Fun in Eastern Europe

Hide subcomments

• • deleted user (Visitor)
  • 20.08.2008 @ 19:53:17

  The Poles and the Czechs have lived under the Russian (Soviet) boot for 45 years, which has depleted both countries' economies and morale. No wonder they are now shit scared of the potential re-entry under the Russian umbrella. They will do everything and sign deals with the devil himself to protect themselves.
  Trusting Americans may be a mistake but there are no other candidates willing to challange Russia atm.

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink
  • Show this thread
  • • metyu
    • 20.08.2008 @ 20:28:09

    You're right of course... I forget it takes two to tango!

    • Reply to comment
    • Permalink
• • Climate Heretic (Visitor)
  • http://www.theclimateheretic.com
  • 21.08.2008 @ 15:04:47

  Saw a analyst on CNN that as a Canadian having observed the world for a few decades said something that I have to say seems to be the truth from what I read in the European press. He said...
  
  "Russia has watched and learned how to use the UN and knows how to play the game, they know that the Europeans can always be put off with yet another piece of paper."
  
  Russia provoked this incident and ruined a small democratic country militarily and economically simply to flex its military muscles.
  
  This action is in a direct line of escalation with the rebuilding of Russia's military and the resumption of regular military incursions into neighbouring airspace. Why are we Canadians building a fleet of Ice Breaking Destroyers for Arctic Service with anti-aircraft capabilities here in Canada? To stave off Norway?
  
  Russia threatens the west with violence at every turn, yet some seem to think that Russia is weak and poor and no threat, like some Democrats in the US, one who said "they have no economy, no modern military and little manufacturing"
  
  This is a turning point in 21st century International relationships and very few are seeing it. Even though people are saying there is not a military option, I simply have to say this .. there is always a military option, without it there are no meaningful agreements between countries and it all is really as stated above just another piece of paper.

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink
• • metyu
  • 21.08.2008 @ 18:11:27

  I don't agree that Russia provoked it purely out of it's own aggressive tendencies. The West has been making bilateral agreements with countries surrounding Russia as thick and fast as it can post-Cold War, particularly the US post-911.
  
  Geographically, there is no similar possibility to what is going on. But imagine this hypothetical scenario and ignore geography and politics for a minute.
  
  Let's say China wants to build a missile defence system in Latin America to defend itself from Japan. Chile, Peru, Colombia and Venezuela have all been signing bilateral agreements with China in terms of resources and trade and the new system. China is also coming to terms with Mexico along the same lines.
  
  Mexico, emboldened, decides it wants a piece of Texas. Ok I can't think of a sensible example, but you see where I'm heading - wouldn't the US be justified in getting a little tense, and kicking Mexico's arse and also threatening the Latin American countries, who it has traditionally used to extract its resources from, to serious detriment to the majority of the people in LA?
  
  Wouldn't the US in that scenario feel it was being backed into a corner, and thus be likely to lash out? The feeling in China of course would be, those nasty Americans, keep bullying their neighbours while all we want is protection from Japan.

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink
• • Climate Heretic (Visitor)
  • http://www.theclimateheretic.com
  • 21.08.2008 @ 21:39:16

  This is true regarding NATO and the missle shield, but my friend these countries wanted to join NATO because being under the influence of Russia again is not an option.
  
  The missle shield very rightly will protect NATO countries and all of Europe as well North America and is a defensive installation with no offensive capabilities, So why the outrage?
  
  The only legimate argument is that it will provoke Russia, and we all think Russia is warm and fuzzy now or even more worrying some think harmless, why the worry?
  
  If you have designs on taking back your empire then that is a reason to threaten retaliations weekly about the installations and not want them, if you are planning to be a good neighbour then why the outrage to the point of threats of military actions?
  
  I know the party line here, Russia is being hemmed in by American Imperialism, if they invaded Iraq are we next? etc etc
  
  Russia proclaimed loudly that they would not let Georgia join NATO, period, and one of their Generals was very revealing when he stated that the Georgian actions were a page out of the military strategy handbook. As was the Russian response, it was classic Russian tactics to attempt to legimize actions by provoking confrontations outside of their territory.
  
  Here is the real story that gets glossed over, When Georgia broke away Russia incited the 2 contested regions to resist and conflict ensued, with an ethnic expulsion from the contested regions of many Georgians, they even did something not even legal and issued Russian citizenship to Georgians in the contested regions.
  
  This gave them a claim to take to the UN and say that peace keeping was needed to protect their citizens. Since everyone was looking at the middle east it went by unchallenged, when does a player in a conflict get to be the Peacekeepers?
  
  Russia cozied up to NATO with plans of joint operations and the such to remove any doubt the Bear had no interest in projecting spheres of influence on the former states of the Soviet Union, alot of cumbyahing ensued.
  
  The Russians then built up their forces near the borders waiting for the the correct timing, it was the Olympics, the US election cycle and the pending Polish Missle Shield agreement and the expected provisionary admittance of Georgia and Ukraine at the NATO meeting in December. So they built the infrastructure they needed to move troops and equipment into Georgia, mainly rail lines.
  
  They then simply armed the Ossetians, now who by Russian actions were Russian citizens and effectively made them Russian irregular militia. They then pulled a page from the Hammas playbook and started harrassing Georgian troops until they got a reaction. (Hammas then claims Israel is killing them indiscrimately)
  
  My one question was where were the Russian "Peacekeepers"? Why was there no attempt by the peacekeeping forces to quell the attacks outward from South Ossetia?
  
  In 12 hours the Russians has blockaded the ports, disabled the airfields and moved 15,000 troops and 1200 tanks into the region. This is logistically impossible as a response to surprise aggression, ask any military mind you want.
  
  It was planned and executed perfectly, they claim Georgia started it, even if true (which I highly doubt) the response was so disproportionate as to make the action illegitimate under the UN peacekeeping agreement.
  
  The end result is there is no way NATO can admit Georgia under the controversy this created, and Russia got its goal, a chip to bargain with in regards to the MDS which the blocking of is the ultimate goal short term.
  
  When looking at a crime look for motive, opportunity and intent. Georgia had none of the above.
  

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink
• • metyu
  • 21.08.2008 @ 21:48:53

  All good points. So what is Russia's motive, is it only the MDS? Or to make a point?
  
  A lot has been said about Russia wanting to join international institutions; surely they would realise the response would be to remove Russian access to those?

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink
• • Climate Heretic (Visitor)
  • http://www.theclimateheretic.com
  • 21.08.2008 @ 22:31:26

  Why would this preclude their joining the WTO et al? There is lots of talk but no action can be taken to block them unless sufficent cause can be proven.
  
  They have managed to seed enough doubt into the MSM that they appear the victim of US Agressive Imperialism by the US emboldening Georgia to attack them.
  
  They can simply tie up everything in the UN with resolution after resolution and clog the World Court with complaints.
  
  Russia has what Europe wants and they are tightning control over it. Just ask BP how the they used investment in infrastructure for the energy industry. That particular playbook came from Chavez and the Exxon expulsion from Venezuela. (Russia and Venezuela are embarking on an Energy Alliance as we speak)
  
  Perhaps Ukraine would like to expain what the real concessions were to keep the gas on? (that has never been made public as far as I know)
  
  Russia is Eastern Europe's supplier of energy, but they have a much more sympathetic and willing partner south of their border, so no risk of loss of trade, they can simply starve them for energy, when the democratic governments fail Russia can become the benevolent warm and fuzzy neighbour, by supporting a replacement government that can get the gas and oil flowing again, the sphere of influence grows.
  
  They do not want to occupy in the classic Soviet Union sense, that failed, the new way is to inluence the democratic disintegration and support the replacement by sympathetic parties.
  
  If the US has NATO infrastructure there, namely the MDS, it changes the ballgame because support for the governments will flow from the west and Russian influence will be hampered.
  
  I realize the motive is hard to understand in the 21st century when colonial expansion is over, but Russia still sees the former soviet states as theirs and the growing sentiment in Russia is for it to re-emerge as the couter power to US domination and take it place back as a world power.
  
  Oddly enough the climate change nonesense and Kyoto emission credits put Russia in a very good position if a global carbon trading scheme is put in place. They stand to make some big money from the west and further influence any reluctance to have them join the WTO et al.
  
  http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL0766628420080207
  
  

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink
• • metyu
  • 22.08.2008 @ 11:09:42

  Totally agree re: colonialism. Colonialism never ended. It was always a complicated system whereby imperial powers demanded wealth from other "countries" before many of them had the names we know them by today. Very often it was simply businessmen who had some connections to politicians/monarchy and therefore had the imperial fleet/army at its beck and call, e.g. the East India Trading Company.
  
  The 'systems' still exist whereby elites in our countries manipulate elites in other countries. Hence all the stuff about the President of Georgia.
  
  I don't see that Russia is "wrong" in wanting its former states back, any more than the US is "wrong" in its continued manipulation of Latin America - they are both WRONG in so many ways. Ask the poor in either region.
  
  We are scared of them in Europe; in the UK, we are scared that Gazprom will try to buy Centrica (see e.g. http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2007/rp07-042.pdf and http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/columnists/article1844551.ece ) on our liberalised energy markets.
  
  What with the rise of nationalism around the world, and also the rise of protectionism, this seems like a move from Russia to re-exert its influence. And you're right, they made a killing through Kyoto-1 because their allowance was far greater than they would use due to crumbling industry in the 90s.
  
  This is almost inevitable, considering the way Washington (and let's not ignore Whitehall) has gone about its neo-liberal, human rights and democracy ("end-of-history") agenda.

  • Reply to comment
  • Permalink

• India's Parliament.
  by metyu on 22.05.2009 – 02:56:04
• Pilger: The New Rulers of the World.
  by metyu on 06.05.2009 – 23:32:12
• Waving Goodbye to Consensus.
  by metyu on 29.03.2009 – 23:54:00
• Droughts in the UK.
  by metyu on 09.03.2009 – 16:10:54
• Sustainable Cities.
  by metyu on 06.03.2009 – 10:01:39
• Hulme @ IoI
  by metyu on 24.02.2009 – 23:49:59
• Is it cos I is black?
  by metyu on 14.02.2009 – 14:53:51
• Portal, "Still Alive."
  by metyu on 05.02.2009 – 23:58:38
• NS: "Unnatural selection: Robots start to evolve"
  by metyu on 04.02.2009 – 21:04:21
• cato cc
  by metyu on 31.01.2009 – 02:56:47