> ...but blowing up airstrips is generally pretty pointless as a security measure since they're extremely easy to rebuild as soon as the occupying army is gone...

LOL! The Russian Army has no plans to be "gone" any time soon.

The point of blowing up the airstrips is to make it harder for western forces to reinforce Georgia once they realize what is about to happen.

"Gone". Oh, my, that's funny.

Zones. Provocation. Excuse. Retaliation.

Reminds me of the 12 year long "no-fly" zones imposed over Iraq.

wow, it took all of three comments (one of them spam) for someone to start the pointless, irrelevant and incorrect America-bashing.

You're getting slack.

Zeus has a good military point...but a scary one. I hope the Russians don't decide to stay in Georgia...it we again supply the relevant weapons, (stinger missiles and javelin anti-tank rockets), this will be a replay of Afghanistan for Russia.

Really, they don't want to go there.

Equally interesting, this thread like the past ones on this subject...will bring out the nutters, and what does this say about Russia and their rabid supporters, flecks of spittle from their venom flying all over the room...lol

But just from reading these threads I hope that people are getting a sense on what it must be like for the Georgians, (Estonians, Poles, etc) to...maintain the peace over the years with these kinds of people.

Ruski's are tough, nothing wrong with that. Honorable people can honorably disagree...but maybe not with a Russian.

Different rules apply.

Ahem.

Be Good & Best Wishes, Traveller

Or maybe the Russians are hoping to provoke the Georgians into fighting back so that they have an excuse to stay?

Or maybe the Russians expect to be attacked again, just like the first time.

Every other news report says roughly the same thing: despite Russian claims that they're pulling out, there's no sign on the ground that they're going anywhere at the moment.

There's the map.

Moscow Times says:

Russian troops continued blocking the major Georgia's east-west road near the town of Kaspi, roamed the town of Borjomi and continued demolishing the Senaki military base on Monday, Georgian Foreign Ministry said.

So, in the West, they are in strength at Senaki, (according to the WaPo) a few units in Zugdidi (the last place they'll leave), and apparently a few strays wandered over to Poti, which is the first town down the road from Senaki.

In the East they are in heavy force at Gori (the last place they'll leave since it's due south of Tskhinvali AND the former HQ for the Georgians that attacked AND the main road/rail/river junction in the country and thus the main supply line for everybody else), at Kaspi/Ignoeti (the main eastern checkpoint), and on the west side of Ossetia, they're ranging around Kashuri, Borjomi, and Sachkhere, although whether they got to the last spot from the north or they traversed Zestap'oni to get there is hard to say. They've been at Ignoeti/Kaspi for five days or so, and haven't moved any further east towards T'bilisi.

So, if they were going to overrun 'Georgia Proper' completely, they would've been done by now. The looting appears to have stopped completely (see Iraq, occupation of), and the areas were they were engaged in ham-fisted occupation of a typical sort (like Gori) are now mainly checkpointed.

So they seemed to have thinned out the troops some, but they haven't given up any turf. I don't know why they're in Borjomi (would this be where the bridge was supposed to have been blown up?), excepting that was one of the areas where Ossetians outside of South Ossetia (and North Ossetia, obviously) were clustered.

Why? Another example of "extra security measures"? Perhaps, but I wonder if there's more going on. Somebody should correct me if I'm mistaken about this, but blowing up airstrips is generally pretty pointless as a security measure since they're extremely easy to rebuild as soon as the occupying army is gone. So why bother?

1) They haven't overrun Georgia. They don't intend to take it.
2) They seem to have decided that the whole thing was an election incident cooked up by the neo-cons. (And I agree with them, except I think Sasha may have really believed that the Americans would back him up because the Americans told him they would, whatever ass-covering bullshit anonymous sources may be spewing at the moment. So Sasha got hung out to dry, I think.)
3) The way Bush and Rice are talking implies that the US (by proxy or possibly directly) intends to drive the Russians out of Ossetia and Abkhazia as soon as they get the chance.

The Russians have moved up the S-21's, blown up the airbase and maybe a rail bridge and then we have this from the same Moscow Times article. (Again, the MT is hostile to Putin.)

The police had blocked an unpaved road that leads north from the village to the Akhalgori region, which is formally part of South Ossetia but has not been touched by the conflict and has a mixed Georgian-Ossetian population. The government in Tbilisi said the region was seized over the weekend by a mixed Russian and Ossetian force.

As armored vehicles arrived Monday, a colonel got out of a UAZ jeep and told local police chief Vladimir Dzhugeli that he had five minutes to clear the road, which was blocked by three vehicles, two Toyota pickup trucks and a Skoda.

When Dzhugeli replied that he had orders to protect the villages, he and the Russian officer, who would not give his name, haggled while ringing up each other's superiors. After the colonel had briefly talked over Dzhugeli's cell phone, he ordered his vehicles to proceed, pushing aside a pickup and badly damaging the Skoda.

When the column had gone up the road, another one with five vehicles took the same road. Many of the men sitting on the vehicles were wearing white armbands, identifying them as irregulars.

And that means they intend to defend Akhalgori, with armor. The ceasefire specifies a nine mile wide perimeter around Ossetia and Abkhazia. Since they moved up the missles, they obviously intend to hold South Ossetia. So what they will likely do is pick the best defensive positions forward of the Ossetian boundary, and position the artillery a little further back, just inside the Ossetian line. Which is why it's taking them so long and they won't let journalists into Ossetia; they're basically building a DMZ, minus the demilitarized bits.

Since they fully intend to hold it, AND the indications are that the US intends to attack ASAP, via proxy or otherwise, AND Sasha already attacked once and implies that he intends to do so again, then the blowing up stuff falls into place. They're making it difficult to establish logistical support to the areas in front of their defensive perimeter. So they blow up a bridge (maybe), they shuffle their units around getting them positioned, since the interior lines in Ossetia suck, they blow up the ammo dumps to force the US to resupply, etc. They move up SS-21 launchers not because they want to hit T'bilisi (which is a prestige target, less militarily important than Poti), but so they can pound supply trucks and the like before those (hypothetical) trucks can get near to the Russian front line.

You're correct: repairing the runway to support fighters or ground attack aircraft would be easy. But, of course, the Georgians wouldn't base fighters that close to the front line anyways, there's no need. But if I'm right, the runway they blew up was a reinforced runway capable of supporting heavy bombers (as in B-52s), big gunships, and, particularly heavy cargo aircraft, such as the C-130 or for that matter the AC-130 gunship. I expect the particular scenario they wish to delay would be something like having the 82nd Airborne unloading at Sennaki right in front of their lines - while under ceasefire.

So all that ought to buy them 90 days. At which point, if McCain wins, and given how he's been talking not to mention neo-con doctrine, they're probably more worried about riding out an American preemptive nuclear strike, which would make the problem of defending Ossetia pretty much irrelevant. See Able Archer. What they probably want to do right now is delay a full-scale war. So they're engaging in some pretty mild (for them!) scorched earth tactics.

max
['They're pretty good at defense, you know.']

World War III will occur on President McCain's watch - count on it!

You may begin digging your fallout shelters now....

I think the US would be quite peeved if Russia had spent the last 7 years trying to set up missile bases and alliances in Canada and Mexico. I seem to remember quite a snit about Cuba some years ago. Boys seem to have very selective memories when they are beating the drums of war.

I'm still wondering what conversations Randy Scheunemann had with his former (March 2008) client Saakashvilli about the planning of this folly. Did Saak do McCain a solid, giving him a chance to show how he "knows how to win wars" with a brand new unsoiled conflict (unlike the bungled Iraq war or the bo-oring Afghan waste of time) so he can call all the shots and be a Glorious Victor?

Re-igniting the Cold War plays right into McCain's hands, appealing to the worst of us, an old GOP ploy. After 7 years of the ruthlessness of Cheney on display, many Americans, though not our pliable media, believe they would stoop this low. And I bet the Russians think the same.

WARNING: engaging trolls. Skip over this post if not interested.

Equally interesting, this thread like the past ones on this subject...will bring out the nutters, and what does this say about Russia and their rabid supporters, flecks of spittle from their venom flying all over the room...lol

spittle??? venom??? S'pose if you're really, really, really, really squeezing those ideological blinders tight around your skull, could look so (s'pose... though pulling less tight might be a better solution)...

and it's true that these threads seem to bring out a certain silly Traveller... Look, if you're going to do nothing but spew unsupported assertions and snort prejudices, at least have the courtesy to be brief like am. He at least recognizes he has nothing much of use to say.

So here, let me suggest a way for your to show your rhetorical prowess. Build your case for Ukraine's inclusion in NATO. Instead of a cheesey sales tactic - which runs something like 'since I, Traveller, say 'no' to Georgian inclusion, my saying 'yes' to Ukrainian inclusion must somehow be right because my opinion should somehow be important to strangers and that's all I really need to say on the matter' - try making a real honest to goodness argument with every opinion, every assertion, well and ably supported and link through to your supports.

and fer chrissake, ditch that adolescent 'lol'

Long-time readers will understand what I mean when I say that you read like Charlie and rdw rolled into one.

I'm not so sure airfields can be rebuilt *that* easily, especially if the runway chunks are big enough and strewn around awkwardly enough. Certainly it would cost a lot of money, which the Georgians may not have and don't want to spend to rebuild what they had, and which we can't afford anymore than we can afford anything we're spending on. And the Russians don't want a re-re-militarized Georgia, so they're giving that message to Saakashvili and everybody else involved.

BTW, I agree that the original green light to Georgia was coordinated with either the McCain campaign or the Cheney shop, or both. They had absolutely nothing to lose by doing it and everything to gain, and they have a record of provoking military action under false pretenses. So people get killed and injured and lose everything they've worked for all their lives-- hey, if you want to make an omelet you've got to break a few eggs, right?

I think you're reading too much into the russian comments. Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsym is a glass half empty type of guy.

On the other hand, if you're going to assassinate someone you might as well pretend like you're defending yourself/them and scream something about the bullets being blanks for good measure.

Russian troops had been is S. Ossetia for 15 years before this happened. Their job, agreed upon by both Georgia and Ossetia? To prevent an attack on S. Ossetia by Georgia, or vice versa. Whatever you think of Putin, the Russians holding S. Ossetia against Georgia is pretty justifiable. Georgia broke their deal.

The US can repair airfields very quickly. The Georgians may not be able to do so. The Russians need to destroy material that can be used to fuel and insurgent war. They don't want to repeat the mistake the US made in Iraq of not securing and destroying weapons caches.

Afghanistan got us where exactly? We supported religious fundamentalists in a proxy war against Afghani secularists that were committed to education, women's rights and modernizing the country all in order to ding the FSU as part of the Great Game. Well the great game dinged the FSU, but it also created blowback for us and hell for the Afghanis.

We should not make this policy about US. We need to ask about establishing peace, rule of law and respect for minority rights. Where exactly does using the military to attack minorities (by the Georgians) fit in this picture?

"Nearly 100,000 people have been forced to leave their homes as a result of the conflict in South Ossetia, the United Nations refugee agency said Tuesday.

The figure includes some 30,000 South Ossetians that have fled to North Ossetia in Russia and up to 12,000 internally displaced within South Ossetia, said Ron Redmond, spokesman of the UN High Commissioner for Refugee" Why should Russia tolerate Georgian nationalists creating a refugee problem for them?

Yes, Russia needs to leave Georgia so the 50,000+ refugees within Georgia can go back to their daily lives. A proxy war is bad for the civilians. The US should NOT rearm Georgia if Russia leaves. We should help the displaced rebuild their civilian infrastructure instead. Can't we all just get along?

God dammit that pisses me off.

Actually signing some agreement and then breaking it is pretty bad. We can't go to war against Russia (I mean we don't have the resources just for starters let alone the moral or logistical high ground) but damn I wish they could be forced to adhere to their agreement.

>"blowing up a key railroad bridge over the weekend, they took the time Monday to blow up an airfield in western Georgia too."

Lying at the root of the matter is the fundemental fact that many humans just like to blow shit up.

Unfortunately, these people are often found in positions of power. I guess it is not too surprising though, they crave power so they can blow shit up.

They will pull out. They don't want to be stuck occupying Georgia. The Georgian's don't like the Russians and will resist with an insurgency. They will bleed the Russians. The Russians gain by pulling out.

Good thought Ron-Applied to another situation:

We will pull out. The US people don't want to be stuck occupying iraq. The Iraqis don't like the US and will resist with an insurgency. They will bleed the US. The US gain by pulling out.

What the Russians are doing or not doing now is the reason the main goal of U.S. foreign policy in that region should have been to keep them from getting into Georgia in the first place.

Personally, I don't care what the Russians do in Georgia in geopolitical terms because Georgia is clearly in their sphere of interest and has been for the last several centuries. Russians are politically paranoid about being encircled, which anyone who has read anything about them ought to know. They were bound to overreact to even a perception of the West attempting to dominate them, which is undoubtedly what they see the U.S. doing with it's unconditional support for Georgia's actions in Ossetia.

We could easily have supported Georgia's supposed democracy for years without getting in a conflict with Russia if we'd gone about it in the right way, which we didn't. Instead, we apparently misled Georgia's rulers into thinking we'd save their bacon if they poked the bear with a sharp stick (to mix a few metaphors). Well, we couldn't, and probably shouldn't, have. After all, let's suppose the Russians began arming Mexico. I suspect we'd be less than pleased.

The Georgian's don't like the Russians and will resist with an insurgency.

Er, the S. Ossetians (and Abkhazians) identify way more with Russia than with Georgia. Many of them are Russian citizens.

Kevin, why are you fixating on Georgia. We are not all Georgians -- especially the people in South Ossetia, etc. Despite the hue and cry from the US, the rest of the world accepts that Georgia blew it (probably because we pushed) and the Russians acted rationally in their own national interest. This is a good lesson for the new president -- don't empower vp's to make war.

snicker-snack wrote: "Long-time readers will understand what I mean when I say that you read like Charlie and rdw rolled into one."

Good grief, that makes me realize I have been reading these comment pages for way too long.

I wonder just how stupid the Georgians are. Will they start a insurgency...you know car bombs, IEDs, and horror of war...supported with money from charities for the georgian orphans???

Seems to be some sort of fad for libs to worry about insignificant far away problems while our country goes down the drain. A couple of Russians in Georgia pales in comparison to the Mexican invasion of the United States.

when is the usa pulling out of Iraq ( and leaving the Oil behind ) ?? uh huh thought so.

instead of worrying about the Russia / georgia situation, why not spill some ink / pixels on the ongoing illegal / immoral / War Criminal Occupation of Iraq ??

jeebus when did this site become an extension of the pentagon propaganda ministry ???

I'll confess that I haven't been following the Russia/Georgia embroglio as closely as I have followed similarly serious events in the past. I think it's because I believe my own country has neither the intelligence, the skill, nor the moral credibility to affect the situation in any way. All the US can do -- all it IS doing -- is wave its arms, scream and yell inanities, and rattle its sabers. The whole scene fits poor old Senator McCain like a glove.

Good grief, that makes me realize I have been reading these comment pages for way too long.

Ditto. This can't be good.

Whatever you think of Putin, the Russians holding S. Ossetia against Georgia is pretty justifiable.

Not so justifiable when you remember that S. Ossetia is within the sovereign country of Georgia, not Russia. The Russians have an extremely unfortunate history of "holding" (read "invading and annexing") their neighbors' territory.

Oh please,
"I'll confess that I haven't been following the Russia/Georgia embroglio as closely as I have followed similarly serious events in the past. I think it's because I believe my own country has neither the intelligence, the skill, nor the moral credibility to affect the situation in any way. All the US can do -- all it IS doing -- is wave its arms, scream and yell inanities, and rattle its sabers. The whole scene fits poor old Senator McCain like a glove."

Give me a break. Just because of the current administration has fucked things up, doesn't make Russia automatically in the right, and doesn't make them immune from criticism. What, is criticizing Russia the new anti-Semitism or anti-Catholicism of leftists and "realist" foreign policy gurus (many of which just happen to have Russian last names?).

Being all wishy washy like this is why people think liberals are sometimes wrong on foreign policy. You don't need to be a TNR reading, liberal hawk who wanks over pictures of Scoop Jackson and Truman to call a spade a spade, in this case Russia, an authoritarian shithole, is meddling in the internal affairs of a much more democratic neighbor.

Er, the S. Ossetians (and Abkhazians) identify way more with Russia than with Georgia. Many of them are Russian citizens.

Er, they're only "Russian citizens" because the Russians have been handing out passports like candy, not because they have any real legitimate claim to living within Russia's borders.

The Russians have been an expansive military power for hundreds of years. Did we really believe that ended when the old Soviet Union collapsed?

What we are seeing in Georgia is in part the result of our brain dead occupation of Iraq. We couldn't help the Georgians if we wanted to help them. Our military is tied down and what isn't is worn out.

The Russians are in a period of recovery and restoration. They are using their oil revenues to reestablish themselves.

If we don't want to see millions upon millions of people killed we need to be working to convert Russia into an economic power with a lot to lose and little to gain from going to war.

*sighs*. The occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with helping Georgia. Only paranoid fantatics on both the right and left who drool over WW3 scenarios would possibly envision American militay intervention.

Russia is doing what the US would do. Occupation strategies are not driven by political economic ideology.

Liberals and progressives do not support Russia's occupation of Georgia, but they do recognize US policy and military aid to Georgia was intended to intimidate Russian national security. Russia's response proves President W. Bush's US policy is a failure, leading to more violent conflict instead of more peaceful stability. Or maybe W. Bush's policy is a success, if more war was the desired outcome, which is quite likely. Russian military conflict in Georgia provides political cover to the war Republicans, justifying their past aggression and creating a need for increased military vigilance and spending.

I hope the Russians don't decide to stay in Georgia...it we again supply the relevant weapons, (stinger missiles and javelin anti-tank rockets), this will be a replay of Afghanistan for Russia.

Russia can supply the Taliban similar weapons, which surprisingly they have not already done. But there would still be a huge difference between America's occupation of Afghanistan and Russia's occupation of Georgia - Afghanistan does not border the US. And it should not be forgotten the US arming of the Afghani Mujahideen by the US led to the complete destruction of Afghanistan and a similar guerilla war would destroy the rest of Georgia. American militants do not care about Georgia, though.

Actually, during the breakup of the FSU in 1992, Georgia broke off and claimed S Ossetia as part of Georgia during that period. Only problem was that Ossetia, did not want to go and demanded to be autonomous. Autonomy meant maintaining continuity between N and S Ossetia. Since the breakup of the FSU, S Ossetia has been autonomous. Georgia upset this when they used their military against the autonomous S Ossetia.

A similar situation happened during the US Civil War. Virginia seceded but its western counties faced PA and OH, and traded along the Ohio river so they refused to go with the Confederates and stayed with the Union as the new state of West Virginia. The Ossetia situation is not much different. They never wanted to break away from Russia so they became "autonomous". This is why the majority have Russian passports. They never considered themselves to be Georgian

The Caucasus is filled with ethnic groups that get along more or less most of the time but are easily inflamed into culture wars, ethnic cleansing and other bad behavior. The last thing the US should be doing is arming any of these groups or trying to start proxy wars. The last thing the US should do is to support an ethnic majority (like Georgia) in a military crackdown against an ethnic minority. This is Ugly American territory.

McCain and his lobbyist advisors are wrong to support nationalist movements in ethnically diverse powder kegs. Obama is correct to call for a negotiated settlement. S Ossetia will not be part of Georgia because the Georgia government has no commitment to minority rights. Simiarly, Kosovo is no longer part of Serbia because the Serbs had no commitment to Kosovar human rights.

Our long term interests are best supported when we stand on the side of human rights, respect for minorities and against ethnic cleansing.

Ditto. This can't be good.

Read NYTimes article in link. SPlains HOW it got started, WHAT will happen NOW NEEDS to be outaourhands!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/washington/18diplo.html?em

The Russians have an extremely unfortunate history of "holding" (read "invading and annexing") their neighbors' territory.

I think the Russians view this thing as punishment, not grand strategy. So they're doing some punishing. But they have little reason to stay in Georgia proper.

I think the Russians view this thing as punishment, not grand strategy. So they're doing some punishing. But they have little reason to stay in Georgia proper.

Just because of the current administration has fucked things up, doesn't make Russia automatically in the right, and doesn't make them immune from criticism.
I don't disagree with you, but I'd appreciate some substantiation that the consensus here is that Russia is right, and immune from criticism.

*sighs*. The occupation of Iraq has nothing to do with helping Georgia.

"I don't disagree with you, but I'd appreciate some substantiation that the consensus here is that Russia is right, and immune from criticism."

Jesus Christ, on practically every left/center blog covering the Georgian War, daring to criticize Russia gets you automatically labeled as a neocon cock sucker.

"h, yeah. You sure about that? If you mean right here and right now, say so explicitly. 'Cause I'm pretty sure Georgie's sandbox adventure can safely be considered partially or largely causative to Georgia's current and future predicament,"

Or, you know, hundreds of years of Russian imperialism that predate the Soviet Union. Like the annexation of Georgia in the 19th century...

I know we all love to criticize the fuckwads running the country, but come on folks, self loathing only takes you so far. The Russians have motives that are hardly honorable too, and have nothing to do with Iraq, unless you happen to think the US would've intervened if we hadn't invaded Iraq, in which case you're a *left* wing moonbat.

Here's a question for y'all: why is American imperialism (quite rightly) condemned, but Russian imperialism get a pass from the same chattering class that thinks we should get out of Iraq ASAP?

Come on folks, big countries invading and fucking up small countries is wrong, regardless of whether or not its Russia or the US who is doing it.

Stefan - most of the south west of the USA was once Mexican sovereign territory so I hope you will support handing that back to the Mexicans.

Max - FWIW, I think that is a fairly good analysis of the Russia' intentions. The only additional comment I would make is that Russia's continued occupation of parts of Georgia probably makes a US/UK/Israeli attack on Iran a lot less likely, as even the Pentagon won't want to be involved in four hot wars when it is having problems with just two hot wars. So are the Russians buying time at low cost?

Anyone who thinks that a Georgian insurgency will bleed Russia dry - forget it, insurgents must have a sea of sympathetic locals to swim in - take away the locals and you will have no insurgency - if an insurgency does start expect a short bout of fairly gentle "ethnic cleansing"***, the clearing of "special security zones with a security fence" around the outer perimeter of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and then an end to the insurgency. OK, the Georgians could launch a few cross-border attacks into Abkhazia and South Ossetia but then the Russians will launch "hot pursuits" into Georgia. A few of those and the Georgians will get the message.

*** - the Israelis did the same thing sixty years ago and nobody has done anything to correct it - what makes anybody think it will be different for the Russians.

unless you happen to think the US would've intervened if we hadn't invaded Iraq,

Russian imperialism is not receiving a pass from liberals and progressives, it is rightly condemned, but within the context that US involvement greatly influenced events. America helped Georgia attack S. Ossetia. America armed Georgia and convinced its president the US would somehow defend Georgia if Russia retaliated to the attacks on S. Ossetia.

If the US would keep its military hardware out of Georgia, the Russians would keep their military hardware out of Georgia, too. Georgia's alliance with the US has earned a similar response as Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union. Foreign weapon systems placed in neighboring countries creates opportunities for unnecessary military conflict. W. Bush knows that and encouraged it.

Comrades and Fellow Americans:

Time to get out of all occupied lands. The occupiers are evil; the rest of us (is there anyone in this group?) are good.

Amanda writes in part:
Here's a question for y'all: why is American imperialism (quite rightly) condemned, but Russian imperialism get a pass from the same chattering class that thinks we should get out of Iraq ASAP?

Come on folks, big countries invading and fucking up small countries is wrong, regardless of whether or not its Russia or the US who is doing it.

Well didn't we give them a stern wag of the finger and remind them that this is the 21st century? On the other hand, some of us may simply think that issuing bombastic statements and hollow threats doesn't really amount to a serious response. Nothing wrong with a little wonkery; it's the wankery that bothers me. I wouldn't trust Bush and company to umpire a little league game, let alone intervene in a clash between two players as flaky as Russia and Georgia.

'Here's a question for y'all: why is American imperialism (quite rightly) condemned, but Russian imperialism get a pass from the same chattering class that thinks we should get out of Iraq ASAP?' - Amanda

My response to your question is that I don't think Russia's invasion of Georgia (hardly Shock and Awe) was an imperialistic venture. Although I mentioned this in another thread but think it bears repeating is that one 'fact' that isn't being reported about now is that Russia went to the UN Security Council on JULY 8, 2008 to ask that an agreement be drafted and signed by Abkhazia, S. Ossetia and Georgia reaffirming their previous UN commitment to nonviolence in addressing their disagreements. The US and Great Britain on the UN Security Council VETOED the Russian draft proposal, saying that they would only support it if there was an effort to repopulate the two republics with Georgians. The Russians argued, reasonably in my estimation, that this tense time was not a good time for such an effort but that talks could take place when the situation was more stable. So personally I see Russia making a praiseworthy effort at the UN to avoid an armed conflict, one in which they knew they must intervene because of the presence of Russian peacekeepers and support for the allied Republics, and the US and Britain being uncooperative at best, whether from complicity with Georgia or not.

Stefan - most of the south west of the USA was once Mexican sovereign territory so I hope you will support handing that back to the Mexicans.

Uh, no, because I don't operate on the two wrongs make a right theory, and I don't support that any more than I support dynamiting every building in North and South America and deporting every non-Indian on both continents. If I'd been alive during the Mexican-American War, I suppose I'd have opposed it, but I wasn't and there it is. The fact that I don't support rectifying every historical injustice doesn't mean that I can't criticize current injustices as they are happening.

My response to your question is that I don't think Russia's invasion of Georgia (hardly Shock and Awe) was an imperialistic venture.

Oh, come on. That's just silly. Whatever kind of window dressing they put up, their main motivation has always been to expand their hegemonic power over the so-called "Near Abroad."

Something I've noticed in comments here and elsewhere is that criticism of the Georgians' activities that led to violent pushback by the Russians, as well as criticism of U.S. actions prior to the Georgian incursion and Russian reaction, is considered as somehow pro-Russian. Which it's not.

If I see somebody poking a grizzly bear with a sharp stick and suggest he stop doing that, and then when the bear swats him like a gnat sending him to the hospital, I'd likely think he probably got what he deserved. I would not be taking the bear's side; merely observing the logical outcome of the poker's actions. It would be nice if bears would only use sufficient force necessary to make their points. However, that the bear would act with disproportionate force when goaded is a given. Bears only know how to attack at one speed--top and all out. It is, like scorpions in the Middle East, their nature and how they've learned to survive in a hard, hard world.

Somehow during the past eight years, logic in affairs both foreign and domestic has been put aside in favor of wishful thinking. This has proven destructive of world order not to mention our own nation's security and economy. Understanding a rattlesnake will strike if provoked doesn't mean I'm excusing it or supporting it any more than wondering what the heck everyone was thinking on the lead-up to the Georgian incursion makes me a supporter of Russia.

Why should the Russians leave anytime soon when they are obviously making a point to the US and its NATO disciples ? They will leave when they are good and ready and there is really very little anyone in the West will do about it, at least not in the immediate future. It was always a colossal mistake to dangle the NATO alliance in front of states immediately adjacant to the Russian border, especially states with only the faintest semblance to democracies, aside from their so-called open elections. Once again, the west has been blinded by its quasi-religious blind obedience to the ideology of capitalism and democracy, while it's the Russians who are the realists. It would serve everyone's interest to start negotiating seriously, for once, with the Russians on the stabilization of all of Europe, and stop paying so much attention to the former soviet states with their primitive games full of revenge, bluster, and vitriol.

"It was always a colossal mistake to dangle the NATO alliance in front of states immediately adjacant to the Russian border, especially states with only the faintest semblance to democracies, aside from their so-called open elections. Once again, the west has been blinded by its quasi-religious blind obedience to the ideology of capitalism and democracy"

Prove it. Show, by objective, quantifiable standards, that Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland are only shadow democracies that aren't nearly as free as Russia itself.

Otherwise you're full of it, and the fact that people want to live in free, open democracies is a bad thing makes Russia look bad by comparison. Oh, and countries that have been occupied by Russia since the fucking Tsars have damn good reason to be wary of Russia.

"with the Russians on the stabilization of all of Europe"

I have no idea what the fuck this means, but if you think Russia is more democratic, open and liberal than Western Europe, then you're full of crap. Or, explain how a corrupt, hardly democratic Russia is the "stabilization" of Europe.

The point of blowing up the airstrips is to make it harder for western forces to reinforce Georgia once they realize what is about to happen.

There are no US or NATO contingencies whatsoever to "reinforce" Georgia and anyone who thinks so doesn't know beans.

Of course the endless BS around this entire issue and crisis by the Bush administration would make some think so.

Otherwise you're full of it, and the fact that people want to live in free, open democracies is a bad thing makes Russia look bad by comparison. Oh, and countries that have been occupied by Russia since the fucking Tsars have damn good reason to be wary of Russia.

a) The tinpot autocrats running Georgia is no more democratic than the Russian leadership
b) The Russian Tsars freed the western Caucus from Turkish occupation, which had been quite brutal.

Not so justifiable when you remember that S. Ossetia is within the sovereign country of Georgia, not Russia.

That is no different then saying Kosovo was within the sovereign country of Serbia. NATO and its members have been busting off pieces of states for years. Cyprus by a member state (Turkey) with US arms and US arms money, and most recently, Yugoslavia and Serbia.

Here's some good reading on the situation: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/Geopolitics___Eurasia/Caucasus_War/caucasus_war.html.

shadow democracies

Georgia, Kazhakstan, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Azerbaijian, Belarus, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and probably Poland.

Are Poland's leaders being bribed to put American weapons systems in their country, endangering their relationship with Russia?

From Counterpunch:

"Back during the Nixon years, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, Warren Nutter, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. One day in his Pentagon office I asked him how the US government got foreign governments to do what the US wanted. “Money,� he replied."

“You mean foreign aid?� I asked."

“No,� he replied, “we just buy the leaders with money.�"

"a) The tinpot autocrats running Georgia is no more democratic than the Russian leadership
b) The Russian Tsars freed the western Caucus from Turkish occupation, which had been quite brutal. "

I'm referring to actual quantifiable evidence, like the annual Freedom House report, or Reporters Without Borders' reports. Where Russia is a laughable joke.

Ah yes, those liberal, democratic loving Tsars. Since when does the titular left get all wanky over fucking theocratic despots!

Since when does the titular left get all wanky over fucking theocratic despots!

The Dalai Lama has fooled many, including leftists, who do not realize Tibet was a theocratic dictatorship prior to its liberation.

Amanda,

Quantifiable evidence: World Audit's democracy ranking places Georgia at 112 and Russia at 121 (rankings range from 1 (Finland) to 150 (Myanmar).The US ranks 15. As you can see, Georgia is not far below Russia in its democracy ranking. The date of this info is June 2008.

World Audit.org