What's Cooking, Russia?

Mike -  they are calculating and they were provoking the conflict as much as they could. Georgian territory was under rocket fire, georgians fled the area close to South Ossetia. Russians needed it and needed fast.

Russia had difficulty accepting a diminished role in the world affairs. A lot of people feel that though Stalin was a monster, he made Russia a powerful country which was feared. There is a lot of Machiavellan in Russian politics. Nicolo Machiavelly said that choosing between love and fear, it is good to have both, but since you can't get both, you better get fear. It is embedded in Russia's history.

If you look at American History, there were wars and there were deals. Manhattan was purchased for $24 (I can be wrong on the price), Luisianna was bought for $15 Mil, Alaska was bought either for $4 or $7 Mil. Russia never bought a sq. inch. It could go for a 5-year war to win a sq. inch, but never tried to buy anything. This is a deeply rooted mentality of the non-democratic world. We live in fear, the rest of the world should live in fear. If they are not afraid, this is a disaster. The world is not afraid of Russia...

Ted - There is no question that for Russia this is a calculated move. They provoked the conflict, and this is not the first time they do that.

I hope though that is the case with Russia there will be a strong reaction from European countries.

the saga of Russia is far from over, and these years are the nicest ones because of the oil prices. The oil prices going down would be a bad thing for Russia, as I do not see it being able to sustain itself in a global economy. Russia has been for years selling the resources. Attempts to sell the product, or even semi-processed natural resources did not work well. So, it is raw petroleum, raw coal, raw logs.... For a country like Russia this is a road to disaster. If China is emerging as a competitor, Russia is again turning to the weapons as a way to "buy" prosperity not as much as selling it, which is a huge source of income, but the way of less brandishing for economic stimulus. A shameful arrangement, but quite in line with the aspirations of many Russians.

Simon -Oil is what made Russia look and feel prosperous. They are not acting from a desperation like North Korea could. This is an attempt to get back to a more prominent position in the world. And it will be at some other countries expense. Leaders of the Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Poland are an indication of it.

Russia is not happy losing control over former Soviet Republics, and Russia would do everything to get them back one way or the other, or control them one way or the other, and they could not do it before. Now they can. America is weak, Russia is a big bear (that's how Georgians call it - the bear). Europe will not be happy, but these are huge political points for Putin, and this is his ace against any attempt from the new Russian president to shift from the position to the real power. He got the war that he didn't want, and he is playing Putin's game. I doubt that he likes it, I am sure he can't do anything about it.

Politically the country is sliding to state controleed capitalism, which is the closest to freedom of castrated to marry. A lot of happiness and no kids. 

Nicholas - Ouch! Thanks for pointing it to me. Of course, you are right. I make a lot of those mistakes. I wanted to change it, but then decided that I should have been punished for that, so I made a note there, but left it.

Actually, I always asked everyone around me to correct me when I was making mistakes. Everybody agreed but never corrected anything. When there was something so obvious, that I was catching it myself, I would turn to them and ask why they did not correct me. The answer always was that they did not need to as they understood what I wanted to say.

Thanks again. I am still learning.

Ted - I was a kid during the Cuban crisis. It was a phenomenally irresponsible action on Kruschev's part. He was acting like a gambler, and, actually bluffed. THere was colonel Penkovsky, who provided very important information to US that helped Kennedy knwo where they were bluffing, and that actually helped to prevent the nuclear disaster, gave Kennedy the inside knowledge.

I read about those Russian submarines during the crisis. They were at some point blocked by Americans, and they did not have the communication with Moscow, and the captains did not know what to do. I never knew that actually the decision to start the rockets with nuclear warheads was in their hands, and I am still proud that these men chose not to be cheap heroes. If this si more a myth than reality, I like that myth. People should be responsible. Especially when their leaders are not.

Jeff -  I am a bit confused. Where and when did you see that UN was able of doing anything serious? This organization is not capable of intervening in critical situations.

As fir the "New World Order" I hope you would soon understand that America has the obligation to really get involved in setting the rules. Not because if wants to, but because in this small world anything happening in any part of the world is affecting us.

World is not what you think about it. It is 99% a gang, so that you can understand it better, and that gang will do what gangs do, unless someone puts them in jails or takes them out. And this is what America does not want to do, but had to do.

In American liberal world you need to leave everyone alone, and then they are not going to bother you. In real world, you simply give them time to get strong and attack you.

Not interfering with and not setting the bastard straight cause WWII. If Western World would not allow taking over the Sudets by Germans (by the way, under exactly the same pretext that Russians used to attack Georgia), then there would not be WWII. But liberals were saying that we needed to live Hitler alone, and Hitler promised NEVER TO ATTACK ANYBODY. We all know the rest.

So, in my opinion, the sooner we will start building the order in the world, the better.

Bill -  I may not be fair, but I usually suspect some sinister intentions when it comes to Russia, Putin, or whoever is there.

Afgan war was a disaster for Russia, but if you watch any videos of that time, you would see AK-47 used by Afganis. Where were they getting all that weaponry and munitions? They were buying it from the Russians, right there. That was an indecent trade, and it was wide spread. Everyone knew about it, but nobody really cared.

Pilots bringing coffins to Russia from Afganistan. Turned out not just coffins, they used them to bring narcotics in the coffins.

Only 4% of the Army is capable of engagement with the enemy. Look at Georgia, who is fighting there. Russians brought the Chechens, they hate Georgians, and Russia would never pass on something like that. But this is just a small group. The major force is Pskov Aiborne Division (I do not know how to translate it to English, I guess the closes will be like Green Berets). How the heck they got to Georgia from North-West Russia? Or, they are part of any military act. There are a few such divisions like that.

With the morals like they are, and with the army, like it is, there is no way in hell they can sustain a military action against NATO, but they are calculating, and opportunistic, and, unfortunately, they get what they want.

Russia is not a stabilizing force in the region, unfortunately it is the opposite. Long decades of Russia's dominance strained its relationship with every neighbor and with every former Soviet Republic. Respect is not on the menu in Russia's political culture, and letting Russia to get away with anything is setting the stage for a future serious standoff.

Simon -  I am afraid this is Catch 22. Europe is succumbing to Russia's pressure against accepting Ukraine and Georgia as NATO members, so Russia pretty much is playing all them.

I understand why America wants normal relationship with Russia, but on the other hand there is no love. Russia is using America to blame for anything and everything. All Russia's troubles have always been blames on US. Does Putin knows better? He does. But this is convenient, and he wouldn't fight the lies.

On the other hand, to be fair, we are talking about Russia, not Georgia. And because we do nt find any valid reason to trust Russia, this does should not automatically add credibility to Georgia. I am not sure NATO would want to get a member who is capable of provoking neighbors, and who has a very poor record of being friendly to its own subjects.

With all the tricks Russia uses, Georgia was giving them plenty of reasons to be way more afraid of Georgia, than Russia.

It is not the reason to invade them, of course.

Bill - Your question is way bigger than I can handle. I would simply point that this is an expected situation when the country collapses and desintegrates into smaller independencies. It is very difficult for any country, but it becomes nearly impossible for multi-national countries.

Take Yugoslavia. A major ferocious and destructive war. I think the only country that really managed to do it in a civilized fashion was Czechoslovakia. Yugoslavia couldn't. They are a group of even different ethnicities, different religions. They were a wonderful community of smaller nations while they were under a very tight control. It is like you can keep something in the can under high pressure, but when you open the can loose, the stuff just flies out uncontrollably. It takes time to learn how to live in a different political and economic space.

When the Soviet empire fell apart, you have huge pieces like Kazakhstan, which are realtively stable because of the absolutely dominant nation - the Kazakhs, so this is pretty stable country. Its shere size is a factor of stability. Plus they have every natural resource you would think about: oil, coal, gas, ores, developed agriculture... Russian population, quite significant, is OK. THey have to acknowledge the changes like learning Kazakh languagte at schools, some national chauvinism, but not much. You can say that Russian chauvinism is replaced by Kazakh chauvinism.

You go to the Ukraine, and you have a huge country of 46.4 Million, not a small one by any standards. Over 77% of Ukrainians and a lot of Russians, they are clashing with Russians, and former closest countries are far from being on good terms. But Ukraine is all Orthodox Christian, and the anymosity towards Russians is simply a matter of power struggle.

However, when you get to the Caucasus, it is all different. A lot of smaller nations and no clear dominant nation bring those cessesionist movements. Everyone is king. You have Christians (Georgians, Armenians), Muslims (Azeri), you have historically tense relations stemming from frivolous moves of the borders and taking and giving chunks of territory, and that's how South Ossetia ended up with Georgia, and that how Ukraine got the Crimea, and that how Russian got Sochi on the Black Sea. It all now became major issues of contention.

If georgia were 40 Mil, there would be no problem with Ossetia, or Abkhazia, but Georgia is only 4 Mil and this is the reason both republics are vying for Russian umbrella.

Ted - I do not think Georgia was the goal of Russia. They are using it to try to scare the world and keep the world away from Poland and Czech Republic and the Ukraine.

There is a hysteria in Russian media about the ill intentions of US in the region and that this is against Russia, and that this would diminish Russia's military presence and that they would have top get Belorussia involved and set rockets of Iskander type in Byelorussia, and that is what you heard some generals make statements, which is in itself an absurd, as how come Generals are talking about what they would do in terms of politics and geo-politics? But this is Russia, they let anybody voice the crap but they do not need logic. In the US a general making such statements on behalf of the country would get his &%^ on fire. Not in Russia.

I am not an expert, but there is something I do not understand.

1. US is planning to set Patriot missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. They are not the means of aggression, they are the means of defense. They are capable of taking down ballistic missiles, which are the means of aggression. So, if Russia has no intentions to use aggression, how come they are so pissed off?

2. Why not look at who is asking for becoming a part of NATO and all that protection? All of them are former Russian allies. The shortest period they were together was since 1944-1945. So, they are so unhappy with the neighbor behaving un-neighborly, that they want to make sure they are not that vulnerable to Russia as Abkhazia to Georgia.

As you say, it is going to be worse. This will happen when the prices for oil will drop, and Russia would also become an unstable country unable to provide its citizens with food and basic necessities. Having a hungry power monster, brandishing arms, is dangerous. I do not think that there is an alternative to confronting Russia as Reagan did it.

With the oil money out they would not be able to compete. Reagan knew it. Do our candidates understand it, or they would rather lecture them on good manners?

Ted I missed one your statement from the comment, thought it is better late than never. A small correction: Georgia is connected by land to Turkey, and Turkey is the NATO member.