Bush Visits Georgia

[Skeddan]

participate as a major European power within the more sophisticated political structures that now exist.

 

Have I misunderstood, or are you seriously suggesting that Russia should join the EU? (If so, perhaps one might also hope that the US might join as well?) If not, what do you mean by participating as a major European power within "the more sophisticated political structures that now exist"? (and which political structures do you have in mind?).

[manshimajin]

participate as a major European power within the more sophisticated political structures that now exist.

 

Have I misunderstood, or are you seriously suggesting that Russia should join the EU? (If so, perhaps one might also hope that the US might join as well?) If not, what do you mean by participating as a major European power within "the more sophisticated political structures that now exist"? (and which political structures do you have in mind?).

No. Apart from its size the political, human rights and judicial situation in Russia would make it impossible for it to join the EU in the foreseeable future. I also doubt that they would feel comfortable agreeing to surrender those elements of sovereignty necessary to be an EU member.

 

But Russia can develop a mature relationship with the EU just as EEA member states have done. It could also use its membership of the CBSS (Council of Baltic Sea States) to develop greater economic cooperation in that region and in particular to build trust with the former USSR annexed states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and with the former Warsaw Pact state of Poland. Within Europe we need to move away from paranoia to mutual respect and collaboration. Feeling sore about losing parts of the USSR Empire is a stage Russia probably has to pass through but their (and our) best hope will come when it is possible to have normal business and political relationships rather than displays of machismo.

[mollag]

Now for Cuba, how many years of total embargo? Bay of Pigs et al -can Russia do the same with Georgia? Organise a phoney invasion and lie constantly about it, cut them off from the outside world,perhaps a poisoned cigar?

 

Grenada

Panama

Vietnam

Loas

Afghanistan

Iraq

 

Gosh i reckon there may be a few more out there.

 

As i say time to stop and look at what we have become-----tragic , we are but a mirror image of Russia.

I don't think any of us would disagree that the West has some answering to do about its actions - but I thought we were talking about a specific situation in Georgia which Russia has been stirring up for years insead of helping to calm things down. I am sure you don't believe that Western transgressions justify USSR and Russian ones such as:

 

Finland - Winter War

Seizure of Baltic States

Liquidation of Kulaks

Theft of Eastern Poland

Katyn Massacre

Suppression of opposition in Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland etc

Invasion of Afghanistan

Interference in affairs of:

Chechnya

Dagestan

Moldova

Armenia

Ukraine

Georgia

 

It would be great if/when Russian leadership develops a sense of self-confidence and maturity that allows them to participate as a major European power within the more sophisticated political structures that now exist.

 

 

But thats my exact point, theres no bloody difference between us, so how dare we stand in judgement of Russias actions, we would/have done the same and worse, that surely is the basest hypocracy

 

We have some answering to do, but Russia are just bad bastards--that dog wont hunt,

 

If i may paraphrase

 

" It would be great if/when Western leaderships develops a sense of self-confidence and maturity that allows them to participate as a major powers within the more sophisticated political structures that now exist."

 

Europe has become, in the main, the tail of the USA dog---the UK is that spot just below the tail.

 

Does anyone think that the USA would allow any neigboring countries to be armed and allied with Russia in the way they have operated with Poland/Ukraine/Georgia-?---never in a million, Dubbya underestimated his opponent big style and has had a hoof in the goolies-----silly George. [ditto for Iraq]

[Skeddan]

I see! - now that's a very interesting thought! First off, I agree about moving away from paranoia to mutual respect and collaboration. (I heard a Russian analyst the other day talking about how the Russian 'way' is to become aggressive and expansionist when it feels under threat).

 

Building the kind of linkages and ties with Europe as you suggest could be a very good way forward. Russian-EU collaboration (if could get over distrust) could also help check both US and Russian exceptionalism. Being well-behaved could then be in Russia's best interests... (also it might also give an alternative to US military bases in Poland). Yes, as you say, there'd have to be a lot done to build trust in former annexed states - Baltics and Poland among others, but with economic tie-ins, mutual interests, and co-dependency buidling it could work. A Russia-EU 'accord' is an extremely interesting scenario! In fact it is probably one of the more realistic solutions given that a workable process towards this could be worked through. However achieving this would be a lot easier with Lisbon Treaty provisions. Factor in India as well... It would seriously change the dynamics and could be a very good thing.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

But thats my exact point, theres no bloody difference between us, so how dare we stand in judgement of Russias actions, we would/have done the same and worse, that surely is the basest hypocracy

 

We have some answering to do, but Russia are just bad bastards--that dog wont hunt,

 

If i may paraphrase

 

" It would be great if/when Western leaderships develops a sense of self-confidence and maturity that allows them to participate as a major powers within the more sophisticated political structures that now exist."

 

Europe has become, in the main, the tail of the USA dog---the UK is that spot just below the tail.

 

Does anyone think that the USA would allow any neigboring countries to be armed and allied with Russia in the way they have operated with Poland/Ukraine/Georgia-?---never in a million, Dubbya underestimated his opponent big style and has had a hoof in the goolies-----silly George. [ditto for Iraq]

 

I think it is the arse-licking British government that needs to moves away from its political and military obedience to the USA and move closer towards Europe so Europe can have a better chance of being an equal partner to the USA.

 

I think if anything it is the US and Europe that needs to back-off in its stance towards Russian. NATO is getting bigger and bigger, expanding into regions where the Russians previously had influence. I don't blame the Russians for feeling threatened and pissed off when the Baltic States joined NATO and it is shocking to think the Ukraine and Georgia may join. And then you have the expansion of the EU, with Moldova(!) being a candidate.

 

 

I do think though that the unfortunate thing about this South Ossetian and Akhazian conflict and Kosovo is that nationalism is a very strong force in the world. As far as I am aware, these regions were already autonomous, and there is another region in the south of Georgian with a non-Georgian ethnic background that doesn't feel to need to fight for independence. And what will independence achieve? Only self-determination in the extremely limited sense of one government no longer primacy over the affairs of a region. It sounds more like a substitution of one ruling body of people for another. So I don't really feel much sympathy for the South Ossetian cause. Whereas I think the U.S., the U.K. and Russian policy is hypocritical, but I wouldn't expect any better.

[manshimajin]

I think it is the arse-licking British government that needs to moves away from its political and military obedience to the USA and move closer towards Europe so Europe can have a better chance of being an equal partner to the USA.

 

I think if anything it is the US and Europe that needs to back-off in its stance towards Russian. NATO is getting bigger and bigger, expanding into regions where the Russians previously had influence. I don't blame the Russians for feeling threatened and pissed off when the Baltic States joined NATO and it is shocking to think the Ukraine and Georgia may join. And then you have the expansion of the EU, with Moldova(!) being a candidate.

I would love to see the UK getting closer to Europe, signing the Schengen Agreement and becoming a member of the Eurozone. Scrap Trident as well.

 

What puzzles me though is why does anyone in Europe actually need to feel 'threatened' by either the USA or Russia? I can't see that we have (or need to have) arguments with either of them nor really should they have arguments with one another, or anyone in Europe. It just seems that for both these powers and their leaderships it is convenient to get people to focus on "external threats" rather than on domestic issues.

 

I just wish the Russians would stop trying to destabilise their neighbours, making threats over gas supplies and sending their got-rich-quick oligarchs to live in London. And....for the USA to change Presidents asap and reduce their dependency on imported oil pretty smart quick.

[mollag]

It seems energy is at the heart of it all, the USA govt is/was composed of Oil oligharchs and military---keep an eye on Jeb Bush.

 

Not so it seems in Russia--it jails oil barons there

[manshimajin]

It seems energy is at the heart of it all, the USA govt is/was composed of Oil oligharchs and military---keep an eye on Jeb Bush.

 

Not so it seems in Russia--it jails oil barons there

At least Roman Abramovitch made it to Governor of the Chukotka Region of Siberia from 2000 to 2008. Just hope he lets Vlad use the yacht at the weekends whilst he's watching Chelsea.

 

And former Gazprom chairman Dmitry Medvedev is President of Russia these days. Mollag are you absolutely sure Dubya has not moved over to 1 Kremlin Avenue?

 

Seems the Russians like oil men in the top jobs there too. Do you think they'll jail Medvedev because he was an oil baron:

[La_Dolce_Vita]

I think it is the arse-licking British government that needs to moves away from its political and military obedience to the USA and move closer towards Europe so Europe can have a better chance of being an equal partner to the USA.

 

I think if anything it is the US and Europe that needs to back-off in its stance towards Russian. NATO is getting bigger and bigger, expanding into regions where the Russians previously had influence. I don't blame the Russians for feeling threatened and pissed off when the Baltic States joined NATO and it is shocking to think the Ukraine and Georgia may join. And then you have the expansion of the EU, with Moldova(!) being a candidate.

I would love to see the UK getting closer to Europe, signing the Schengen Agreement and becoming a member of the Eurozone. Scrap Trident as well.

 

What puzzles me though is why does anyone in Europe actually need to feel 'threatened' by either the USA or Russia? I can't see that we have (or need to have) arguments with either of them nor really should they have arguments with one another, or anyone in Europe. It just seems that for both these powers and their leaderships it is convenient to get people to focus on "external threats" rather than on domestic issues.

 

I just wish the Russians would stop trying to destabilise their neighbours, making threats over gas supplies and sending their got-rich-quick oligarchs to live in London. And....for the USA to change Presidents asap and reduce their dependency on imported oil pretty smart quick.

 

But then it is the USA, EU, and NATO that is expanding into Russian areas that makes Russia feel threatened. The only outcome is to lead to Russia and then the West taking more aggresive action against each other.

 

It is always convenient to get the electorate to focus on the foreign-policy issues because it detracts from the importance of domestic issues.

 

I agree that borders should be eradicated, but I think that Britain's foreign policy would be a little less unsavoury if there was a European army and armed forces, rather than Britain having an ostensibly independent force which in reality relies heavily on the US.

 

But the people making the threats and the people destabilising other countries are the elites in government, and not the general populace. It is the Georgian Government, Russian Government, and the governments of the West who are the players here.

[mollag]

It seems energy is at the heart of it all, the USA govt is/was composed of Oil oligharchs and military---keep an eye on Jeb Bush.

 

Not so it seems in Russia--it jails oil barons there

At least Roman Abramovitch made it to Governor of the Chukotka Region of Siberia from 2000 to 2008. Just hope he lets Vlad use the yacht at the weekends whilst he's watching Chelsea.

 

And former Gazprom chairman Dmitry Medvedev is President of Russia these days. Mollag are you absolutely sure Dubya has not moved over to 1 Kremlin Avenue?

 

Seems the Russians like oil men in the top jobs there too. Do you think they'll jail Medvedev because he was an oil baron:

 

 

What? jail the pocket puppet president?--naah, that most likely wont happen

[manshimajin]

But then it is the USA, EU, and NATO that is expanding into Russian areas that makes Russia feel threatened. The only outcome is to lead to Russia and then the West taking more aggresive action against each other.

 

It is always convenient to get the electorate to focus on the foreign-policy issues because it detracts from the importance of domestic issues.

 

I agree that borders should be eradicated, but I think that Britain's foreign policy would be a little less unsavoury if there was a European army and armed forces, rather than Britain having an ostensibly independent force which in reality relies heavily on the US.

 

But the people making the threats and the people destabilising other countries are the elites in government, and not the general populace. It is the Georgian Government, Russian Government, and the governments of the West who are the players here.

Basically we are singing off similar hymn sheets. The only thing I would say is that countries such as Poland, the Baltic States and the Ukraine were not in the 'Russian area' historically. They were 'incorporated' off and on at various times in their history and have now regained their rightful and full independence.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Basically we are singing off similar hymn sheets. The only thing I would say is that countries such as Poland, the Baltic States and the Ukraine were not in the 'Russian area' historically. They were 'incorporated' off and on at various times in their history and have now regained their rightful and full independence.

 

Yeah you are quite right, although it is the fact that Russia has had control over these territories for most about fifty years and quite recently that makes it such a touchy thing. And considering the proximity of the Baltic States and the Ukraine to the Russian heartland I think it is very dangerous that these countries will be accepted into NATO.

 

Though I dislike the current nationalistic fervour across the world, if the Polish, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. are congratulated for attaining their independence, what about the South Ossetians? The same principle applies.

[manshimajin]

Though I dislike the current nationalistic fervour across the world, if the Polish, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. are congratulated for attaining their independence, what about the South Ossetians? The same principle applies.

I understand that the modern-day South Ossetia was annexed by Russia in 1801, along with Georgia proper, and absorbed into the Russian Empire at that time. Ironically the Russians integrated SO into Georgia. I suspect that the Russians may want to re-annex it. However your point is right about congratulating those who want and gain independence. Luckily Poland and the Baltic States gained their membership of the EU and seperation from the Warsaw Pact (Poland) and Russia (Baltic States) by peaceful means.

[Skeddan]

Though I dislike the current nationalistic fervour across the world, if the Polish, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. are congratulated for attaining their independence, what about the South Ossetians? The same principle applies.

I understand that the modern-day South Ossetia was annexed by Russia in 1801, along with Georgia proper, and absorbed into the Russian Empire at that time. Ironically the Russians integrated SO into Georgia. I suspect that the Russians may want to re-annex it. However your point is right about congratulating those who want and gain independence. Luckily Poland and the Baltic States gained their membership of the EU and seperation from the Warsaw Pact (Poland) and Russia (Baltic States) by peaceful means.

 

Very interesting. I hadn't looked into the history as you have. It puts a bit of a different spin on things. If South Ossetia was originally an independent state, then it could well be legitimate for it to regain its independence and break away from Georgia if it had been illegally annexed in the first place.

 

LDV's question is very relevant -

 

if the Polish, Latvians, Lithuanians, etc. are congratulated for attaining regaining their independence, what about the South Ossetians? The same principle applies.

 

Russia may want to re-annex SO, but that would require 'freely expressed will and desire' of hte people of SO - i.e. self-determination. You might suspect this could be rigged, but maybe that's what people in SO want (maybe), and maybe they might choose free association or independence if they were given the choice. So why shouldn't SO regain its independence, and then determine its political future as it sees fit? (because we fear it would be annexed by Russia?).

 

If anything then, Georgia is wrongfully denying SO's right to regain its independence. Russia have every right in international law to support a national liberation movement in a situation where this is trying to liberate from foreign subjugation - as may be the case in SO and Georgia (ironic as that might be!).

[manshimajin]

Very interesting. I hadn't looked into the history as you have. It puts a bit of a different spin on things. If South Ossetia was originally an independent state, then it could well be legitimate for it to regain its independence and break away from Georgia if it had been illegally annexed in the first place

 

Russia may want to re-annex SO, but that would require 'freely expressed will and desire' of hte people of SO - i.e. self-determination. You might suspect this could be rigged, but maybe that's what people in SO want (maybe), and maybe they might choose free association or independence if they were given the choice. So why shouldn't SO regain its independence, and then determine its political future as it sees fit? (because we fear it would be annexed by Russia?).

 

If anything then, Georgia is wrongfully denying SO's right to regain its independence. Russia have every right in international law to support a national liberation movement in a situation where this is trying to liberate from foreign subjugation - as may be the case in SO and Georgia (ironic as that might be!).

 

Gets complicated. The South Ossetians were moved from the Don region of present-day Russia in medieval times to part of the Georgian principality of Samachablo which lies entirely within South Ossetia. Under the protection of the Georgians the Ossetians found refuge there from Mongol invaders. So on that basis the SOs are trying to gain control over territory in which the Georgians allowed their SO ancestors to settle for safety.

 

Maybe the answer would be for the Russians to give the Ossetians a country back on the Don where they came from originally and let the Georgians retain their territory of 'Samachablo'???? Now that would be really generous and fraternal...Would not be the first time the Russians 'resettled' populations either.