort of frustration with the fact that they're being seen as a lesser power in international politics. Kosovo's independence was an assault in their eyes and they're trying to regain some prestige by 'assaulting' back in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia, nations that have about the same moral claim to a state as Kosovo and which are breakaway provinces of a country that has been cozying up with the NATO. I think the Russians will keep up with undertaking actions like this until they feel they're seen as geopolitical equals to the US, so I think we might see some more of these Russian initiatives in the near future. Unless the global community allows one of these issues to really escalate I don't think they'll do anything too crazy though, barking dogs never bite.

[LordJaric]

politicians really need to start useing common sense and tell Russia to back off.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 04:28 PM, lapis wrote: To be honest, I think Putin would have won their presidential elections even if his opponents were granted more time to broadcast their views.

Putin didn't run for President. His puppet Medvedev did. Not to criticize Medvedev, it's just the fact of the matter. It's a point of fact that Medvedev is simply a mouthpiece for Putin to remain acting Head of State even in the Prime Ministry.

Anyway, if we're not discussing the comparison of the Abkhazian and South-Ossetian claims to a state to the Kosovar one I have this to say: The Russians, or at least Putin (but I think he has a lot of Russians behind him), are unhappy with the way Russia was marginalised after the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union. They want Russia to be a big player on the international stage again, they want it to have the prestige they think it deserves and I think they feel that this prestige is being hurt when the NATO flirts with nations that used to belong to the Soviet Nation and its allies. When nations that have a cultural and historical tie to Russia like Serbia get robbed of provinces (Kosovo) they feel attacked, and when countries like the Ukraine and Georgia are openly fraternising with the NATO they feel like they're being driven into a corner.

These are my thoughts on the rationale behind it and why the Russian people are so behind Putin exactly. The situations with Georgia and the Ukraine simply show the climate of the region. Every single one of the ex-Soviet states is in such bad shape that they have to attach themselves to a stronger body politick in order to pull themselves up. That's why Russia is going to succeed at it's aim of scooping these states up. It's the exact same reason the countries joined the Soviet bloc in the first place.

I personally think that a lot of the strong words that Russia has uttered lately (like the protests against the minor missile shield against Iran) and the actions to accompany them stem from a sort of frustration with the fact that they're being seen as a lesser power in international politics. Kosovo's independence was an assault in their eyes and they're trying to regain some prestige by 'assaulting' back in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia, nations that have about the same moral claim to a state as Kosovo and which are breakaway provinces of a country that has been cozying up with the NATO. I think the Russians will keep up with undertaking actions like this until they feel they're seen as geopolitical equals to the US, so I think we might see some more of these Russian initiatives in the near future.

Again, I am absolutely with you on this point.

Unless the global community allows one of these issues to really escalate I don't think they'll do anything too crazy though, barking dogs never bite.

That's never been the Russian mentality. Russians, traditionally, are not ones for bluster without action. They also know that in order to regain their status, they also need to get the gang back together. Of course they won't do anything "crazy," per se, but it's not crazy to claim ownership of the Arctic, that's just having wrought iron balls. In an increasingly softening geopolitical climate, Russia seems to have maintained its resolve through thick and thin and, really, how is that a surprise? They're Russians, after all.

The reason the situation worries me, as an American, is because the world is ripe to be led by a powerful, decisive nation, and that's America less and less. Of course, the traditional American needs competition to succeed, so who knows, this could be just the shot in the arm we need to lose our fucking complacency.

[DrAfrothunder]

I completely agree with Lapis, and i think this has been coming, and will maybe even intensify. Russia went from World Power to Lesser Power very quickly, and the Russian peple want the old respect [and maybe even fear] that used to come with the name Soviets.

But in some ways I think this is a good thing. It is never good for the [modern] world to have one defining superpower for too long. Its been almost two decades of American dominance, and some balance would be nice.

[lapis]

At 7/10/08 05:07 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Putin didn't run for President. His puppet Medvedev did. Not to criticize Medvedev, it's just the fact of the matter. It's a point of fact that Medvedev is simply a mouthpiece for Putin to remain acting Head of State even in the Prime Ministry.

Oh, haha, I thought you were talking about the 2004 elections when Putin was still running. I didn't really follow the 2008 elections, I only read about it after Medvedev had been appointed. I apologise for the misunderstanding.

Of course they won't do anything "crazy," per se, but it's not crazy to claim ownership of the Arctic, that's just having wrought iron balls.

Claiming ownership of the Arctic is one thing, but I don't think they'd let a conflict over it escalate. Like I don't think they'll let any conflict escalate. Russia will keep asserting iteslf when it comes to conflicts near their borders but I don't think they'll do anything that will have far-reaching consequences, like, in an extreme case, a military encounter between the Russian and the US military that lasts for more than a day or so and which has the approval of the Russian leadership.

The reason the situation worries me, as an American, is because the world is ripe to be led by a powerful, decisive nation, and that's America less and less.

I think the world is still pretty bent on maintaining the status quo, the strongest kid on the playground, which is currently the US, might attack a small nation that has no allies like Iraq but I don't expect any major shifts in geopolitical power between the major blocks (like the NATO, Russia and China) in the near future. The current conflict in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia is fairly minor in nature and I don't think Russia will ever threaten the sovereignty of Georgia as a whole (which I'd consider to be major) when things remain the way they are now. I think geopolitical issues like this one will be outshadowed by issues like energy-dependence (I am concerned about Russia in this case though, since they're sitting on large reserves of natural gas) and technological innovation in the future.

[Imperator]

While both nations have been trying to "buy up property" for the last God-knows how many years, I think lapis is quite right in that most nations aren't gonna stress the status quo very much.

What I find sort of unique about what's happening is that the EU and China, in particular, are striving for more independent roles. Both still have to "lean" significantly to one side or the other, but they're slowly gaining their own legs in the world. US foreign diplomacy seems to be one of the reasons for the EU trying to gain some independence (mainly because we keep shooting our own damn foot every 10 minutes diplomatically), and I think the number of nations that didn't go with us to Iraq displays that (not that I expected the French to act any other fuckin way).

And then there's India on the outside track, pulling up with some speed as a nation that may just throw a monkey wrench in the entire system.....

Then again, geopolitics has never been my realm of expertise.....

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 05:40 PM, lapis wrote: Claiming ownership of the Arctic is one thing, but I don't think they'd let a conflict over it escalate. Like I don't think they'll let any conflict escalate. Russia will keep asserting iteslf when it comes to conflicts near their borders but I don't think they'll do anything that will have far-reaching consequences, like, in an extreme case, a military encounter between the Russian and the US military that lasts for more than a day or so and which has the approval of the Russian leadership.

Putin is wildly popular in Russia. If a conflict were to arise between the US and Russia, Russia would easily outlast the US in willpower. Not even a question.

Of course, my point is that their resolve and traditional national pride give them a serious edge in today's political climate. Simply having the forwardness to demand without trying to dance around the issue is an increasingly rare quality in the Western world. I don't think they would start a war over the Arctic, but, once they've reasserted themselves, you can guarantee they'd put troops on the ground, at least.

I think the world is still pretty bent on maintaining the status quo, the strongest kid on the playground, which is currently the US, might attack a small nation that has no allies like Iraq but I don't expect any major shifts in geopolitical power between the major blocks (like the NATO, Russia and China) in the near future. The current conflict in Abkhazia and South-Ossetia is fairly minor in nature and I don't think Russia will ever threaten the sovereignty of Georgia as a whole (which I'd consider to be major) when things remain the way they are now. I think geopolitical issues like this one will be outshadowed by issues like energy-dependence (I am concerned about Russia in this case though, since they're sitting on large reserves of natural gas) and technological innovation in the future.

It's a process. Hell, I don't expect Russia to annex anything for years to come. This is a chess match and they're playing Russian style, they're simply positioning themselves and doing a damned good job of it. Right now they're asserting themselves as the. They're making the claims and talking tough. What that does is set them up to follow through with those claims when they're good and ready.

I really don't mean to make it sound sinister and evil, which it isn't. This is brilliant political maneuvering by someone who clearly has ambitions and the intelligence to carry through with them.

The key difference between the US and Russia is that Putin really has carte blanche. The Russian people see him as the reincarnation of Russian nationalism. To them, he can basically do no wrong as long as he keeps bringing Russia back up to superpower status. The American people simply distrust their government. Any military action we will take for the foreseeable future will be held to the closest scrutiny and it puts us at a disadvantage. It's impossible to bluff when everyone knows your hands are tied behind your back. What's more, our current system is up in the air. This upcoming election will be incredibly decisive and, even then, we're going to be in a very transitional period. Putin has set himself up to be Head of State as long as he wants.

[animehater]

At 7/10/08 06:00 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The American people simply distrust their government. Any military action we will take for the foreseeable future will be held to the closest scrutiny and it puts us at a disadvantage. It's impossible to bluff when everyone knows your hands are tied behind your back.

Any way we can permanantly get back that sense of National pride and unity we lost so long ago?

P.S I Still hate you though.

[lapis]

At 7/10/08 06:00 PM, Gunter45 wrote: Putin is wildly popular in Russia. If a conflict were to arise between the US and Russia, Russia would easily outlast the US in willpower. Not even a question.

I have to disagree to some extent. If I'm not mistaken there are a lot of natural resources to be found in the Arctic region and since Canada, which is a close ally to the US, also has a decent claim to a portion of the Arctic I don't think the US will allow the Russians to seize more than what the US consider to be rightfully Russian. The US can easily win any contained military conflict with the Russians and both sides know this, so I don't think the US will allow the Russians to blatantly roll over the West because the White House knows that this will set a bad precedent. I think the US are reacting in a relatively temperate manner (words only) to the Abkhazia/South-Ossetia issue because there's not enough at stake to warrant a further deterioration of bilateral relations and because they feel that it's sort of Russia back yard.

But when push really comes to shove I think the Pentagon and the White House will not let the Russians get more than what they deserve based on their geopolitical position. I'm not sure about the opinion of the common American but I'm not sure if their opinion will have that much of a direct effect on the decision-making process in Washington.

Simply having the forwardness to demand without trying to dance around the issue is an increasingly rare quality in the Western world.

It's because the Russians aren't demanding anything too valuable. The Russians are also demanding that the US refrains from building a minor missile shield against Iran in Eastern Europe and these demands are basically being ignored.

Any military action we will take for the foreseeable future will be held to the closest scrutiny and it puts us at a disadvantage. It's impossible to bluff when everyone knows your hands are tied behind your back.

I think the American public will know it when the Russians overplay their hand. You're better at gauging the mood of the American public than I am but if something major like a conflict over the ownership of a great portion of the Arctic region comes up I think the majority of the voters will prefer it if the President of the US slams his fist on the table and yells "this aggression will not stand" than that he lets the Russians gain a major edge over the West. No one (or at least almost no one) likes to see their country being humiliated, and these breakaway Georgian provinces are simply barely a source of national pride for Americans.

We've yet to see a conflict that has a magnitude that allows us determine who's really more determined than the other, Russia or the US. But I don't think that the US will budge easy if we will. Even a 'weak' President would face strong pressure from the Pentagon.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 06:23 PM, animehater wrote: Any way we can permanantly get back that sense of National pride and unity we lost so long ago?

This is just a bump in the road, as far as I'm concerned. We were the preeminent body of power even into the 90s. It really depends on what the next administration does. There's extensive cleanup work to be done, but it's certainly salvageable.

P.S I Still hate you though.

I have no idea who you are.

At 7/10/08 06:36 PM, lapis wrote: I have to disagree to some extent. If I'm not mistaken there are a lot of natural resources to be found in the Arctic region and since Canada, which is a close ally to the US, also has a decent claim to a portion of the Arctic I don't think the US will allow the Russians to seize more than what the US consider to be rightfully Russian.

You're missing my meaning. I chose the word "willpower" carefully. I was debating whether or not to harp on the issue some more and make the point that the US would easily trounce Russia militarily. I don't like to get into what-if military scenarios, they tend to devolve into asinine discussions resembling superhero match-ups. In this case, however, it's clear that the United States would be able to dominate Russia and, if Russia was stupid enough to be clumsy about it, giving the United State clear provocation, then it wouldn't even be a match up.

I'm merely talking about a question of wills. In an even scenario, the United States would be in a conflict over resources. How do you think that would go over?

I think the US are reacting in a relatively temperate manner (words only) to the Abkhazia/South-Ossetia issue because there's not enough at stake to warrant a further deterioration of bilateral relations and because they feel that it's sort of Russia back yard.

Right. I mentioned that from the outset. Russia's playing it smart. They know that they can make the claim that any conflicts happening along their border are their business and any US intervention would be an affront to Russian sovereignty. The US is doing the only thing they can and it's not enough.

But when push really comes to shove I think the Pentagon and the White House will not let the Russians get more than what they deserve based on their geopolitical position. I'm not sure about the opinion of the common American but I'm not sure if their opinion will have that much of a direct effect on the decision-making process in Washington.

We've yet to see a conflict that has a magnitude that allows us determine who's really more determined than the other, Russia or the US. But I don't think that the US will budge easy if we will. Even a 'weak' President would face strong pressure from the Pentagon.

You're right, of course, however the assumption is that the Russians would be so heavy-handed about it isn't in keeping with how they've been handling the situation at present. Putin knows exactly what cards are on the table and he's playing his hand perfectly. He's setting himself up as much as possible without anyone being able to do a damned thing about it. I can't see Putin biting off more than he can chew.

If I knew how he planned on going about backing his claims, then I'd probably be better suited for a job at the Pentagon or the CIA instead of association management. However, I am guessing that he's going to milk it politically in order to give himself a clear advantage before making any bold moves. That's what he's doing now and I can't see that changing at any point. Putin's probably the shrewdest world leader on the planet right now.

[lapis]

At 7/10/08 06:54 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I'm merely talking about a question of wills. In an even scenario, the United States would be in a conflict over resources. How do you think that would go over?

It would be more than that, Canada has as much of a claim to the wide central region of the North Pole as Russia does and the US government could play the card of defending Canadian sovereignty if the Russians would seize more territory than what the US government finds reasonable. I think the common American would be reasonably receptive to the idea of drawing a line if the Russians really went as far as to get into a territorial dispute with a close US ally, even if the interest for that territory would be primarily fueled by natural resources.

The US is doing the only thing they can and it's not enough.

Meh. Should the West really care about Abkhazia and South-Ossetia that much? Like I said initially, I don't really think it's that unfair for these people to have self-determination considering that the people of Kosovo were granted the same thing. I say, let the Russians have this minor piece of the cake and let's not react strongly until the Russians publicly set their eyes on something that's both valuable and something that they have no decent claim to.

That's what he's doing now and I can't see that changing at any point. Putin's probably the shrewdest world leader on the planet right now.

So far, he has been pretty shrewd. But I don't think these terriorial dispute are going to affect the West that much, I only fear his shrewdness when it comes to our (Europe's) dependence on Russian natural gas.

Anyway, I'm (finally) off to bed. I'll see the new replies to this thread at some point tomorrow.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 07:14 PM, lapis wrote: It would be more than that, Canada has as much of a claim to the wide central region of the North Pole as Russia does and the US government could play the card of defending Canadian sovereignty if the Russians would seize more territory than what the US government finds reasonable. I think the common American would be reasonably receptive to the idea of drawing a line if the Russians really went as far as to get into a territorial dispute with a close US ally, even if the interest for that territory would be primarily fueled by natural resources.

That's just it, though. According to Russia's borders, they don't have a legit claim to any of it. Therefore getting any claim to the area would be more than they deserve. What they're saying is that the continental shelf reaches far enough to give them the Arctic... based on a study they're conducting themselves... and their proof are some rocks they're presenting to the international community. For fuck's sake, they put a flag on the bottom of the fucking ocean. Seriously, the nads on these guys.

Meh. Should the West really care about Abkhazia and South-Ossetia that much? Like I said initially, I don't really think it's that unfair for these people to have self-determination considering that the people of Kosovo were granted the same thing. I say, let the Russians have this minor piece of the cake and let's not react strongly until the Russians publicly set their eyes on something that's both valuable and something that they have no decent claim to.

We care enough about it to send the Secretary of State. That's a huge deal. If this wasn't something of note, you would hear about talks with ambassadors. We sent our chief ambassador over. It's not about Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Their conflicts are simply tools that are getting Russia what they want and we know it. We also know that this isn't an isolated incident. We're telling them to back off because this is the way they've been operating and will continue to operate. It's a token gesture because we know it's the best we can do but it's the only way to let Russia know we're onto it.

[Callojero777]

I think you hit it right on the damn nail. I've been carefully moniteting the situation in Russia and surrounding areas of the middle east, I wouldn't be suprised to see a large increase of activity in the next 5 years.

[dySWN]

At 7/10/08 08:03 PM, Callojero777 wrote: I think you hit it right on the damn nail. I've been carefully moniteting the situation in Russia and surrounding areas of the middle east, I wouldn't be suprised to see a large increase of activity in the next 5 years.

I, for one, would be totally unsurprised.