quote:

The real objective is the Finlandization of Georgia through the removal of President Mikheil Saakashvili and his replacement by a Russian puppet.

Which explains Putin stopping the Russian army (for now) short of Tbilisi. What everyone overlooks in the cease-fire terms is that all future steps � troop withdrawals, territorial arrangements, peacekeeping forces � will have to be negotiated between Russia and Georgia. But Russia says it will not talk to Saakashvili. Thus regime change becomes the first requirement for any movement on any front. This will be Putin�s refrain in the coming days. He is counting on Europe to pressure Saakashvili to resign and/or flee to �give peace a chance.�

The Finlandization of Georgia would give Russia control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is the only significant European-bound route for Caspian Sea oil and gas that does not go through Russia. Pipelines are the economic lifelines of such former Soviet republics as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that live off energy exports. Moscow would become master of the Caspian basin.

quote:

For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force - not simply Russian troops.

No matter how this conflict started, Russia has escalated it well beyond the dispute over South Ossetia and invaded another country. Russia has escalated its military campaign through strategic bombing and the movement of its ground forces into the heart of Georgia. There is no possible justification for these attacks.

quote:

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike�100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
Of course, it's always the fault of the USA!

quote:

Didn�t the USA actually "break" a well-established treaty with the Soviet Union / Russia, when it initiated its Star Wars defense system?

quote:

After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in December 1991 the status of the treaty became unclear, debated by members of Congress and professors of law, Succession of the ABM Treaty,State Succession and the Legal Status of the ABM Treaty, and Miron-Feith Memorandum. In 1997, a memorandum of understanding[4] between the US and four of the former USSR states was signed and subject to ratification by each signatory, however it was not presented to the US Senate for advice and consent by Bill Clinton.

On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that requires six months notice before terminating the pact. This was the first time in recent history the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the Missile Defense Agency

quote:

No comments on the Russian invasion of Georgia

quote:

Obering said that Poland, a staunch ally of the United States, and the Czech Republic, had been chosen after an analysis of the possible missile trajectories from Iran to Europe and from Iran to the United States. Germany was considered, he said, but Poland and the Czech Republic provided the best interceptor and radar coverage of the trajectories.

quote:

This is in Russia's back yard, and they a long history of being paranoid (for good reason) about encroachment of their "borders."

quote:

Yes, historically that's true, but not in the last century, where they've been the ones who've not only encroached, but annexed, conquered, etc. That's probably more in Poland's memory than Napoleon's march on Moscow.

quote:

As you recall, they did all these things, and we took a stand. Nevertheless, they helped prop up Cuba until the end of the empire, and we allowed it. Not much to do about Venezuela, either.

quote:

After Georgia falls, Ukraine would become the next target for Russia�s belligerence. And before you know it, the new Russian petro-empire would be dominating Eurasia, recreating the old Soviet Union�with Russian nationalism and the Eastern Orthodox Church replacing Communism as ideological glue�and forcing Western Europe, dependent economically on Russia�s energy resources, to submit to Moscow�s dictates. Hence the need for America to draw the line at the border between Georgia and Russia.

But Americans who read a bit closer have to conclude that the conflict doesn�t involve core U.S. strategic and economic interests and that the moral and historical claims being raised by the warring sides are at best ambiguous. In fact, as seen from Moscow, it�s the U.S. that has reneged on commitments it made at the end of the Cold War. In the Kremlin�s view, America has been implementing an aggressive military strategy aimed at weakening Russia by extending NATO to its borders, installing U.S. antiballistic missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic, and obliterating a former ally in the Balkans while strengthening rising anti-Russian forces in Ukraine and the Caucasus, areas that were traditionally seen by Russia as part of its sphere of influence.

Wouldn�t Americans see Russian policy as hostile if Moscow invited Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador to join the military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization? Or encouraged a Russian-government-backed version of the National Endowment for Democracy to assist anti-American political parties in activities against pro-American governments in Mexico, Panama, and Costa Rica? Or installed Russian antiballistic missiles in Cuba? Wouldn�t U.S. troops be landing in Panama if a pro-Russian government in Bogota, clamoring to join the STO, tried to regain control of Panama, which in a move backed by the U.S. seceded from Colombia in 1903 and became an American protectorate?

quote:

.... to the extent globalism worked, it followed from three unspoken assumptions:


First, the U.S. economy would keep importing goods from abroad to drive international economic growth.

Second, the U.S. military would keep the sea-lanes open, and trade and travel protected. After the past destruction of fascism and global communism, the Americans, as global sheriff, would continue to deal with the occasional menace like a Muammar al-Gaddafi, Slobodan Milosevic, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong-il or the Taliban.

Third, America would ignore ankle-biting allies and remain engaged with the world � like a good, nurturing mom who at times must put up with the petulance of dependent teenagers.

quote:

Meanwhile, the hypocrisy becomes harder to take. After all, it is easy for self-appointed global moralists to complain that terrorists don't enjoy Miranda rights at Guantanamo, but it would be hard to do much about the Russian military invading Georgia's democracy and bombing its cities.

quote:

So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that in large part America was the model, not the villain � and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions

Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s � with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.

If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we were to treat the environment as do China and India, the world would become quickly a lost cause.

If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.

Brace yourself � we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.

quote:

I'm not understanding why that's a provocation

quote:

Russia has to learn to get along with these new democratic governments and not threaten them with a nuclear attack because they plan to put up a missile defense shield which could be used to fend of a variety of foes.

quote:

Empty words." That's how Moscow glibly dismissed NATO's criticism yesterday of Russia's continued occupation of Georgia. The Russians may be bullies, but like all bullies they know weakness when they see it.

The most NATO ministers could muster at their meeting in Brussels was a statement that they "cannot continue with business as usual" with Russia. There was no move to fast-track Georgia's bid to join NATO, nor a pledge to help the battered democracy rebuild its defenses

quote:

Originally posted by AMH v2.0:

quote:

Didn�t the USA actually "break" a well-established treaty with the Soviet Union / Russia, when it initiated its Star Wars defense system?

No - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...istic_Missile_Treaty

quote:

On December 13, 2001, George W. Bush gave Russia notice of the United States' withdrawal from the treaty, in accordance with the clause that requires six months notice before terminating the pact. This was the first time in recent history the United States has withdrawn from a major international arms treaty. This led to the eventual creation of the Missile Defense Agency

quote:

The corporatist leadership of Russia, entirely dependent on oil and gas revenues for its economic viability, has an essential stake in promoting global instability. A stable world encourages a drop in oil prices. It is no coincidence that Russia is at the core of the two major threats to world stability: Iran and the invasion of Georgia. Worried by a major drop in oil prices, creating severe economic problems for Russia, the Kremlin has a cosmic interest in promoting turbulence whenever and wherever it can.

Georgia represents the last pro-Western bridge to bring oil and gas from the central Asian former Soviet states to t he west. Three times as much oil flows over rail tracks on the bridge near Gori which Russian aircraft destroyed as through pipelines from Russia.

Bush�s response to the Georgia attack has been prompt and skillful. Introducing American troops into Georgia on a humanitarian mission makes it clear to Russia and to the Georgian people that the United States will not abandon its ally, but it does so in a way that deters further Russian moves.

quote:

Writing for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Brian Whitmore said: "Before the guns of August, there were the manoeuvres of July.

"Less than one month before Russia's armed forces entered Georgia on Aug 8, they held massive military training exercises in the North Caucasus involving 8,000 servicemen and 700 pieces of military hardware.

"At centre stage in those manoeuvres - which took place in the second half of July, not far from Georgia's border - was Russia's 58th Army, the very unit that would later play a key role in the incursion.

"Those exercises are just one link in a chain of incidents suggesting that Russia's military action in Georgia was planned months in advance, awaiting only an appropriate pretext to act."

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
HP noted: I will, however, repeat my initial point: Mikheil Saakashvili is a very dangerous man. His military adventure in Souther Ossetia was designed to provoke, and he was the first aggressor. Saakashvili is playing with fire -- and NATO should be very wary, indeed.

Why do you say he's a dangerous man?

quote:

Writing for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Brian Whitmore said:
"...suggesting that Russia's military action in Georgia was planned months in advance, awaiting only an appropriate pretext to act."