I was listening to Bill Richardson on "This Week" say that it's basically Bush's fault that fighting was continuing in Georgia, because if only he had a better relationship with Russia, we could put pressure on them to stop, and Obama would do just that.
Riddle me this: when has any nation anywhere, ever in modern history, put such pressure on Russia to stop doing something like this?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at August 15, 2008 07:33 PM | Email This
This new Russia, man, this is some COLD WAR right here.
If Russia proceeds, while US assets are in country, they look like naked aggressors, and contradict all their diplomatic stories. If any harm comes to a US asset, like a rocket hitting near the hotel that Condi is staying in, it gives the US a reason to defend their humanitarian and diplomatic personnel. Again, a US win.
This is the most passive aggressive response I've seen in a long time. The US is reacting offensively. It puts Russia on the defensive. They are backed into a corner.
What I find fascinating is that the left doesn't care one whit about the Georgians, or their quest for freedom. They honestly believe that the Russians have the right to enslave whoever they want in order to maintain their sphere of influence.
Obama would have taken the Jimmy Carter approach and negotiated a settlement with Russia and Georgia which would not have been worth the paper it is written on. McCain looked much more presidential in how he would deal with this situation than Obama, who had to resort to agreeing with McCain's stand, even though he'd never admit he was initially exercised questionable judgment. They loved Obambam in Europe like a rock-star, who is a paper tiger when it comes to dealing with rogue nations.
Posted by: KS on August 15, 2008 10:10 PMThe kind of pressure we are told Obama can bring, and McCain can't. To be more specific, Lefty Eleanor Clift last week echoed Richardson's sentiments when she said that McCain would "beat the war drum" over Russia, whereas Obama would use "diplomacy."
Reagan beat the war drum with the USSR *as part of* his diplomacy.
I am not saying McCain should do likewise. I am just saying simply having a "relationship" with Russia won't do diddly-squat.
Posted by: pudge on August 16, 2008 07:08 AMAnd where is toothless Europe in this? They cheer Obamination like Mick Jagger, but are keeping their fingers crossed for McCain. Europe realizes that in a crisis, McCain would have his finger on the button, while Obamination would be hiding under the bed with the French and Germans.
Posted by: Saltherring on August 16, 2008 07:18 AMThat Georgian President has to go, what a moron.
Posted by: Doug on August 16, 2008 10:36 AMThe United States is actually a helluva lot stronger military-wise vis-a-vis Russia today, than it was against the USSR during the days of Reagan. We have more than twice the population of Russia, and more than twice the military forces. And the quality of our military forces, on a per capita and per equipment basis, is considerably better than Russia's.
So if we really wanted to do something military-wise, we could. In reality, Bush probably is doing nothing because he wants to do nothing. Bush is a personal friend of Putin, and they have spent time in each other's private residences. The economic relationships of the United States with Russia are a lot more significant than those with Georgia. Halliburton has a lot of operations in Russia. Bush will talk tough, but in the end, he will not jeopardize the financial interests of his supporters.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 16, 2008 10:38 AMIt was Bush's fault.
Posted by: Michele on August 16, 2008 12:03 PMJust because you invite someone to your house doesn't mean you are bestest friends.
So if you invite me to your home, am I expected to VOTE for YOU?
Save the stamp.....
Posted by: Chris on August 16, 2008 12:38 PMSo exactly how would Obama do a worse job than Bush?
Wow, I am shocked that Richard Pope would come in here and try to change the topic of the discussion. Shocked, shocked, I say!
On ABC's "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" last Sunday, as reported by National Journal's Hotline, Richardson said:
"We should immediately go to the United Nations Security Council, condemn Russia's action, and then get the Security Council to pass a strong resolution getting the Russians to show some restraint, and possibly at the same time generate some U.N. peacekeeping troops."
Ah yes. The UN Security Council. Quite the effective track record on such matters. And Russia as an anchor member - with veto power...
I'm wondering if the left has in mind that we should just send troops to Mexico City and overthrow the government there, or maybe just invade Baja. We can always use the excuse that all those Americans who have relocated there are oppressed by the Mexican street peddlers.
Even at the height of illegal border crossings, I never heard the suggestion that we just occupy the territory south of the border. If we had, it would have brought condemnation from around the world, as would be appropriate.
So we just give Russia a pass, and all the Dems think Bush is in cahoots? Pathetic.
Posted by: janet s on August 16, 2008 06:55 PMI did not say it was in the best interest of the U.S. to have the Russians take over Georgia (though I could argue it is). However, it is in the best interest of the U.S. not to have allies that act in a reckless and idiotic way (the way the Georgians have acted in South Ossetia).
Much like the U.S. will publicly call for Israel to withdraw troops after military action in Gaza, the Golan Heights or even Lebanon, we still would behind closed doors tell them that they have the right to protect their citizens and that would include a temporary invasion of Lebanon or disputed areas in order to secure the peace.
Similarily, we would publicly denounce Turkey for invasions into northern Iraq to conduct military action to protect their people, yet behind closed doors would just work to make sure they don't stay there.
In Georgia, it is the same thing, in order for Russia to protect it's people (remember about 99% of the S. Ossetian's - of the 95% turnout -voted to be independent of Georgia, while close to 80% of it's citizens are Russian) they put a hurt to the Georgians who idioticly violated an old cease fire while Putin was away thinking they could get away with it. I would hope that Condi and Bush, in their discussions with the Russians, have told them to get their job done quickly then exit Georgia. At the same time I would expect the U.S. and Nato to insist that the Russians be allowed to keep a force in S. Ossetia to protect it's people.
Posted by: Doug on August 16, 2008 08:11 PMThey understand and honor our patriotism, but feel that we dishonor theirs. I believe this is a valid criticism of Americans.
During WWII the Russians faced 10 times as many Germans as our forces did and yet Americans to this day believe the US won that war single-handedly. They also lost 10 to 100 times more people and fought the war on their land.
That bit aside, I think we need to look a little closer at what exactly went down in South Ossetia.
1. Georgia did attack first,
2. The Ossetians had voted over 80% to secede from Georgia after Georgia declared independence from the USSR, and
3. The Russians long ago declared that they would repel a Georgian invasion of South Ossetia.
Granted, the Russians (and their irregulars) have gone a village too far in their counter-attack, but what they have done was not unforeseen - they have long announced they would do exactly what they have done.
I personally favor a free and independent Georgia, but the Georgians started this and deserved to be taken down a peg.
The Russians have now had their "Grenada" moment. Let wait and see what their "Panama" one is (or perhaps their Kuwait moment).
Posted by: deadwood on August 16, 2008 08:39 PMPrecisely one of the 25 comments in this discussion addresses your question. Some others (such as Pope's) address the general topic and others (such as yours) consist of sniping and ad hominem attacks.
Posted by: Bruce on August 16, 2008 09:46 PMThe Russians relocated many of its citizens to Ossetian territory when this was still the Soviet. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the ethnic minority identifies itself as Russian, not Ossetian?
Georgia had free elections. In the modern civilized world, things are settled at the ballot box, not with guns and invasions. If Russia doesn't like how things are going, they can defend their own homeland, or take its case to the UN. If the Ossetians have a human rights complaint, they have more than ample means to get out their message. So far there is no independent evidence of genocide or any other abuse being made. There is lots of evidence that the Ossetians and Russians are looting and terrorizing the Georgians in the territory.
Like I said, the left and some on the right believe more in tyrants and old world colonization than independence and the right of self determination.
Posted by: janet s on August 16, 2008 09:46 PMPrecisely one of the 25 comments in this discussion addresses your question.
Incorrect. MANY of them are discussing how the U.S. and other nations can, or cannot, influence Russia.
Some others (such as Pope's) address the general topic
Part of his did, yes. But the part I quoted was just a non sequitur.
... and others (such as yours) consist of sniping and ad hominem attacks.
Incorrect: mine was not an ad hominem attack. An "ad hominem attack" is not merely an attack on someone (which mine was, as it was well-deserved), but an attacking someone AS an argument. But I was not attacking him to make a point in the argument, so it was not an ad hominem attack, it was simply a (again, well-deserved) personal attack.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia were never really part of Georgia, in many respects. The USSR arbitrarily assigned those regions to the Georgian Soviet Socialist Republic. However, Abkhazia was an Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic and South Ossetia an Autonomous Oblast. (Not sure exactly how "autonomous" you can get in a one-party state, but most areas of the U.S.S.R. were not "autonomous".) Georgians were never a majority in either South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
When Georgia became independent, the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were mostly in favor of becoming part of Russia, instead of being part of Georgia, and the folks favoring Russia took up arms. The independent Georgian state established in 1991 has never really controlled South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
I am sure that you can easily come up with counterarguments to everything I have said above. But most of the folks in South Ossetia and Abkhazia (except for the Georgian minorities in both areas), and most of the folks in Russia, think they are right and basically view things as I have set them forth above.
Posted by: Richard Pope on August 16, 2008 10:21 PMI sure feel good knowing our military is depleted, and bogged down in 2 wars because of un-imaginable , horrifying, incompetence. We don't have one single division ready for deployment if "something" happens, and we need to protect our national interest. Good thing we have to Boy Scouts to send!
Blame Bush? Name one thing Bush has touched that has not turned to sh*t. I dare you. Oh, I forgot. The wealth of the top 1%. I'm sorry.
George Bush. Bush couldn't even turn a profit drilling for Texas oil in the 70's, even with the help of all his daddy's friends. If it wasn't for insider trading, and the Saudis, he would have been homeless....
George Bush. The only president to be losing 3 wars at the same time. All for just 3 trillion dollars!
Posted by: All Facts Support My Positions on August 16, 2008 10:21 PMWe shouldn't be sending in troops to Georgia, regardless of our military strength. Europe should send in defensive troops, they are the ones who won't have gas to heat their homes this winter. The Europeans have chosen to take the dependent route, and rely on the questionable Russians to provide them their lifeblood. Dumb on their part. That's why we need to develop our own oil resources - stop relying on those who would rather destroy us than prosper.
Hey, Facts, who are those 2 million contributors to Obama? I've suspected that they aren't all legit, but who has the time to investigate $100 donations? They don't even rate full disclosure! Seems, though, that someone is finally looking into them.
Posted by: janet s on August 16, 2008 10:49 PMGet therapy you sorry sack of laundry. Bush not only won- but he made your entire democrat controlled congress look like the idiots they are in the process of winning.
...and Pope- yeah and all this history happened to unfold right now around a big bit of oil infrastructure and Russia is all about helping countries pursue their own independent destiny. just ask the chechians. All those troops and tanks just happened to be lined up along a border that would have otherwise taken weeks or a month to align.
Posted by: Andy on August 16, 2008 10:54 PM"Facts" is the most poorly named person on this site. He basically just makes everything up.
Of course their diplomatic requests to the UN, NATO, and European Union fell on deaf ears, there was no way that the Western Powers were going to let Russia get a few hundred square miles bigger. So we are in a situation where the people of the region of S. Ossetia are fiercely independent, and you have a country of Georgia who would rather than grant them more autonomy within the Georgian country, do whatever they can militarily to bring the people of S. Ossetia to their knees. The Soviet Republic of Georgia, since the '90s have acted like a Soviet Republic in regards to S. Ossetia.
Posted by: Doug on August 17, 2008 08:36 AMThe Mexicans already run LA. Should they be allowed to secede from the USA and annex to Mexico?
Posted by: swatter on August 18, 2008 12:52 PM