always on my mind

[dpwolf]

I went to dinner with a Russian friend on Saturday. We watched clips from Russian news of the Georgian military shooting up women and children as well as British and U.s. journalists. There is nothing in western media which would accurately tell us what is going on. There is nothing Putin the adult politician and leader can say which Bush the idiot child fratboy can even understand. To the U.S. government, democracy means nothing more than U.S. supported. Circular thoughtless doublespeak self-serving babel. Ugh.

[101Walterton]

I went to dinner with a Russian friend on Saturday. We watched clips from Russian news of the Georgian military shooting up women and children as well as British and U.s. journalists. There is nothing in western media which would accurately tell us what is going on. There is nothing Putin the adult politician and leader can say which Bush the idiot child fratboy can even understand. To the U.S. government, democracy means nothing more than U.S. supported. Circular thoughtless doublespeak self-serving babel. Ugh.

Thats interesting. There's a NZ Economist named Gareth Morgan who is currently over there on a world motorcycle tour. When the war / conflict started he was interviewd on the radio and said that on local TV Georgia was the aggressor but Western TV (CNN) was reporting Russia as the villain.

[Dr. Medulla]

I went to dinner with a Russian friend on Saturday. We watched clips from Russian news of the Georgian military shooting up women and children as well as British and U.s. journalists. There is nothing in western media which would accurately tell us what is going on. There is nothing Putin the adult politician and leader can say which Bush the idiot child fratboy can even understand. To the U.S. government, democracy means nothing more than U.S. supported. Circular thoughtless doublespeak self-serving babel. Ugh.

Thats interesting. There's a NZ Economist named Gareth Morgan who is currently over there on a world motorcycle tour. When the war / conflict started he was interviewd on the radio and said that on local TV Georgia was the aggressor but Western TV (CNN) was reporting Russia as the villain.

That's my understanding as well. The people of South Ossetia, as I understand it, regard themselves more as Russian and that it was Georgia that was making a move akin to Saddam Hussein in 1990, invading Kuwait. The speculation that I've seen is that US support of Georgia in all this is, in part, because Georgia supported the invasion of Iraq (whereas Russia was, at best, neutral). There are, I'm sure, no heroes in all this, only villains, but it doesn't seem that Russia deserves as much condemnation as they're getting.

[Flex]

That's my understanding as well. The people of South Ossetia, as I understand it, regard themselves more as Russian and that it was Georgia that was making a move akin to Saddam Hussein in 1990, invading Kuwait. The speculation that I've seen is that US support of Georgia in all this is, in part, because Georgia supported the invasion of Iraq (whereas Russia was, at best, neutral). There are, I'm sure, no heroes in all this, only villains, but it doesn't seem that Russia deserves as much condemnation as they're getting.

They've been "secretly" arming the separatists for years. Georgia might be the aggressor, but the whole damned thing was set up by Russia.

[Dr. Medulla]

That's my understanding as well. The people of South Ossetia, as I understand it, regard themselves more as Russian and that it was Georgia that was making a move akin to Saddam Hussein in 1990, invading Kuwait. The speculation that I've seen is that US support of Georgia in all this is, in part, because Georgia supported the invasion of Iraq (whereas Russia was, at best, neutral). There are, I'm sure, no heroes in all this, only villains, but it doesn't seem that Russia deserves as much condemnation as they're getting.

They've been "secretly" arming the separatists for years. Georgia might be the aggressor, but the whole damned thing was set up by Russia.

That wouldn't surprise me either. As I said, no heroes, only villains.

[dpwolf]

They've been "secretly" arming the separatists for years. Georgia might be the aggressor, but the whole damned thing was set up by Russia.

while the U.S. armed Georgia against Russia ...
I'm not sure it resulted from a "set up" by Russia any more than from U.S. ignorance/arrogance and interference.

Fairly good article here:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ess18.html

or check out Pravda

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/confl ... -georgia-0

http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/confl ... ssia_usa-0

http://english.pravda.ru/world/ussr/16- ... kashvili-0

[Flex]

while the U.S. armed Georgia against Russia ...
I'm not sure it resulted from a "set up" by Russia any more than from U.S. ignorance/arrogance and interference.

You don't see any difference between selling weapons to another country and secretly supplying paramilitary organizations with weapons (and lying about it)? I don't support either move, but one is sketchier than the other. Also, the reason Russia got upset is because they felt like they should be able to strongarm Georgia whenever the fuck they felt like it, not have some namby pampy satellite state actually get a little defensive capability to do what they want.

Fairly good article here:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/n ... ess18.html

A nice money quote from the article:

With Russia, flush with oil money, a booming economy and a rebuilt military no longer bogged down in Chechnya, the stars were aligned for a confrontation in which Putin could, with a quick show of force, teach a lesson to the U.S., Georgia and all of the former Soviet satellites and republics seeking closer ties with the West.

How dare countries seek to escape the shadow of Russia!!!

P.S. Pravda Online is a nationalist/sensationalist/right wing tabloid.

[dpwolf]

A nice money quote from the article:

With Russia, flush with oil money, a booming economy and a rebuilt military no longer bogged down in Chechnya, the stars were aligned for a confrontation in which Putin could, with a quick show of force, teach a lesson to the U.S., Georgia and all of the former Soviet satellites and republics seeking closer ties with the West.

How dare countries seek to escape the shadow of Russia!!!

I like this one:

Bush lost that battle but won two others the next day that angered Russia: NATO leaders agreed to endorse a U.S. missile-defense system based in Eastern Europe, and the Europeans said invitations to the membership plan for Georgia and Ukraine might come in a year, at the next summit.

Putin, in Bucharest to speak, was cordial but clear, saying Russia viewed "the appearance of a powerful military bloc" on its borders "as a direct threat" to its security.

"The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice," Putin said. "National security is not based on promises."

P.S. Pravda Online is a nationalist/sensationalist/right wing tabloid.

perhaps but nonetheless interesting for another viewpoint

[Flex]

Putin, in Bucharest to speak, was cordial but clear, saying Russia viewed "the appearance of a powerful military bloc" on its borders "as a direct threat" to its security.

"The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice," Putin said. "National security is not based on promises."

Umm... this utterly eschews any sense of sovereignty on the part of Russia. Everyone is always so fucking pissed when the U.S. takes this kind of attitude (regulating what other countries are or aren't allowed to do to defend themselves), but you'll defend it here... why? As Hooky said, all sides are villains here but in principle I support Georgia's right to associate with whatever countries or interests it chooses to over Russia flipping its shit that another country in the region might not want to play lapdog anymore.

perhaps but nonetheless interesting for another viewpoint

Right, the same way Fox News here in the states is interesting for another viewpoint.

Addendum: I don't like it when the U.S. interferes in the policies of other countries, and I don't like it when Russia does it either. Georgia has plenty of egg on its face in this affair, but if the mainstream media is making an error its in not exploring Georgia's complicity in these events - not in overly demonizing Russia, which deserves these current characterizations.

[dpwolf]

Putin, in Bucharest to speak, was cordial but clear, saying Russia viewed "the appearance of a powerful military bloc" on its borders "as a direct threat" to its security.

"The claim that this process is not directed against Russia will not suffice," Putin said. "National security is not based on promises."

Umm... this utterly eschews any sense of sovereignty on the part of Russia. Everyone is always so fucking pissed when the U.S. takes this kind of attitude (regulating what other countries are or aren't allowed to do to defend themselves), but you'll defend it here... why?

I suppose the answer to that is geography.

As Hooky said, all sides are villains here but in principle I support Georgia's right to associate with whatever countries or interests it chooses to over Russia flipping its shit that another country in the region might not want to play lapdog anymore.

So would you similarly support Cuba's right to align itself with Russia?

Addendum: I don't like it when the U.S. interferes in the policies of other countries, and I don't like it when Russia does it either. Georgia has plenty of egg on its face in this affair, but if the mainstream media is making an error its in not exploring Georgia's complicity in these events - not in overly demonizing Russia, which deserves these current characterizations.

I don't mean to sound so sure of myself on this - I'm not and want to discuss and figure it out. I worry that Russia might not deserve the amount of demonization it's getting in this particular instance. I suspect Putin, etc., those in charge in Russia, are too frustrated with the present U.S. administration to even attempt to explain (justify) their actions.

[Flex]

I suppose the answer to that is geography.

So countries are allowed to be sovereign until they exist near a superpower and then they should have to be subject to the whims of said superpower? Maybe that's what actually happens (it is, basically), but I don't think that's what should happen.

So would you similarly support Cuba's right to align itself with Russia?

Basically. We more or less drove Castro into the waiting arms of the USSR back then. I think pursuing our own national security interests re: the Cuban missile crisis through diplomatic channels was the right thing to do. I don't think arming Cuban insurgents was the right thing to do.

I don't mean to sound so sure of myself on this - I'm not and want to discuss and figure it out. I worry that Russia might not deserve the amount of demonization it's getting in this particular instance. I suspect Putin, etc., those in charge in Russia, are too frustrated with the present U.S. administration to even attempt to explain (justify) their actions.

Obviously, our understanding of the situation is changing as events unfold - but I'd at least start with the premise that Putin et al. are as duplicitous and wedded to overarching state power as anyone in the US. These are people trying to develop and maintain a sphere of power and influence regardless of whether the satellite countries want to be a part of that sphere or not. Much like the U.S. does (to much deserved criticism).

Addendum: It's worth noting this critique is coming from a standpoint of "buying into" the state and all the basic premises of sovereignty etc. that come with it. We could probably do an interesting and different critique from a different angle, but for the purposes of discussing the villainous actions of those involved, I think it's fair to think the primary actors more or less believe in the sovereign state as its traditionally conceived.

[dpwolf]

Obviously, our understanding of the situation is changing as events unfold - but I'd at least start with the premise that Putin et al. are as duplicitous and wedded to overarching state power as anyone in the US. These are people trying to develop and maintain a sphere of power and influence regardless of whether the satellite countries want to be a part of that sphere or not. Much like the U.S. does (to much deserved criticism).

Isn't there a fundamental difference when you're dealing with a satellite whose borders touch your own. In other words the U.S. is trying to develop and maintain a sphere of control across the ocean, far away in other lands, next to it's 'enemy' the bear, while Russia is, at least arguably, simply defending its own border, including against such unfair U.S. attempts to control and influence.

Edit: the real question I suppose is that if the Georgian government is doing some sort of ethnic cleansing and/or killing innocents, shouldn't the U.S. support Russia's decision to stop them? Have we truly made this investigation or is it simply because the Georgian government is U.S. supported?

[Flex]

Isn't there a fundamental difference when your dealing with a satellite whose borders touch your own. In other words the U.S. is trying to develop and maintain a sphere of control across the ocean, far away in other lands, next to it's 'enemy' the bear, while Russia is, at least arguably, simply defending its own border, including against such unfair U.S. attempts to control and influence.

I think what the U.S. does is "fair" insofar as its being done above board and through treaties, organizations, etc. It's important to stress that Russia has been illegally supplying insurgents with weapons to fight a state which is refusing to do what Russia tells it to. This recent outbreak of violence is a logical conclusion to such a policy. I don't give a flying fuck if the state in question is a neighbor or across the world. States shouldn't be in the business of arming insurgents. Period.*

*Caveat: Unless, of course, we're rejecting the legitimacy of the state. Then all bets are off.

[dpwolf]

I think what the U.S. does is "fair" insofar as its being done above board and through treaties, organizations, etc. It's important to stress that Russia has been illegally supplying insurgents with weapons to fight a state which is refusing to do what Russia tells it to. This recent outbreak of violence is a logical conclusion to such a policy. I don't give a flying fuck if the state in question is a neighbor or across the world. States shouldn't be in the business of arming insurgents. Period.*

*Caveat: Unless, of course, we're rejecting the legitimacy of the state. Then all bets are off.

I'm not sure it's that black and white. I know two wrongs don't make a right but the U.S. has illegally supported insurgents in the past and will no doubt in the future. The U.N. didn't support the war against Iraq because there was no evidence of WMD but the U.S. nonetheless illegally formed its bullshit collition of the willing and invaded, as Putin and others are quick to point out. Maybe you're against the Iraq war as well but regardless in the context of international politics legality doesn't mean much these days, for better or worse. I agree in an ideal world states shouldn't be in the business of arming insurgents in and against other states - but state and regimes change and they are in that business, like it or not. They are in that business because they reject the legitimacy of other states, from time to time as they deem necessary for defense of their own. So the bets are already off.

Here, however, and unlike Iraq, Russia's actions were provoked by Georgia's illegal invasion of S.Ossetia, a country trying to be separate and independent from Georgia. Georgia has been supporting insurgency within independent S.Ossetia for years. So you're judgement upon Russia's actions against Georgia should apply equally to Georgia's actions against S.Ossetia. The real question for me is - political philosophy aside - whether Russia is trying to do the right thing here; maybe Georgia is and did as Putin says. Maybe it should be stopped. Putin has a lot more credibility in my mind than Bush; he certainly has a higher approval level, nationally and internationally.

Putin on the U.S. reaction:

"The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing -- the attempt to turn white into black, black into white and to adeptly portray victims of aggression as aggressors and place the responsibility for the consequences of the aggression on the victims. ...

They of course had to hang Saddam Hussein for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "But the current Georgian rulers who in one hour simply wiped 10 Ossetian villages from the face of the earth, the Georgian rulers which used tanks to run over children and the elderly, which threw civilians into cellars and burnt them -- they (Georgian leaders) are players that have to be protected."

[Flex]

I'm not sure it's that black and white. I know two wrongs don't make a right but the U.S. has illegally supported insurgents in the past and will no doubt in the future. The U.N. didn't support the war against Iraq because there was no evidence of WMD but the U.S. nonetheless illegally formed its bullshit collition of the willing and invaded, as Putin and others are quick to point out. Maybe you're against the Iraq war as well but regardless in the context of international politics legality doesn't mean much these days, for better or worse. I agree in an ideal world states shouldn't be in the business of arming insurgents in and against other states - but state and regimes change and they are in that business, like it or not. They are in that business because they reject the legitimacy of other states, from time to time as they deem necessary for defense of their own. So the bets are already off.

I'm, as I think I've been pretty vocal about for years, against the Iraq war. You state right in the second sentence that "two wrongs don't make a right," but then go ahead and try to... are you defending the Iraq War? Are you saying that because the U.S. invaded Iraq that every country should get some freebies in terms of aggressive and illegal foreign policy? I think this whole paragraph is basically an obfuscation of the original premise of this thread, which was about whether Russia was being wrongly villainized. That belies an ethical or moral component, which is what I've been talking about. Regardless of how we expect states to act, the analysis here is about what is the ethically proper way for states to act. I don't see how you can possibly defend what Russia has done as ethically proper. I'm not saying Georgia is doing is ethical either, but we were talking - particularly - about Russia.

I think if you're a state, and you buy into general theories of legitimacy, the threshold for what you consider an "illegitimate state" has to be pretty high. To be sure, Russia recognizes Georgia's legitimacy as a state and vice versa. When I brought up the legitimacy angle, I meant that I was basically arguing this from the standpoint of tacitly accepting the state as as a legitimate entity. If we don't accept that, then our sense of moral outrage may take a different shape (although it probably still wouldn't be of much benefit to Russia, a classic case of a state striving form authoritarianism of some form).

Here, however, and unlike Iraq, Russia's actions were provoked by Georgia's illegal invasion of S.Ossetia, a country trying to be separate and independent from Georgia. Georgia has been supporting insurgency within independent S.Ossetia for years. So you're judgement upon Russia's actions against Georgia should apply equally to Georgia's actions against S.Ossetia.

You're making a leap no one else in the world is making to claim S. Ossetia is a separate state from Georgia. This, of course, is where Georgia gets egg on its face. But not the way you think. When Georgia sends troops into S. Ossetia, it's sending troops in to quell a rebellion in its own country. Last I checked, that was a legitimate function of the state, insofar as we accept the state as legitimate to begin with. Even Russia doesn't recognize S. Ossetia as a separate state, which means that from their perspective they aren't even helping defend a country from attack. They know damned well they're fighting in Georgia. That's why my analysis of the two countries is different - because they're doing different things.

The reason Georgia is wrong here is because they aren't willing to let S. Ossetia go, which they should since the province doesn't want to be a part of the country of Georgia. The reason it's important to note that this is why Georgia is being a villain in this whole affair is because, obviously, it has ramifications on the legitimacy of Russia's actions.

The real question for me is - political philosophy aside - whether Russia is trying to do the right thing here; maybe Georgia is and did as Putin says. Maybe it should be stopped. Putin has a lot more credibility in my mind than Bush; he certainly has a higher approval level, nationally and internationally.

You know, for a guy who always acts under the assumption that the government is the lying enemy, you sure as shit are quick to throw your trust behind a guy who is nakedly attempting to return Russia to more authoritarian days. Bush and Putin are peas in the same pod, or at least very similar pods. Russia has acknowledged that their interest in this whole affair is to maintain and expand its "sphere of influence," if they actually gave a shit abou S. Osetia and all the people dying they would a) recognize it as a separate country and b) petition through the U.N. to secure the safety and independence of the state it is so kindly helping by invading. That Russia is more interested in either a) seizing S. Osetia for itself or b) slapping Georgia back down so it falls back in line with Russia's regional agenda, is pretty telling. Bottom line: Russia hasn't done a damned thing which would suggest its interested in actually helping S. Osetta out for, like, altruistic and moral purposes.

Putin on the U.S. reaction:

"The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing -- the attempt to turn white into black, black into white and to adeptly portray victims of aggression as aggressors and place the responsibility for the consequences of the aggression on the victims. ...

They of course had to hang Saddam Hussein for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said. "But the current Georgian rulers who in one hour simply wiped 10 Ossetian villages from the face of the earth, the Georgian rulers which used tanks to run over children and the elderly, which threw civilians into cellars and burnt them -- they (Georgian leaders) are players that have to be protected."

The U.S. position has been wrong in both Iraq and the Georgia/Russia conflict. Devastatingly wrong on Iraq, a little less devastating but still pretty wrong on Georgia.