RSS
From the New York Times:
A Powerful Russian Weapon: The Spread of False Stories
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR AUG. 28, 2016STOCKHOLM — With a vigorous national debate underway on whether Sweden should enter a military partnership with NATO, officials in Stockholm suddenly encountered an unsettling problem: a flood of distorted and outright false information on social media, confusing public perceptions of the issue.
The claims were alarming: If Sweden, a non-NATO member, signed the deal, the alliance would stockpile secret nuclear weapons on Swedish soil; NATO could attack Russia from Sweden without government approval; NATO soldiers, immune from prosecution, could rape Swedish women without fear of criminal charges.
After all, think about how much more peace and prosperity Sweden would have enjoyed over the last 102 years without its debilitating policy of neutrality.
They were all false, but the disinformation had begun spilling into the traditional news media, and as the defense minister, Peter Hultqvist, traveled the country to promote the pact in speeches and town hall meetings, he was repeatedly grilled about the bogus stories.
“People were not used to it, and they got scared, asking what can be believed, what should be believed?” said Marinette Nyh Radebo, Mr. Hultqvist’s spokeswoman.
As often happens in such cases, Swedish officials were never able to pin down the source of the false reports. But they, numerous analysts and experts in American and European intelligence point to Russia as the prime suspect, noting that preventing NATO expansion is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of President Vladimir V. Putin, who invaded Georgia in 2008 largely to forestall that possibility.
Speaking of disinformation, you know and I know that the NYT’s sentence about who invaded whom in 2008 is deeply misleading. This is kind of like saying
… undermining Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt nine days after Yom Kippur in 1973 largely to forestall that possibility.
But of course we’re all on Putin’s payroll, so we would think that, wouldn’t we?
What’s striking about this is that the NYT itself invested a fair amount of reporting resources in the aftermath of Georgia’s invasion of Russian protectorate South Ossetia to determine who invaded whom, and the Times‘ conclusion pointed in the opposite direction of what it now so breezily claims happened.
Perhaps, though, Putin employs a mole deep in the Times archives with the Winston Smith-like job of rewriting old Times articles to conform with the Kremlin’s current line about what actually happened way back in 2008?
Similarly, the Bush Administration (and future Obama Administration) Secretary of Defense at the time, Robert Gates, wrote in his memoirs:
On August 7, Georgia launched a massive artillery barrage and incursion to retake the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.
But that just proves that Putin’s Hasbara operations have tentacles deep inside the NYT newsroom and the Pentagon itself.
Seriously, I don’t doubt that the Kremlin currently finances propaganda exercises aimed at the West, just as it did during the Nuclear Freeze era of 35 years ago (even though that has been largely forgotten in the West for not being a convenient part of the Narrative because Russia’s willing collaborators in the West aren’t the Official Bad Guys).
Indeed, Putin’s hasbara efforts are pretty obvious and unsophisticated.
In contrast, as this Georgia disinformation shows, NATO hasbara seems to be quite effective at manipulating the Climate of Opinion without even its agents quite noticing what’s going on.
Not even counting its NATO allies, the U.S. Department of Defense is the world’s biggest employer. It’s hard to find out how much the Pentagon spends on public relations, but it appears to be a lot.
From the late 1960s to the late 1980s, the press was relatively skeptical of the military industrial complex, as shown by the hostile 1971 CBS documentary “The Selling of the Pentagon” on the DoD’s PR efforts. But since victory in the Cold War, 9/11, and especially during the Obama Administration, the once adversarial relationship between the press and the Pentagon has largely faded away.
My guess is that the military-industrial complex has gotten pretty adept at using carrots rather than sticks to help along the careers of cooperative journalists by granting them more access, while more skeptical reporters find that their emails don’t get returned until just after deadline and the like: the little stuff that adds up.
And over the last 8 years, high-level foreign and military policy has been in the hands of people with whom establishment journalists feel culturally comfortable.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Sweden has been fertile ground for theories about Russian chicanery, if one really wanted to rely on that stock phenomenon for waving off all the NATO-defaming “urban legends.” But it is still possible to be distrustful of both sides at once.
Stockholm Syndrome, the migrant mess and “silly things like mid-summer,” all mass media held by one non-Swedish family, waiting for the bus like a Swede, the conformism David Dees describes, and now this.
The common thread of all stories about Sweden is intelligence being no defense against childish credulity.
George Carlin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r-e2NDSTuE
We are still cargo culters. Talking burning bush? Man walks on water? Disinfo takes a lot of forms, don' it?
“NATO soldiers, immune from prosecution, could rape Swedish women without fear of criminal charges.”
Meanwhile back in the real world there are real rapes happening in Sweden and nobody seems to care and probably many of them don’t have criminal charges either.
Georgian forces attacking South Ostessia doesn’t explain why Russian tanks (South Osstessia not being a part of Russia) poured into Georgia. I think it’s kind of silly the way Steve pretends that attacking a breakaway province is somehow the same as attacking Russia. If NATO tanks had rolled into St. Petetsburg during the Cheneyan War Steve wouldn’t have pretended that Russia started that conflict with the US.
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don’t poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.
The border between South Ossetia and Georgia had had international observers stationed on to report if somebody crossed the the border in force and ruined the erratic peace that had more or less prevailed for 17 years. Late on August 7, 2008, the international observers reported that the Georgia Army was sending tanks across their line.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Steve Sailer
If American history included the USA being invaded 6 times by an assortment of "honourable"
nations; intent on changing our government and reversing our decisions regarding how we wished to govern ourselves, over the preceeding of 200 years, we too might have a jaundiced view of our neighbours and their intentions. Smart people refrain from sticking their peckers into the hornets nest just to tease the hornets, Americans are not smart people it would appear.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Stan Adams
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#2008_warReplies: @Sam Haysom
Which country has ringed the other with military bases, the USA or Russia?
Which country has fomented a putsch and ongoing civil war in a border country? [A couple of hints here: Ukraine means border; Vicki "Fuck the EU" Nuland got her nickname under interesting circumstances; and so far as I know Russia has not instigates a putsch yet in Mexico.]
Which country claims control of ocean routes some 7,000 miles from its borders?
Which country in the last two decades has invaded and devastated some five or six countries on the other side of the world for no good or even practical reason?Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Yak-15
I would echo "Jus' Sayin'" in saying "and what about the United States?". Our government has a pretty damned expansive idea of what constitutes "american interests". According to the current administration (and quite possibley the next administration too), "american interests" include promoting gay marriage in Russia.Replies: @Sam Haysom
The Times does not contradict itself here. Georgia invaded South Ossetia, which is part of Georgia in rebellion. Georgia didn’t invade Russia. But Russia did invade Georgia.
Steve, never attribute to malice what can be more easily explained by falling journalistic standards.
I suspect it is more likely that the brainiacs at the NYT failed to carefully edit some one’s high school essay that probably read:
The common thread of all stories about Sweden is intelligence being no defense against childish credulity.Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Emblematic, @Anonymous, @Broski
“Childish credulity” seems to be humanity’s first impulse. “The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.” ~H. L. Mencken
George Carlin:
We are still cargo culters. Talking burning bush? Man walks on water? Disinfo takes a lot of forms, don’ it?
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don't poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @CK, @Cagey Beast, @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mr. Anon
Would the New York Times blithely report “preventing Arab nationalism is a centerpiece of the foreign policy of Israel, which invaded Egypt and Syria in October 1973 largely to forestall that possibility”? Or would the editors reject that as technically accurate but tendentious description intended to mislead from the question of which side first rolled into the Sinai and the Golan Heights on Yom Kippur?
The border between South Ossetia and Georgia had had international observers stationed on to report if somebody crossed the the border in force and ruined the erratic peace that had more or less prevailed for 17 years. Late on August 7, 2008, the international observers reported that the Georgia Army was sending tanks across their line.
Unfortunately your Israel analogy (and honestly Israel and its neighbors aren't very interesting to me as history) fails to hold up because in this case there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia. If the 1973 war had been imitated due to Israeli concerns that Egypt was going to invade Cyprus then that would be roughly analogous (the difference being that Cyprus wasn't ever a part of Egypt) case and in that case I doubt anyone would have supported Israel. This isn't an issue about preemptive war. The issue is that Russia invaded a country that never attacked them.
What I am taking issue with is the idea that Georgia attacked Russia- they did not. I would equate what Russia did to what the USA did in securing Panama's independence from Columbia. They thrust themselves into a simmering situation as an aggressor to further their political goals. That kind of stuff happens, but it's important that it be discussed factually. Russia was not defending itself. And the USA did not in any provide support to the Georgians. Bush was irate with what the Georgians did.Replies: @Steve Sailer
In contrast, the Russians had little in the way of military forces in South Ossetia, but the inept Georgians failed to secure their priority of shutting off the tunnel from Russia. The confused Russian response was blundering as well but at least they got through the tunnel into South Ossetia.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @ic1000
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don't poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @CK, @Cagey Beast, @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mr. Anon
It is a good thing that you cannot find those kind of posters on any of the American blogs.
If American history included the USA being invaded 6 times by an assortment of “honourable”
nations; intent on changing our government and reversing our decisions regarding how we wished to govern ourselves, over the preceeding of 200 years, we too might have a jaundiced view of our neighbours and their intentions. Smart people refrain from sticking their peckers into the hornets nest just to tease the hornets, Americans are not smart people it would appear.
Americans and/or anyone living in America should assimilate to American norms - norms defined, maintained, and enforced by Americans. One of those norms is omitting the "u" from words such as neighbor and honor.
As an American, I adhere religiously to all American norms, except the ones I don't like.Replies: @CK
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don't poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @CK, @Cagey Beast, @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mr. Anon
The Russians had peacekeepers on the ground in South Ossetia when the Georgian shooting started, so they were entangled in that mess no matter what. They may have even been required to restore the balance of power under whatever agreement their peacekeepers were there to observe/enforce? I have no clue myself but it seems likely.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#2008_war
Do you think the USA would have been acting in good faith if they had invaded Iran in 2007 to end Iranian incursions into Iraq? If you do then you are perfectly consistent in looking at the SO conflict in this way. But as it is Russia invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked it. When your soldiers are hanging out in other countries it's a bit rich to act like they are being agressed against.Replies: @newrouter, @Cagey Beast
The common thread of all stories about Sweden is intelligence being no defense against childish credulity.Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Emblematic, @Anonymous, @Broski
Like a Roy Andersson movie?
In general, the 2008 war of Georgia invading South Ossetia followed by Russia invading Georgia was a lot like the Yom Kippur War of 1973 of Egypt invading the Sinai followed by Israel invading Egypt, except that:
– South Ossetia had been de facto separated from Georgia for almost 3 times as long as the Sinai had been separated from Egyptian control following Israel’s invasion and military conquest of the Sinai in 1967.
– South Ossetia had never been under the control of independent Georgia (unless perhaps around 1920), with South Ossetia asserting its independence from Georgia at the same time as Georgia asserted its independence from the Soviet Union, while Egypt had non-controversially ruled Sinai for many years before 1967.
– South Ossetia’s independence appears to have been supported by the indigenous South Ossetians, while the small number of indigenous inhabitants of Israel-occupied Sinai definitely didn’t prefer Israeli rule.
– Georgia had been actively backed by a superpower — the US had invited Georgia to join NATO in the spring of 2008 (much to the dismay other NATO members) and Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia on August 7, 2008 was a follow-on to the Georgia’s war games with 1,000 visiting American troops from July 15-30, 2008. In contrast, Egypt had kicked its Russian advisers out in 1972.
The logical Israeli policy toward them after 1967 would be, given they planned on eventually giving up the land anyway, to curry their favor and raise their expectations so as to reduce their future loyalty to Egypt.Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
If American history included the USA being invaded 6 times by an assortment of "honourable"
nations; intent on changing our government and reversing our decisions regarding how we wished to govern ourselves, over the preceeding of 200 years, we too might have a jaundiced view of our neighbours and their intentions. Smart people refrain from sticking their peckers into the hornets nest just to tease the hornets, Americans are not smart people it would appear.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Stan Adams
Except that the Americans( in this case GWB) did explicitly avoid getting involved. See this is the issue with the Russian view of events- one great power in this case Russia invaded another country pre-emptively whereas the other great power the USA refused to get involved.
The border between South Ossetia and Georgia had had international observers stationed on to report if somebody crossed the the border in force and ruined the erratic peace that had more or less prevailed for 17 years. Late on August 7, 2008, the international observers reported that the Georgia Army was sending tanks across their line.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Steve Sailer
I don’t agree with NYT’s characterization of the war either Steve and you would have a point if you confined your point to taking issue with that.
Unfortunately your Israel analogy (and honestly Israel and its neighbors aren’t very interesting to me as history) fails to hold up because in this case there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia. If the 1973 war had been imitated due to Israeli concerns that Egypt was going to invade Cyprus then that would be roughly analogous (the difference being that Cyprus wasn’t ever a part of Egypt) case and in that case I doubt anyone would have supported Israel. This isn’t an issue about preemptive war. The issue is that Russia invaded a country that never attacked them.
What I am taking issue with is the idea that Georgia attacked Russia- they did not. I would equate what Russia did to what the USA did in securing Panama’s independence from Columbia. They thrust themselves into a simmering situation as an aggressor to further their political goals. That kind of stuff happens, but it’s important that it be discussed factually. Russia was not defending itself. And the USA did not in any provide support to the Georgians. Bush was irate with what the Georgians did.
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
"preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility."
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
"there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia."
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Sam Haysom, @Karl, @Ben Tzot-Abrit, @The Man From K Street
The border between South Ossetia and Georgia had had international observers stationed on to report if somebody crossed the the border in force and ruined the erratic peace that had more or less prevailed for 17 years. Late on August 7, 2008, the international observers reported that the Georgia Army was sending tanks across their line.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Steve Sailer
Also, in 1973 the Israeli military was dug in on the east bank of the Suez Canal in the Sinai, so that the Egyptians’ initial battle of simply getting their army over the Canal and into the edge of the Sinai was quite heroic, as was Ariel Sharon’s improvised counter-invasion across the Canal into Egypt proper.
In contrast, the Russians had little in the way of military forces in South Ossetia, but the inept Georgians failed to secure their priority of shutting off the tunnel from Russia. The confused Russian response was blundering as well but at least they got through the tunnel into South Ossetia.
If in 2007 the United Stated army (which was operating in Iraq with the support the Iraqi government) had attacked Tehran in order to end Iranian incursions into Iraq in support of the Shite militias no one on this site would have argued that the United States had been defending itself and that Iran was the aggressor.
As usual, there is not a scintilla of evidence that Russia is behind Swedish rumors. We are at a point where every assertion about Russia, no matter how unproven and/or improbable, is taken as gospel truth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia#2008_warReplies: @Sam Haysom
The agreement by which Russian peacekeepers were in South Ostessia had collapsed by the time Georgian soldiers entered South Ostessia at which point the Russians weren’t peacekeepers anymore.
Do you think the USA would have been acting in good faith if they had invaded Iran in 2007 to end Iranian incursions into Iraq? If you do then you are perfectly consistent in looking at the SO conflict in this way. But as it is Russia invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked it. When your soldiers are hanging out in other countries it’s a bit rich to act like they are being agressed against.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Control_Commission_for_Georgian%E2%80%93Ossetian_Conflict_Resolution
ot oh dear no vacation for the crazy cat lady:
Trump Announces “Major Immigration Policy Speech” Will Take Place Wednesday in Arizona…
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/08/28/trump-announces-major-immigration-policy-speech-will-take-place-wednesday-in-arizona/
Do you think the USA would have been acting in good faith if they had invaded Iran in 2007 to end Iranian incursions into Iraq? If you do then you are perfectly consistent in looking at the SO conflict in this way. But as it is Russia invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked it. When your soldiers are hanging out in other countries it's a bit rich to act like they are being agressed against.Replies: @newrouter, @Cagey Beast
>. When your soldiers are hanging out in other countries it’s a bit rich to act like they are being agressed against.<
don't let us soldiers hang out in georgia. or do the nato thing. not good
In contrast, the Russians had little in the way of military forces in South Ossetia, but the inept Georgians failed to secure their priority of shutting off the tunnel from Russia. The confused Russian response was blundering as well but at least they got through the tunnel into South Ossetia.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @ic1000
And if they had stayed in South Ostessia their behavior would have been blameless or basically blameless. Unfortunately they decided to invade Georgia.
If in 2007 the United Stated army (which was operating in Iraq with the support the Iraqi government) had attacked Tehran in order to end Iranian incursions into Iraq in support of the Shite militias no one on this site would have argued that the United States had been defending itself and that Iran was the aggressor.
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don't poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @CK, @Cagey Beast, @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mr. Anon
Ridiculous analogy. The actual and hypothetical are dissimilar.
Unfortunately your Israel analogy (and honestly Israel and its neighbors aren't very interesting to me as history) fails to hold up because in this case there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia. If the 1973 war had been imitated due to Israeli concerns that Egypt was going to invade Cyprus then that would be roughly analogous (the difference being that Cyprus wasn't ever a part of Egypt) case and in that case I doubt anyone would have supported Israel. This isn't an issue about preemptive war. The issue is that Russia invaded a country that never attacked them.
What I am taking issue with is the idea that Georgia attacked Russia- they did not. I would equate what Russia did to what the USA did in securing Panama's independence from Columbia. They thrust themselves into a simmering situation as an aggressor to further their political goals. That kind of stuff happens, but it's important that it be discussed factually. Russia was not defending itself. And the USA did not in any provide support to the Georgians. Bush was irate with what the Georgians did.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Egypt didn’t invade Israel proper in October 1973, it invaded the Sinai Peninsula. Similarly, Syria invaded the Golan Heights. In response, Israel not only drove the Egyptians once again out of Sinai and the Syrians out of the Golan Heights, but invaded and occupied sizable chunks of both Egypt and Syria that it hadn’t already occupied (eventually giving them up after much shuttle diplomacy).
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
“preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility.”
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
“there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia.”
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.
in your comment that Israel was concerned that Egypt might invade Israel. They didn't know Egypt's battle plan. And more pertinently the Arabs did declare war on Israel. Georgia never declared war on Russia and never entered Russia proper. You are kind of trying to have it both ways here. Israel was occupying the land Syria and Egypt attacked by the laws of war that is the same as attacking Israel proper. Russia on the other hand wasn't occupying South Ostessia an attack on South Ostessia wasn't an attack on Russia. Russian soldiers there were either peace keepers or they were an occupying army. If they were peacekeepers then they should have evacuated when the peace agreement covering their deployment collapsed.
That's the fundemental difference- there is no possible way that Russia thought Georgia was using the advance as a spring board to attack Russia. I wish Russia had had the self control to not enter Georgia. If they had confined themselves to roughing up the Georigan Army in S Osstessia your point would be valid.
Also who said anything about the USA not supporting Israel? If anything your point that great powers didn't support the Arabs is belied by the fact that the Soviets lavished supplies on the Arabs. You are starting to argue with yourself at this point.Replies: @JL
not exactly true. Egypt violated a contractual cease-fire.
Egypt started a new fight.... Israel finished it.Replies: @Steve Sailer
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don't poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @CK, @Cagey Beast, @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mr. Anon
As opposed to the good ole USA?
Which country has ringed the other with military bases, the USA or Russia?
Which country has fomented a putsch and ongoing civil war in a border country? [A couple of hints here: Ukraine means border; Vicki “Fuck the EU” Nuland got her nickname under interesting circumstances; and so far as I know Russia has not instigates a putsch yet in Mexico.]
Which country claims control of ocean routes some 7,000 miles from its borders?
Which country in the last two decades has invaded and devastated some five or six countries on the other side of the world for no good or even practical reason?
I've never argued that the USA is perfect. Unfortunately quite a few posters here are adamant that Russia can do no wrong and I push back against that mind set.
Moreover, Russia has invaded quite a few countries over the past two decades two. When the United States occupies and rules half of a continent for 50 years them maybe we can talk about equivalence between the two.
The US doesn't claim to control any sea lanes 7000 miles from its borders.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @iSteveFan, @guest, @bored identity
The good citizens of West Virginia will probably not appreciate your attack on the precedent setting principle that made theirs a sovereign state.
Meanwhile, Steve Sailer comes under attack (or came under attack):
Do you think the USA would have been acting in good faith if they had invaded Iran in 2007 to end Iranian incursions into Iraq? If you do then you are perfectly consistent in looking at the SO conflict in this way. But as it is Russia invaded a sovereign nation that never attacked it. When your soldiers are hanging out in other countries it's a bit rich to act like they are being agressed against.Replies: @newrouter, @Cagey Beast
No, the Russian appear to have been there fair and square under the existing treaty and their troops were attacked by Georgia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Control_Commission_for_Georgian%E2%80%93Ossetian_Conflict_Resolution
Meanwhile back in the real world there are real rapes happening in Sweden and nobody seems to care and probably many of them don't have criminal charges either.Replies: @iSteveFan
Yes, Europeans no longer seem concerned about rape committed by foreign, military-aged men against their women. So I doubt that would have been a talking point anyone really cared about.
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
"preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility."
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
"there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia."
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Sam Haysom, @Karl, @Ben Tzot-Abrit, @The Man From K Street
“But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:”
Uh, for whom (or rather should say, For Who? Whom?) would the reporting be tendentious? Certainly not for the vast majority of Americans who as polls constantly show, really don’t give much of a flip of endless wars around the world, least of whom in the Middle East. After all, the Middle East is thousands of miles away. As the saying goes, it’s not our monkeys nor our circus.
Of course, if the aside is made toward a nation that is quite prominent and influential in the Middle East and, some would say, continues to exert a sizable influence over US foreign policy, then yes, it would be tendentious to make that aside, especially in the paper of record, the NYT.
Side note: Anyone notice how the NYT; DC Post and other official MSM organs display a much stronger anti-Russian slant in their foreign policy coverage than they ever did collectively during Stalin’s regime; the Cold War; Gorbechev’s era; etc. How is it that such diverse Soviets as Stalin and Gorby are much more revered among the official left even today than Putin? I don’t entirely understand it. I mean, until Putin arrived on the scene and particularly over the last ten yrs or so, from about the 1930’s all the way to Yeltsin’s regime (ca.2000?) the USSR/early Russian Federation was pretty much treated quite favorably in the MSM especially when compared to the likes of Reagan and other perceived US “warhawks”. How is Putin any more a monster (either in kind or degree) than Stalin and the others that followed him, even including up to Yeltsin? Theories may abound but not sure there’s a satisfactory explanation as of yet.
But with Putin, the MSM have finally found a Russian leader that they clearly despise. Unfortunately the exact reasons remain unclear.
Here’s the of mine these people were complaining about:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/samuel-eliot-morison-and-americas-displaced-protestant-establishment
Here is where it came from:
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/03/richard-spencer-alternative-right/Replies: @Steve Sailer
Australia’s 2000 mile rabbit fence, constructed more than 100 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit-proof_fence
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
"preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility."
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
"there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia."
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Sam Haysom, @Karl, @Ben Tzot-Abrit, @The Man From K Street
Steve I agreed with you that NYT’s wording was ridiculous.
in your comment that Israel was concerned that Egypt might invade Israel. They didn’t know Egypt’s battle plan. And more pertinently the Arabs did declare war on Israel. Georgia never declared war on Russia and never entered Russia proper. You are kind of trying to have it both ways here. Israel was occupying the land Syria and Egypt attacked by the laws of war that is the same as attacking Israel proper. Russia on the other hand wasn’t occupying South Ostessia an attack on South Ostessia wasn’t an attack on Russia. Russian soldiers there were either peace keepers or they were an occupying army. If they were peacekeepers then they should have evacuated when the peace agreement covering their deployment collapsed.
That’s the fundemental difference- there is no possible way that Russia thought Georgia was using the advance as a spring board to attack Russia. I wish Russia had had the self control to not enter Georgia. If they had confined themselves to roughing up the Georigan Army in S Osstessia your point would be valid.
Also who said anything about the USA not supporting Israel? If anything your point that great powers didn’t support the Arabs is belied by the fact that the Soviets lavished supplies on the Arabs. You are starting to argue with yourself at this point.
Which country has ringed the other with military bases, the USA or Russia?
Which country has fomented a putsch and ongoing civil war in a border country? [A couple of hints here: Ukraine means border; Vicki "Fuck the EU" Nuland got her nickname under interesting circumstances; and so far as I know Russia has not instigates a putsch yet in Mexico.]
Which country claims control of ocean routes some 7,000 miles from its borders?
Which country in the last two decades has invaded and devastated some five or six countries on the other side of the world for no good or even practical reason?Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Yak-15
Why are you trying to change the subject? It isn’t like this blog is particularly supportive of American foreign policy. And I certainly don’t support the wars in the Middle East. But that doesn’t mean im going to shill for Russia or China either. Russia is not ringed with military bases this is the kind of whiny self pitying claim I was talking about. And even if it were well blowback a bitch ain’t it. Of course for a significant segment of the paleocon movement Russia should be exempt from blowback.
I’ve never argued that the USA is perfect. Unfortunately quite a few posters here are adamant that Russia can do no wrong and I push back against that mind set.
Moreover, Russia has invaded quite a few countries over the past two decades two. When the United States occupies and rules half of a continent for 50 years them maybe we can talk about equivalence between the two.
The US doesn’t claim to control any sea lanes 7000 miles from its borders.
Your paleocon credentials are impeccable just as well is the Kaganistas' patriotism.Replies: @Sam Haysom
One key reason is that the Russian Federation is unapologetically not progressive in the way the term is currently defined. American liberal-progressives in earlier decades could look at the Soviet Union and say “they’re aiming for the same goals as we are, they’re just using rougher methods to get there”. The globalist, neoliberal, libertine types now setting the tone in the West can’t say anything of the kind when they look at Putin’s Russia. That’s why they freak out.
- South Ossetia had been de facto separated from Georgia for almost 3 times as long as the Sinai had been separated from Egyptian control following Israel's invasion and military conquest of the Sinai in 1967.
- South Ossetia had never been under the control of independent Georgia (unless perhaps around 1920), with South Ossetia asserting its independence from Georgia at the same time as Georgia asserted its independence from the Soviet Union, while Egypt had non-controversially ruled Sinai for many years before 1967.
- South Ossetia's independence appears to have been supported by the indigenous South Ossetians, while the small number of indigenous inhabitants of Israel-occupied Sinai definitely didn't prefer Israeli rule.
- Georgia had been actively backed by a superpower -- the US had invited Georgia to join NATO in the spring of 2008 (much to the dismay other NATO members) and Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia on August 7, 2008 was a follow-on to the Georgia's war games with 1,000 visiting American troops from July 15-30, 2008. In contrast, Egypt had kicked its Russian advisers out in 1972.Replies: @Lot, @Lagertha
Are you sure? While that sounds right to me, both Israel and Egypt mistreat their Bedouin populations. In Israel they are treated more like American Indians, given stipends to stop being nomads and built crapy shanty towns. Egypt has a lot more of them, and less to spend, and less of a liberal tradition, so the mistreatment is worse than that.
The logical Israeli policy toward them after 1967 would be, given they planned on eventually giving up the land anyway, to curry their favor and raise their expectations so as to reduce their future loyalty to Egypt.
Yeah.
Here is where it came from:
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/03/richard-spencer-alternative-right/
Here is where it came from:
http://www.realcourage.org/2010/03/richard-spencer-alternative-right/Replies: @Steve Sailer
The essay of mine about the brahmin Eliot clan (T.S. Eliot, Samuel Eliot Morison, Charles Eliot, Charles Eliot Norton, etc.) being denounced was written for VDARE:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/samuel-eliot-morison-and-americas-displaced-protestant-establishment
I've never argued that the USA is perfect. Unfortunately quite a few posters here are adamant that Russia can do no wrong and I push back against that mind set.
Moreover, Russia has invaded quite a few countries over the past two decades two. When the United States occupies and rules half of a continent for 50 years them maybe we can talk about equivalence between the two.
The US doesn't claim to control any sea lanes 7000 miles from its borders.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @iSteveFan, @guest, @bored identity
At last count there were more US military bases around (within, say, 1,000 km) than there are Russian military bases the same distance from the US.
Maybe the Russians should just up their skills in alliance-building?
UN observers were in Abkhazia, but S. Ossetia peacekeeping was under an OSCE mandate, where the force contained 1/3 N. Ossetians, 1/3 Russians, and 1/3 Georgians, under Russian command. The total number of Russian peacekeepers in S. Ossetia was supposed to be capped at 530.
When the Russians held their ‘Kavkaz (Caucausus) 2008’ exercises from 15 July-2 August that year, and units started moving through the Roki tunnel in the days after, starting with irregular North Ossetian and Cossack forces(3-4-5 August), followed by elements of the 33 Mountain Infantry Regiment (5 August), elements of 135 and 693 Motor Rifle Regiments, (7 August) and some GRU units.
Of course the Georgia war cannot be viewed in isolation: the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and withdrawal from an old CIS accord prohibiting same) came after the US recognition of Kosovo earlier that year. Russia fostered an agreement where the leaders of S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Trans-Dniester (the Russian pocket-Oblast in Moldova) promised military support to each other. Putin promised consequences, and here they were.
Putin was intent on making a point in Georgia in any event. The Russians, if sufficiently motivated, will always manage to escalate provocations to a crescendo, then claim the other guy hit first. When Russians sponsor “breakaway provinces” supported by Russian “volunteers”, the question isn’t “who shelled first?”, or “why the hell didn’t Saakashvili put a laser-guided bomb into the Roki tunnel?” It’s: “do we care?”
Do we care that the Russians are salami-slicing their way around the old Soviet space? Do we care about Nagorno-Karabakh? Do we care about Trans-Dniester? To ask if we care about South Ossetia, Abkhazia is really to ask if we care about Georgia. Do we care about Crimea? About Donetsk and Luhansk?
How much is peace in Europe worth to us?
You sound like one more war-wimp chickenhawk egging other people on. Why don't you shoulder a rifle and go fight somewhere yourself; report back to us later about your exploits.Replies: @CJ
...but at least you didn't call yourself Japayuki
I am at the point where I don’t think they even care who started it in Georgia, in Ukraine, Syria, who shot down that plane, etc. It’s all stories with them. All narrative. They’re telling us a bedtime story about how bad Russia is, and we’re their children trying to fall asleep.
I've never argued that the USA is perfect. Unfortunately quite a few posters here are adamant that Russia can do no wrong and I push back against that mind set.
Moreover, Russia has invaded quite a few countries over the past two decades two. When the United States occupies and rules half of a continent for 50 years them maybe we can talk about equivalence between the two.
The US doesn't claim to control any sea lanes 7000 miles from its borders.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @iSteveFan, @guest, @bored identity
I think the Mexicans might have something to say about that statement.
Well in the case of NATO troops there would be a risk of women being raped by white men, which would of course be horrible.
Steve, you are just plain wrong on the Egyptian Plan for the Yom Kippur War, moreover how desperate it was for Israel, and how close the Egyptians came to wiping out Israel short of a last-ditch Samson in the Temple nuclear response.
In short, though Arafat had no plans destroying Israel (he didn’t think it possible), his generals gambled that it was indeed possible. And they came very close — the Israelis were totally caught by surprise, and took heavy casualties. The Egyptians came close to breakthrough in the Sinai, the major reason they stalled was simply outrunning supplies particularly gas. The Egyptian Army did not have enough fuel trucks to move fast enough while the Israeli Air Force was focused on the Syrians.
Indeed the battle plan was conceptually brilliant — divide the Israelis who had superior air forces and land forces, so that they could not concentrate fire upon one adversary in turn. The mistake Sadat’s generals made was not understanding that the low training and logistical resources could not maintain the tempo needed for success. Thus the Egyptian tank forces were literally out of gas and their troops gassed from continual fighting just when Israel recovered to focus most of their force upon them.
That was nothing like the Russia-Georgia War. Which had a tiny nation up against a very, very large one with nuclear weapons. Instead of a huge nation with no nukes up against a tiny one with nukes. There was not much danger of Russia simply nuking Georgia in desperation; while there *WAS* danger of Israel feeling existentially threatened in nuking both Syria and Egypt.
Arafat had lots of plans for destroying Israel, but he didn't have any generals. That was Sadat.
PREPOSTEROUS! This article just won the Times own prestigious Walter Duranty / Judith Miller Accuracy in Media Award!
The president of The Philippines wants America to stop killing Black people.
http://thegrio.com/2016/08/27/philippines-president-slams-us-for-killing-black-people/
Apparently he is okay with America killing Nonblack people, because he is not complaining about that. Black people are special, only their lives matter.
Sounds like an upgrade from the current situation.
The common thread of all stories about Sweden is intelligence being no defense against childish credulity.Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Emblematic, @Anonymous, @Broski
The Bonniers are so admixed now as to be more Swedish than Jewish.
I've never argued that the USA is perfect. Unfortunately quite a few posters here are adamant that Russia can do no wrong and I push back against that mind set.
Moreover, Russia has invaded quite a few countries over the past two decades two. When the United States occupies and rules half of a continent for 50 years them maybe we can talk about equivalence between the two.
The US doesn't claim to control any sea lanes 7000 miles from its borders.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @iSteveFan, @guest, @bored identity
Okay, Russia is not ringed with military bases. But we are knocking on its front door, and peeking in its windows, several thousands of miles away. Meanwhile, our official policy for centuries has been to keep them out of our entire hemisphere. That’s a bit imbalanced.
Those of you who defend Russia, those of you who seem to implicitly think that a neutral, isolationist America is possible much less desirable, really, really don't get it. There is no balance in international relations. There is no fair play. There is no global social contract or independent, impartial body to play referee. The UN is a toothless tiger (by design, incidentally) and has no monopoly on any legitimate use of force.
International relations is Game of Thrones. It's dominate or be dominated. If we don't do it, someone else will. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how best to do that, but make no mistake, that is the inherent nature of the game.
And, for a nation as large as ours, neutrality simply isn't an option. This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive. It ain't 1850 anymore.
With Putin and Russia, take the rose-colored glasses off. He's not a role model, and he's not your friend. Nor is he just a humble, reasonable Russian patriot seeking to defend his homeland. He's a dictator and a kleptocrat who plays by the rules of realpolitik. He, and Russia, will do whatever they can get away with in order to expand Russia's power and its borders. That's nothing unique to Russia, mind you--China's doing the same thing in the South China Sea; that's just how the game is played.
The biggest mistakes we made were: 1) not integrating Russia into the West--and NATO--in the 1990s the way we did Germany after WWII and 2) buying into the notion that the "path to Moscow" ran through Kiev instead of the other way around. Had we had our shit together 25 years ago, NATO would extend across the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic would be a Western lake, and there'd be NATO bases all along Russia's southern frontier with American and Russian troops serving side by side. Alas, though, it's way too late for that.Replies: @Verymuchalive, @vinteuil, @Anon, @IA
And also Putin’s outlook appears to be post-Soviet in that he seems to stress more of a nationalist, somewhat open to official displays of traditional religion, and not pro-LGBTWWT, etc. but even those things don’t fully get to the heart of the matter. Perhaps the liberal-progressives along with their neoconservative allies turned on Putin in particular and Russia in general because of the formers throwing out of globalist oligarchs who helped to weaken Russia economically in the years post-USSR. In other words, had the Russian Federation from the onset had a strong willed leader with a nationalist outlook who closed its borders to global oligarchs, perhaps Russia wouldn’t have been in the economic doldrums it found itself in during the late ’90’s. I mean, is Borris Yeltsin really recalled today with much fondness in Russia for being a great leader? Seriously? Yeltsin was very much appreciated and respected by the Western globalist elites, much the same way as was Gorbechev, but how do the ordinary Russian masses view Yeltsin today?
Also, does anyone know how Gorbechev is viewed today right now in Russia? Not among the Western global elites, but among the Russians themselves? How is he recalled in Russia?
This is part of the reason why even founding stock descended paleocons like me roll our eyes when people make the don't poke the bear in its backyard claim. Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is. You can find posters on Karlin and Sakers blog who think that backyard should include Berlin.Replies: @Steve Sailer, @CK, @Cagey Beast, @Daniel H, @Jus' Sayin'..., @Mr. Anon
“Russians have an extremely expansive idea of what their backyard is.”
I would echo “Jus’ Sayin’” in saying “and what about the United States?”. Our government has a pretty damned expansive idea of what constitutes “american interests”. According to the current administration (and quite possibley the next administration too), “american interests” include promoting gay marriage in Russia.
And returning to the other point I don't go onto Russian blogs and whine about Crimea or Georgia whereas quite a few Russian apologists do come on here and whine incessantly about poor little Russia is so mistreated and "encircled." I was pointing out one reason why I find hands off Russia arguments so uncompelling I wasn't even supporting the expansion of NATO I was simply point out how quite a few people who post here are basically support giving Russia a carte blanche to reorganize middle Europe in their image. That doesn't mean the USA should stop Russia, but it does provide context to the poor Russia comments.Replies: @Mr. Anon
Steve I’m eagerly awaiting your review of Southside with You. From Wikipedia, the plot:
Young associate Barack Obama tries to win the heart of a young lawyer, Michelle Robinson in Chicago in 1989. On their first date, they visit an Afro-Centric exhibit at a local art center, view a screening of Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing, and have their first kiss outside an ice cream parlor.
The common thread of all stories about Sweden is intelligence being no defense against childish credulity.Replies: @Bard of Bumperstickers, @Emblematic, @Anonymous, @Broski
Perhaps conformism to authority is the trait that also allowed the Swedes to be great warriors 800 years ago. As Maoist China shows, a talented people can get far afield with bad organizational principles.
Presidential polls only track candidates who are polling at least 1 percent nationwide. The Mormon Never Trumper Evan McMullin’s name does not show up in any of the polls, which means he is at below 1 percent.
America does not want to elect a Mormon president. I don’t know why Mormons even bother to run for president.
You know you are an extremely weak presidential candidate when Jill Stein is polling ahead of you in the polls.
No doubt there is Russian anti-NATO propaganda spread around Sweden. It’s also obvious that many people want to believe it. Many Swedes rather want to believe Sweden occupies the moral high ground between two evil major powers. Others just dislike the US.
It’s also obvious that many people have forgotten that the enemy always comes from the East. Partly because these people dislike the US.
One of the Bonniers is Bishop of Skara.
https://blogg.svenskakyrkan.se/akebonnier/2015/12/27/det-brinner-i-knutarna/
)
Ethnic Swedes: literally satanic.
That’s some serious goal post moving. And again why is the USA’s fault that Russia has spent the better part of its existence antagonizing its neighbors. Poor little Russia suffering from the fact that its neighbors despise it an are eager to develop military alliances to restrain it. Tough. If Russia could develop more military bases in the Western Hemisphere it would. You don’t get to claim the moral high ground because Russian diplomacy sucks.
Weren’t you just making the argument two days ago that the area annexed from Mexico was sparsely populated and gained legitimate via a treaty agreed to by both sides. To compare that with brutally occupying Eastern Europe is ridiculous.
I would echo "Jus' Sayin'" in saying "and what about the United States?". Our government has a pretty damned expansive idea of what constitutes "american interests". According to the current administration (and quite possibley the next administration too), "american interests" include promoting gay marriage in Russia.Replies: @Sam Haysom
That sucks and we should definitely stop doing that. Heck I would be for all NGOs leaving Russia. But what does that have to do with whether or not Russia invaded Georgia. You argument is analogous to someone evoking Eric Garner in a debate over whether or not Michael Brown attacked that police officer.
And returning to the other point I don’t go onto Russian blogs and whine about Crimea or Georgia whereas quite a few Russian apologists do come on here and whine incessantly about poor little Russia is so mistreated and “encircled.” I was pointing out one reason why I find hands off Russia arguments so uncompelling I wasn’t even supporting the expansion of NATO I was simply point out how quite a few people who post here are basically support giving Russia a carte blanche to reorganize middle Europe in their image. That doesn’t mean the USA should stop Russia, but it does provide context to the poor Russia comments.
Russians are fine with lesbians and female to male transsexuals, it’s just gays and ladyboys they have issues with. Think of Russia as Sparta and the West as Athens.
Georgia is worthless. Moldova? Come on. Anyone really want to sign up for defending these places with American soldiers? No one cared about them when they were part of the USSR.
To use an analogy from finance, expansive US government guarantees creates moral hazard. But none of the countries under discussion are too big to fail.
Estonia has a single brigade. “The Estonian Land Forces is the main arm of the defence forces. The average size of the military formation in peacetime is about 5,500 of whom about 2,700 are conscripts. The Army component of the operational structure consists of an infantry brig”
Georgia is still on the NATO agenda for admission. http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm?selectedLocale=en
Look at item 111.
This is a bad idea that just won’t go away.
Sweden, worried about being invaded; very funny. I thought there was an open invitation to invade the country: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/189515/swedish-minister-looks-forward-europe-turning-daniel-greenfield
NATO soldiers, immune from prosecution, could rape Swedish women without fear of criminal charges.
Sweden is already the rape capital of the Northern Hemisphere so this would not make much of a difference.
Which country has ringed the other with military bases, the USA or Russia?
Which country has fomented a putsch and ongoing civil war in a border country? [A couple of hints here: Ukraine means border; Vicki "Fuck the EU" Nuland got her nickname under interesting circumstances; and so far as I know Russia has not instigates a putsch yet in Mexico.]
Which country claims control of ocean routes some 7,000 miles from its borders?
Which country in the last two decades has invaded and devastated some five or six countries on the other side of the world for no good or even practical reason?Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Yak-15
When the Soviet Union still existed they did more to spread violence around the world than the US by a magnitude.
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
"preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility."
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
"there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia."
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Sam Haysom, @Karl, @Ben Tzot-Abrit, @The Man From K Street
> Egypt didn’t invade Israel proper in October 1973, it invaded the Sinai Peninsula
not exactly true. Egypt violated a contractual cease-fire.
Egypt started a new fight…. Israel finished it.
> At last count there were more US military bases around (within, say, 1,000 km) than there are Russian military bases the same distance from the US.
Maybe the Russians should just up their skills in alliance-building?
I find the idea of Steve having a “condemning” tone about anything to be quite amusing.
Well, Bishop Åke Bonnier might be a black sheep but he is at least still solidly pro-refugee. Whew, I got a bit worried there.
(Translated from
https://blogg.svenskakyrkan.se/akebonnier/2015/12/27/det-brinner-i-knutarna/
)
Ethnic Swedes: literally satanic.
in your comment that Israel was concerned that Egypt might invade Israel. They didn't know Egypt's battle plan. And more pertinently the Arabs did declare war on Israel. Georgia never declared war on Russia and never entered Russia proper. You are kind of trying to have it both ways here. Israel was occupying the land Syria and Egypt attacked by the laws of war that is the same as attacking Israel proper. Russia on the other hand wasn't occupying South Ostessia an attack on South Ostessia wasn't an attack on Russia. Russian soldiers there were either peace keepers or they were an occupying army. If they were peacekeepers then they should have evacuated when the peace agreement covering their deployment collapsed.
That's the fundemental difference- there is no possible way that Russia thought Georgia was using the advance as a spring board to attack Russia. I wish Russia had had the self control to not enter Georgia. If they had confined themselves to roughing up the Georigan Army in S Osstessia your point would be valid.
Also who said anything about the USA not supporting Israel? If anything your point that great powers didn't support the Arabs is belied by the fact that the Soviets lavished supplies on the Arabs. You are starting to argue with yourself at this point.Replies: @JL
Close to one hundred Russian peace keepers, operating under UN mandate, were killed in their sleep by Georgian shelling. They were the first target. How were they supposed to evacuate, pray tell, when it was their own deaths that collapsed the agreement? You can bloviate all you want, but that was what Russia interpreted as an act of war and justified their incursion into Georgia proper. In your mind, I imagine, Russia should have acted with more restraint than any other country would have in such circumstances, but it certainly doesn’t seem like many of us here are fooled by your obvious double standards.
For what it’s worth, the local news mention neither a NATO partnership debate nor a flood of social media shenanigans. It’s true that Dagens Nyheter, flagship of the Bonniers, regularly fulminates against ‘net trolls’, though I on the other hand also see they themselves have the presumably non-trollish headline “Donald Trump accused of fishing for votes with murder”.
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/usa-valet/donald-trump-anklagas-for-att-fiska-roster-med-mord/
Regarding NATO membership — if that is the same thing — while Sweden has historically had a very close unofficial cooperation with NATO, it seems a bit late to formally join by now. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the organization disbanded within 10-20 years, no matter who is president. But in the meantime membership might provide fat pensions for a few of the flies excitedly buzzing around, and that is all that matters.
Everybody is busy trying to get their propaganda out before the target publics. Historically I’d say that British and American propaganda were of better quality than the rest with fascist German and Soviet efforts in particular being tone-deaf and lacking in subtlety.
Which reminds me back when the Ukraine/Crimea affair was in the forefront the internet, including this website, was full of screechy commenters claiming that those who didn’t adhere to the party line were ‘paid Putin stooges’, attempting to shout differing opinions down. As if Putin were sending out envelopes with rubles in them. Whether it’s Clinton e-mail leaks or alt-right nationalism there seems to be an effort to make Putin into an all-purpose hobgoblin to scare the children with. Insofar as Sweden becoming a NATO member, what’s in it for them is a legitimate question to be raised and the answer, which is probably nothing, doesn’t please some hence the smokescreens.
When the Russians held their 'Kavkaz (Caucausus) 2008' exercises from 15 July-2 August that year, and units started moving through the Roki tunnel in the days after, starting with irregular North Ossetian and Cossack forces(3-4-5 August), followed by elements of the 33 Mountain Infantry Regiment (5 August), elements of 135 and 693 Motor Rifle Regiments, (7 August) and some GRU units.
Of course the Georgia war cannot be viewed in isolation: the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and withdrawal from an old CIS accord prohibiting same) came after the US recognition of Kosovo earlier that year. Russia fostered an agreement where the leaders of S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Trans-Dniester (the Russian pocket-Oblast in Moldova) promised military support to each other. Putin promised consequences, and here they were.
Putin was intent on making a point in Georgia in any event. The Russians, if sufficiently motivated, will always manage to escalate provocations to a crescendo, then claim the other guy hit first. When Russians sponsor "breakaway provinces" supported by Russian "volunteers", the question isn't "who shelled first?", or "why the hell didn't Saakashvili put a laser-guided bomb into the Roki tunnel?" It's: "do we care?"
Do we care that the Russians are salami-slicing their way around the old Soviet space? Do we care about Nagorno-Karabakh? Do we care about Trans-Dniester? To ask if we care about South Ossetia, Abkhazia is really to ask if we care about Georgia. Do we care about Crimea? About Donetsk and Luhansk?
How much is peace in Europe worth to us?Replies: @anonymous, @Karl
No we don’t care much about those places. Americans don’t know where they are to begin with. Peace in Europe is worth all the gold in the world.
You sound like one more war-wimp chickenhawk egging other people on. Why don’t you shoulder a rifle and go fight somewhere yourself; report back to us later about your exploits.
In contrast, the Russians had little in the way of military forces in South Ossetia, but the inept Georgians failed to secure their priority of shutting off the tunnel from Russia. The confused Russian response was blundering as well but at least they got through the tunnel into South Ossetia.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @ic1000
That second sentence is wrong.
Both the Kremlin and the Georgian government were fully aware that the security situation in Georgia’s breakaway province of South Ossetia had been deteriorating throughout 2008 (as they were each the guilty parties that were fomenting the respective sides’ provocations).
At about 7 pm on Aug. 7th, the Georgian Army launched a lighting strike into South Ossetia. By a little after midnight, tanks and APCs of Russia’s 58th Army were traversing the Roki Tunnel from Russia into northern South Ossetia. The tide of battle turned on the afternoon of August 8th, when 58th Guards joined the South Ossetian armed forces and militia in the battle for Tskhinvali.
So the Russian response was the opposite of blundering. It was rapid, well-organized, forceful, and decisive.
The only hope of tactical success for Tbilisi’s invasion was to quickly create two battlefield realities:
1. Prevent Russia from reinforcing its peacekeepers and the South Ossetians by blocking the Roki Tunnel (or, as a fallback, destroying the Didi Gupta bridge and holding the crossing, a mere 15 km north of Tskhinvali).
2. Deny Russia air supremacy over South Osssetia.
This would have to have been followed by getting the “international community” to pressure Russia to accept the newly-created status quo of a “reunified” Georgia.
The Georgians made only desultory efforts to achieve #1, preferring to concentrate on bombarding and occupying Tskhinvali. They also failed at #2.
The tactical and strategic recklessness and incompetence of President Saakashvili and his team were breathtaking. Neither was the case for the Russian side. One explanation is that Putin had agents provocateurs in the Georgian government, and/or supplied the Georgians with false intel. However, there doesn’t seem to be evidence that supports my conspiracy theory.
And returning to the other point I don't go onto Russian blogs and whine about Crimea or Georgia whereas quite a few Russian apologists do come on here and whine incessantly about poor little Russia is so mistreated and "encircled." I was pointing out one reason why I find hands off Russia arguments so uncompelling I wasn't even supporting the expansion of NATO I was simply point out how quite a few people who post here are basically support giving Russia a carte blanche to reorganize middle Europe in their image. That doesn't mean the USA should stop Russia, but it does provide context to the poor Russia comments.Replies: @Mr. Anon
“That sucks and we should definitely stop doing that. Heck I would be for all NGOs leaving Russia.”
Gosh, that’s mighty white of you – conceding that they should even be permitted to manage their own affairs.
“But what does that have to do with whether or not Russia invaded Georgia.
It, and other things like it, might partly explain why they might feel threatened by the US and their f**k-you attitude towards us.
“You argument is analogous to someone evoking Eric Garner in a debate over whether or not Michael Brown attacked that police officer.”
No, it isn’t. I shall henceforth have to assume that you don’t know what the word “analogy” means.
“And returning to the other point I don’t go onto Russian blogs and whine about Crimea or Georgia whereas quite a few Russian apologists do come on here and whine incessantly about poor little Russia is so mistreated and “encircled.””
I am not a “russia apologist”. You do apparently white a great deal about poor little Georgia.
You’re welcome to clench a knife in your teeth and go fight Russia along with Carly Fiorina, if you like. Most of the rest of us are not interested.
Do you work for the NY Times?
Do bishops in the Church of Sweden even consider themselves to be Christians these days?
Young associate Barack Obama tries to win the heart of a young lawyer, Michelle Robinson in Chicago in 1989. On their first date, they visit an Afro-Centric exhibit at a local art center, view a screening of Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, and have their first kiss outside an ice cream parlor.Replies: @Jim Don Bob
Don’t bother on my account, Steve.
- South Ossetia had been de facto separated from Georgia for almost 3 times as long as the Sinai had been separated from Egyptian control following Israel's invasion and military conquest of the Sinai in 1967.
- South Ossetia had never been under the control of independent Georgia (unless perhaps around 1920), with South Ossetia asserting its independence from Georgia at the same time as Georgia asserted its independence from the Soviet Union, while Egypt had non-controversially ruled Sinai for many years before 1967.
- South Ossetia's independence appears to have been supported by the indigenous South Ossetians, while the small number of indigenous inhabitants of Israel-occupied Sinai definitely didn't prefer Israeli rule.
- Georgia had been actively backed by a superpower -- the US had invited Georgia to join NATO in the spring of 2008 (much to the dismay other NATO members) and Georgia's invasion of South Ossetia on August 7, 2008 was a follow-on to the Georgia's war games with 1,000 visiting American troops from July 15-30, 2008. In contrast, Egypt had kicked its Russian advisers out in 1972.Replies: @Lot, @Lagertha
As far as Russia & Georgia: wasn’t it all about the pipelines to Iran that Russia had to give up after their Afghanistan disaster followed by USSR implosion?
Could a ‘War Games’ between USA & Russia be played in lightly populated lands (Georgia/Armenia) just to make a point (Russia not making this)? I know it sounds totally paranoid, but people there (old Christian countries) fear that their region may be considered dispensable in a “small war,” between US/EU vs. Putin. This is my fear for the Baltics & Finland, as well. Finland is also, not NATO member…ergo, the push for Sweden.
As we all know, lots of money can be made with “perpetual war” by many parties/and plutocrats divvying up the world pie, but you’ve got to have revenue flow in the meantime, and bring oil/gas to your people…so no one suffers and business continues, back home. Why am I suddenly thinking about Mad Max Fury Road?
“My guess is that the military-industrial complex has gotten pretty adept at using carrots rather than sticks to help along the careers of cooperative journalists …”
Undoubtedly happens, but the explanation is much simpler. The press doesn’t know war vs peace or good vs evil. The press only knows R vs D. War is good when D runs it. War is bad when R runs it.
Nothing new about this. The Vietnam antiwar movement started on the day when Nixon was elected. The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ’s war. The war was evil and criminal when it was Nixon’s war.
I think the press is usually pretty positive about wars at the beginning, but often becomes less enthusiastic as it turns out the war isn't going to be quick and decisive and then done.
I guess you weren't around then. LBJ and his war were hated. It's why he wouldn't run for reelection. I'm actually a little embarrassed to be responding to your message as this is really basic stuff.Replies: @Desiderius
Hey, hey, L-B-J! How many kids did you kill today?
- Vietnam era protester chant
You’re looking at it wrong. The correct question is whether Russia would ring the U.S. with military bases if it could. The answer is, of course, yes. There’s nothing we’re doing to Russia that Russia wouldn’t do to us given the chance.
Those of you who defend Russia, those of you who seem to implicitly think that a neutral, isolationist America is possible much less desirable, really, really don’t get it. There is no balance in international relations. There is no fair play. There is no global social contract or independent, impartial body to play referee. The UN is a toothless tiger (by design, incidentally) and has no monopoly on any legitimate use of force.
International relations is Game of Thrones. It’s dominate or be dominated. If we don’t do it, someone else will. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how best to do that, but make no mistake, that is the inherent nature of the game.
And, for a nation as large as ours, neutrality simply isn’t an option. This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive. It ain’t 1850 anymore.
With Putin and Russia, take the rose-colored glasses off. He’s not a role model, and he’s not your friend. Nor is he just a humble, reasonable Russian patriot seeking to defend his homeland. He’s a dictator and a kleptocrat who plays by the rules of realpolitik. He, and Russia, will do whatever they can get away with in order to expand Russia’s power and its borders. That’s nothing unique to Russia, mind you–China’s doing the same thing in the South China Sea; that’s just how the game is played.
The biggest mistakes we made were: 1) not integrating Russia into the West–and NATO–in the 1990s the way we did Germany after WWII and 2) buying into the notion that the “path to Moscow” ran through Kiev instead of the other way around. Had we had our shit together 25 years ago, NATO would extend across the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic would be a Western lake, and there’d be NATO bases all along Russia’s southern frontier with American and Russian troops serving side by side. Alas, though, it’s way too late for that.
" INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS GAME OF THRONES "
NO IT'S NOT.
A stupid computer game is a stupid computer game.
Only by careful study of human history and all the complex ancillary matters, will you be able to conduct international relations successfully. America is a state in headlong economic and social decline. An astute American Govt would be trying to deal with this in a manner that would cause minimum problems for Americans. Instead it is intervening militarily in large areas of the globe to very little effect and antagonising other great powers. This will precipitate the decline and make things much more severe.
As for you, ignorant boy, go back to play your computer games and don't annoy us adults.
Cause hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, Japan, etc. are enough. That is a hell of a long way from retreating within our borders.
And every single war since WW 2 that we have failed to win? Places where it doesn't matter.
Like a salesman that can't take yes for an answer, we can't seem to declare victory and cash in. Enough is enough except for elites whose careers demand conflict. There is no imaginable political entity that won't sell oil in Global Markets. Including non sovereign ISIS.
As someone who has personally used a Citi bank card in Hanoi, I can't remember what we were fighting for. The French?
We are by far the safest and most powerful nation in the history of the world and we are acting like scared little bitches.Replies: @FUBAR007, @guest
Georgia indisputably provoked the war by invading South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which had Russian troops on their soil and Russian backing, and in both of which those Russian troops would inevitably be affected by/become involved in the fighting. A Russian response was inevitable and the Georgians deliberately courted disaster by their invasion.
What the Georgians did not do was “invade” Russia. They attempted, stupidly, to impose Georgian administration on territories recognized as part of Georgia by everybody except Russia.
How would the Russians like an invasion of Dagestan by Azerbaijan and Iran, or even the presence of peacekeepers from those countries?
How will America like it a few generations from now when the Mexicans decide to put some peacekeepers into the separatist republic of Aztlan? Is the American invasion in turn going to be called an invasion of Mexico?
I've never argued that the USA is perfect. Unfortunately quite a few posters here are adamant that Russia can do no wrong and I push back against that mind set.
Moreover, Russia has invaded quite a few countries over the past two decades two. When the United States occupies and rules half of a continent for 50 years them maybe we can talk about equivalence between the two.
The US doesn't claim to control any sea lanes 7000 miles from its borders.Replies: @The most deplorable one, @iSteveFan, @guest, @bored identity
As being such a big fan of Hasbro-manufacturing expansion in Transcaucasia, maybe you should notch it down with all this geopolitically- it- ain’t- fair sentiment , and focus more on a humanistic aspects ( you know -RP2, for kids! ) of the whole Russo-Georgian War episode II.
Your paleocon credentials are impeccable just as well is the Kaganistas’ patriotism.
not exactly true. Egypt violated a contractual cease-fire.
Egypt started a new fight.... Israel finished it.Replies: @Steve Sailer
Right.
They were absolutely not there under UN Mandate. Do a little research first.
So what should Russia have done after her troops came under heavy artillery fire, with a lot of them killed or wounded?Replies: @Sam Haysom
Russia didn’t occupy Eastern Europe. The Soviet Union did.
The Swedes are more selective than you give them credit for.
Those of you who defend Russia, those of you who seem to implicitly think that a neutral, isolationist America is possible much less desirable, really, really don't get it. There is no balance in international relations. There is no fair play. There is no global social contract or independent, impartial body to play referee. The UN is a toothless tiger (by design, incidentally) and has no monopoly on any legitimate use of force.
International relations is Game of Thrones. It's dominate or be dominated. If we don't do it, someone else will. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how best to do that, but make no mistake, that is the inherent nature of the game.
And, for a nation as large as ours, neutrality simply isn't an option. This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive. It ain't 1850 anymore.
With Putin and Russia, take the rose-colored glasses off. He's not a role model, and he's not your friend. Nor is he just a humble, reasonable Russian patriot seeking to defend his homeland. He's a dictator and a kleptocrat who plays by the rules of realpolitik. He, and Russia, will do whatever they can get away with in order to expand Russia's power and its borders. That's nothing unique to Russia, mind you--China's doing the same thing in the South China Sea; that's just how the game is played.
The biggest mistakes we made were: 1) not integrating Russia into the West--and NATO--in the 1990s the way we did Germany after WWII and 2) buying into the notion that the "path to Moscow" ran through Kiev instead of the other way around. Had we had our shit together 25 years ago, NATO would extend across the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic would be a Western lake, and there'd be NATO bases all along Russia's southern frontier with American and Russian troops serving side by side. Alas, though, it's way too late for that.Replies: @Verymuchalive, @vinteuil, @Anon, @IA
You really are the most cretinous commentator I have ever come across.
” INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IS GAME OF THRONES ”
NO IT’S NOT.
A stupid computer game is a stupid computer game.
Only by careful study of human history and all the complex ancillary matters, will you be able to conduct international relations successfully. America is a state in headlong economic and social decline. An astute American Govt would be trying to deal with this in a manner that would cause minimum problems for Americans. Instead it is intervening militarily in large areas of the globe to very little effect and antagonising other great powers. This will precipitate the decline and make things much more severe.
As for you, ignorant boy, go back to play your computer games and don’t annoy us adults.
Those of you who defend Russia, those of you who seem to implicitly think that a neutral, isolationist America is possible much less desirable, really, really don't get it. There is no balance in international relations. There is no fair play. There is no global social contract or independent, impartial body to play referee. The UN is a toothless tiger (by design, incidentally) and has no monopoly on any legitimate use of force.
International relations is Game of Thrones. It's dominate or be dominated. If we don't do it, someone else will. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how best to do that, but make no mistake, that is the inherent nature of the game.
And, for a nation as large as ours, neutrality simply isn't an option. This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive. It ain't 1850 anymore.
With Putin and Russia, take the rose-colored glasses off. He's not a role model, and he's not your friend. Nor is he just a humble, reasonable Russian patriot seeking to defend his homeland. He's a dictator and a kleptocrat who plays by the rules of realpolitik. He, and Russia, will do whatever they can get away with in order to expand Russia's power and its borders. That's nothing unique to Russia, mind you--China's doing the same thing in the South China Sea; that's just how the game is played.
The biggest mistakes we made were: 1) not integrating Russia into the West--and NATO--in the 1990s the way we did Germany after WWII and 2) buying into the notion that the "path to Moscow" ran through Kiev instead of the other way around. Had we had our shit together 25 years ago, NATO would extend across the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic would be a Western lake, and there'd be NATO bases all along Russia's southern frontier with American and Russian troops serving side by side. Alas, though, it's way too late for that.Replies: @Verymuchalive, @vinteuil, @Anon, @IA
“International relations is Game of Thrones. It’s dominate or be dominated.”
Well, I’ve gotta give you points for honesty. Many of the people who run our foreign policy do, indeed, seem to see the world as some sort of live action fantasy novel where they get to act out the roles of Jon Snow & Daenerys Targaryen, fighting the good fight against House Lannister.
But few would be willing to say so out loud.
Wikipedia talks about NATO expansion, sounds like our wordsmithing Merlins pulled a fast one on the knuckle dragging Russians…or are we just a dishonorable country? Was it a misperception? or are we just represented by liars?
from Wikipedia, enlargement of NATO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#German_reunification
German reunification
The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the former East Germany, and the topic of further NATO expansion east was raised.[5]
Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]
In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,”[8] and repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union could one day join NATO.[11]
They were still there based on a ceasefire treaty, signed by the Georgian government, of which Russia was a guarantor power. So the Russian troops were there based on an international treaty and Georgia couldn’t expel the peacekeepers without violating the ceasefire.
So what should Russia have done after her troops came under heavy artillery fire, with a lot of them killed or wounded?
Kto-kogo to you too, pal!
Who-whom-whoever in South Ossetia, Georgia, and Russia, it certainly spiked gasoline prices past $4 gallon and punctured the debt-fueled real-estate personal consumption-supporting bubble, sent the US economy and much of the rest of the World into a tailspin, and got Mr. Obama elected. Twice.
Maybe it is the fault of 2 terms of Mr. Obama, kind of how the Great Depression clanked along under Roosevelt who was credited with saving us from it? Maybe the economic conditions were unsustainable and something else would have punctured the bubble?
But the world has not been the same after this seemingly minor crackup-in-the-Caucasus.
But then again, the world really changed after 1973, much more than who controlled the Sinai.
So what should Russia have done after her troops came under heavy artillery fire, with a lot of them killed or wounded?Replies: @Sam Haysom
They should have either removed them like the USA did after the Lebanaon barracks bombing or expelled the Georgian soldiers from South Ostessia and not have invaded Georgia.
BTW there was no way for the Russian (I believe) battalion to retreat while under attack and artillery fire.Of course it would be very convenient for Georgia: heads I win, tail it's a draw. But war doesn't work like this. The Russians withdrew from Georgia quickly after the war.
Undoubtedly happens, but the explanation is much simpler. The press doesn't know war vs peace or good vs evil. The press only knows R vs D. War is good when D runs it. War is bad when R runs it.
Nothing new about this. The Vietnam antiwar movement started on the day when Nixon was elected. The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ's war. The war was evil and criminal when it was Nixon's war.Replies: @Former Darfur, @NOTA, @Harry Baldwin, @melendwyr
Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?
from Wikipedia, enlargement of NATO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO#German_reunification
German reunification
The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany and the alliance. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in the year. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the former East Germany, and the topic of further NATO expansion east was raised.[5]
Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a "clear commitment" not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]
In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that "during the negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,"[8] and repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union could one day join NATO.[11]Replies: @Sam Haysom
James Baker’s assurances last for as long as James Baker is in a position of influence. And you guys need to decide whether or not the USSR=Russia or not because if not then any promises made to an extinct power aren’t very binding are they. It’s a strange rhetorical ploy Russian partisans use to try and exculpate current Russia from any of the reprecussions of the USSR’s actions while insisting that agreements made with the USSR must still be honored for Russia’s sake.
Post Soviet Union I feel no such animosity. Maybe because I don't sense the Russians actually want to take over my nation and replace its government like the communists did. In other words the Russians are not a threat to me or my nation. And the fact that they are attempting to re-Christianize is admirable in a world where my side seems to be on the cutting edge of depravity.
I don't have any personal ethnic animus towards Russians. Now that they are no longer godless commies wanting to overthrow my nation and remake it into something else, I will focus on my anger on those who do, who unfortunately already seem to be ensconced in DC.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
Those of you who defend Russia, those of you who seem to implicitly think that a neutral, isolationist America is possible much less desirable, really, really don't get it. There is no balance in international relations. There is no fair play. There is no global social contract or independent, impartial body to play referee. The UN is a toothless tiger (by design, incidentally) and has no monopoly on any legitimate use of force.
International relations is Game of Thrones. It's dominate or be dominated. If we don't do it, someone else will. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how best to do that, but make no mistake, that is the inherent nature of the game.
And, for a nation as large as ours, neutrality simply isn't an option. This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive. It ain't 1850 anymore.
With Putin and Russia, take the rose-colored glasses off. He's not a role model, and he's not your friend. Nor is he just a humble, reasonable Russian patriot seeking to defend his homeland. He's a dictator and a kleptocrat who plays by the rules of realpolitik. He, and Russia, will do whatever they can get away with in order to expand Russia's power and its borders. That's nothing unique to Russia, mind you--China's doing the same thing in the South China Sea; that's just how the game is played.
The biggest mistakes we made were: 1) not integrating Russia into the West--and NATO--in the 1990s the way we did Germany after WWII and 2) buying into the notion that the "path to Moscow" ran through Kiev instead of the other way around. Had we had our shit together 25 years ago, NATO would extend across the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic would be a Western lake, and there'd be NATO bases all along Russia's southern frontier with American and Russian troops serving side by side. Alas, though, it's way too late for that.Replies: @Verymuchalive, @vinteuil, @Anon, @IA
“This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive.”
Cause hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, Japan, etc. are enough. That is a hell of a long way from retreating within our borders.
And every single war since WW 2 that we have failed to win? Places where it doesn’t matter.
Like a salesman that can’t take yes for an answer, we can’t seem to declare victory and cash in. Enough is enough except for elites whose careers demand conflict. There is no imaginable political entity that won’t sell oil in Global Markets. Including non sovereign ISIS.
As someone who has personally used a Citi bank card in Hanoi, I can’t remember what we were fighting for. The French?
We are by far the safest and most powerful nation in the history of the world and we are acting like scared little bitches.
The problem with that worldview, fundamentally, is this: even if we decide to leave the rest of the world alone, the rest of the world won't leave us alone. "Live and let live" is not a viable foreign policy. That's not even getting into the 2nd- and 3rd-order effects of letting other powers fill the vacuum we'd leave behind.That's because there is no victory. Until there is a single world government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and the capability to enforce global laws and keep everybody in line, there never will be.
Peace and security without authority are not possible.Nope. To prevent a COMINTERN domino effect in SE Asia (i.e. control over the Strait of Malacca), our fear of which, as the Vietnamese explained to us later, turned out to be overblown.
Had we had better intel and been less ideological, we'd have done with the Vietnamese what we're doing now: turning them into an ally and a local client as a hedge against their ancient enemy and our chief economic rival, China.
Yeah. I remember watching the movie The Bridges at Toko Ri, wherein Bill Holden plays a pilot who questions a senior officer about just why we're fighting in Korea, and the guy says something like he'd rather fight them in Korea than at the Grand Canyon. And I'm thinking, what happened to our border? Can't we fight them there, at least?
Nevermind whether they're coming over at all. Nevermind that Korea is thousands of miles away. They can't even imagine fighting simply for our country. It's gotta be fighting IN our country, like we're already losing. So it's either fight thousands of miles away or lose.
There's always that loaded deck when talking to global imperialists. Either you're literally everywhere or you're losing.
Your paleocon credentials are impeccable just as well is the Kaganistas' patriotism.Replies: @Sam Haysom
This is borderline incoherent. Talk like a normal person rather than a Hunter Thompson wanna be. I’m opposed to nations invading other sovereign nations and then pretending to be the victim.
Your obsession with All Russkies Considered is maybe border line coherent, but definitely border line pathological.
(Out of your 603 comments there are 96 mentions of the dreaded Permanent-Evil Empire in various forms)
My friend, even an Applebaum/Gessen/King-Kong Axis of Experts ain't got sh#t on you!
But, it's good for the traffic on UR, so don't give up....
Your preoccupation with All Russkies Considered is maybe border line coherent, but definitely border line obsessive.
(Out of your 603 comments there are 96 mentions of the dreaded Permanent-Evil Empire in various forms)
My friend, even an Applebaum/Gessen/King-Kong Axis of Experts ain’t got sh#t on you!
In short, though Arafat had no plans destroying Israel (he didn't think it possible), his generals gambled that it was indeed possible. And they came very close -- the Israelis were totally caught by surprise, and took heavy casualties. The Egyptians came close to breakthrough in the Sinai, the major reason they stalled was simply outrunning supplies particularly gas. The Egyptian Army did not have enough fuel trucks to move fast enough while the Israeli Air Force was focused on the Syrians.
Indeed the battle plan was conceptually brilliant -- divide the Israelis who had superior air forces and land forces, so that they could not concentrate fire upon one adversary in turn. The mistake Sadat's generals made was not understanding that the low training and logistical resources could not maintain the tempo needed for success. Thus the Egyptian tank forces were literally out of gas and their troops gassed from continual fighting just when Israel recovered to focus most of their force upon them.
That was nothing like the Russia-Georgia War. Which had a tiny nation up against a very, very large one with nuclear weapons. Instead of a huge nation with no nukes up against a tiny one with nukes. There was not much danger of Russia simply nuking Georgia in desperation; while there *WAS* danger of Israel feeling existentially threatened in nuking both Syria and Egypt.Replies: @CJ
In short, though Arafat had no plans destroying Israel (he didn’t think it possible), his generals gambled that it was indeed possible.
Arafat had lots of plans for destroying Israel, but he didn’t have any generals. That was Sadat.
Oral treaties are worth the paper they are written on.
It appears it is you that can’t understand that the USSR is not Russia. Most of us had a healthy hatred of the USSR. I recall cheering with other kids in my class when the Mujahideen shot down Soviet Hinds with US Stingers.
Post Soviet Union I feel no such animosity. Maybe because I don’t sense the Russians actually want to take over my nation and replace its government like the communists did. In other words the Russians are not a threat to me or my nation. And the fact that they are attempting to re-Christianize is admirable in a world where my side seems to be on the cutting edge of depravity.
I don’t have any personal ethnic animus towards Russians. Now that they are no longer godless commies wanting to overthrow my nation and remake it into something else, I will focus on my anger on those who do, who unfortunately already seem to be ensconced in DC.
What he is saying is that if you don't regard Russia as the successor to the USSR in regard to its activities in Europe or with respect to the Treaty of Malta, then you don't get to regard Russia as the successor to the USSR in regard to understandings around the US not pushing for countries around Russia to join NATO.
Personally, I suspect that Russia will have little real problem with the pussies in NATO, but that Russia would rather not have to have a war to prove that they can defeat NATO.
You sound like one more war-wimp chickenhawk egging other people on. Why don't you shoulder a rifle and go fight somewhere yourself; report back to us later about your exploits.Replies: @CJ
When I read the post by Inscrutoroku Japamoto, I understood his meaning to be 180 degrees away from what you think it is.
While I’m typing, I for one am under the impression that Russia IS ringed with military bases. There are U.S. bases in Alaska, Japan, Korea, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Iraq, Turkey, and Norway. There are U.S. military operations of some sort in lots more of the “stans”. NATO membership has been extended to eastern European nations once in the Warsaw Pact. This imperial overstretch has little to do with actual security interests and a lot to do with the military-industrial-congressional complex that President Eisenhower warned about. The extension of U.S. military operations to areas of little importance to America has been a bipartisan effort, but Bill Clinton’s administration was notably bad for this.
Post Soviet Union I feel no such animosity. Maybe because I don't sense the Russians actually want to take over my nation and replace its government like the communists did. In other words the Russians are not a threat to me or my nation. And the fact that they are attempting to re-Christianize is admirable in a world where my side seems to be on the cutting edge of depravity.
I don't have any personal ethnic animus towards Russians. Now that they are no longer godless commies wanting to overthrow my nation and remake it into something else, I will focus on my anger on those who do, who unfortunately already seem to be ensconced in DC.Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
I think you failed to understand.
What he is saying is that if you don’t regard Russia as the successor to the USSR in regard to its activities in Europe or with respect to the Treaty of Malta, then you don’t get to regard Russia as the successor to the USSR in regard to understandings around the US not pushing for countries around Russia to join NATO.
Personally, I suspect that Russia will have little real problem with the pussies in NATO, but that Russia would rather not have to have a war to prove that they can defeat NATO.
Undoubtedly happens, but the explanation is much simpler. The press doesn't know war vs peace or good vs evil. The press only knows R vs D. War is good when D runs it. War is bad when R runs it.
Nothing new about this. The Vietnam antiwar movement started on the day when Nixon was elected. The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ's war. The war was evil and criminal when it was Nixon's war.Replies: @Former Darfur, @NOTA, @Harry Baldwin, @melendwyr
There was plenty of positive coverage of both wars in Iraq (run by Bush 1 and Bush 2). The press soured on the second Iraq war only after a couple years of increasing mismanagement and failure.
I think the press is usually pretty positive about wars at the beginning, but often becomes less enthusiastic as it turns out the war isn’t going to be quick and decisive and then done.
The problem is that we have a lot more Mace Tyrells than Tyrion Lannisters in the state department.
I was going to stay out of this particular discussion in order to avoid appearing to be self-serving.
While I have no particular animus towards the Russian people, I am aware, as a patriot, of the historical issues and the current difficulties a small country faces when being in the orbit of a great power. It is natural for Poland, Romania, the Baltics especially and others to try every method of ensuring that their continued existence and freedom is not at the pleasure of Russia, the USSR, the Czarist Empire or whatever new political incarnation that great people will adopt. While American patriots have the right to argue against NATO enlargement and poking the bear, and I am also sympathetic to that and to the resentment of the security subsidy the US has been offering its allies for 60 years, the smaller countries also have the right to grab for whatever lifeline was thrown to them, even if it came from the hands of neocons. It is also obvious that we, in Eastern Europe, want peace, not war, because any war will automatically be fought on our soil.
That being said, I’d like to add something to the discussion on the various post-Soviet breakaway regions – they were by design. Every former Soviet Republic was emancipated within its administrative borders as defined during its stint in the USSR. After having their civil society repressed, their elites killed or coopted and their policies decided by fiat from the center, they were not in any position to salami slice their way to viable statehood. But, as Steve Sailer remarked, South Ossetia was not a part of the historical Georgian medieval incarnation. North Ossetia is still in the Russian Federation. Crimea was not a part of Ukraine etc. These internal shuffles of imperial possessions and new acquisitions were expressly done to undermine any sort of push for independence and secession, like a poison pill. This was the role not just of frankensteining the Soviet Republics away from their normal borders, but also of the massive population transfers. The transfers were not just of Russians settling new areas alongside the indigenous populations and the smaller indigenous Russian communities (we have these very old Russians in Romania as well, we call them Lipoveni, just like Romanian communities could be found all the way to the Bug River, where Kiev is in Ukraine, and in the whole of the Balkans, under the name of Vlachs and other Romanian variants). They were also of other populations from other parts of the “empire”. The deportations to Siberia were punishment for the affected locals, were punishment for those taken away, were a way to undermine the cohesiveness and natural majority of the host populations and were a colonization effort, all rolled into one. A documentary on the subject with English subtitles
Having done this, distrust and enmity at local levels were a guarantee of obedience to the central authorities as the keepers of the peace and enforcers of a higher identity necessary for cohesiveness. From my side, Transnistria or Trans-Dniester was never a part of the historic Moldovan medieval state, even though it has always had Romanian communities, and the colonization of Ukraine’s sparse regions in centuries past was done by the Czars by bringing in Ukrainians, Romanians, Serbs, even Swiss colonies (in Budjak – Bugeac). But Transnistria was organized by the USSR as the Moldovan SSR prior to the incorporation of Bessarabia (Eastern Moldova) in WW2. The Moldovan SSR simply expanded to incorporate what was actually Moldova. Kind of like if Mexicans were creating an administrative unit called Texas on the border of the real Texas to incorporate Texas itself at a later date. Then Bessarabia was further shorn of Southern Bessarabia, which is the Bugeac region, and its Northern part (called North Bukovina),which were given to Ukraine.
When Moldova declared its statehood, the poisoned pill immediately went into effect and Transnistria tried to break away, leading to a short war and a frozen conflict. I think the Moldovans might have let it go, with some population transfers, if it hadn’t been for a number of reasons – 1. Transnistria claimed territory on the Western side of the Dniester, in Moldova proper, which it retains to this day; 2. Transnistria would have become an obvious staging point for Russian troops,even though Russia was already hundreds of kms away after the independence of Ukraine (Chișinău gets many of its behavioral cues towards Russia from Kiev, by necessity); to this day, there are Russian “peacekeepers” in Transnistria, despite a signed agreement in 1999 to withdraw them by 2002 between Russia and Moldova. And 3. In the development of the Moldovan SSR, Transnistria was intentionally made the focus point of investments concerning energy production and heavy industry. Without infrastructure links to the West, Moldova without Transnistria was not a viable functioning entity at the beginning of the 90s and would have ended up poorer than it already is. To this day, Moldova buys Transnistrian energy, whose profits (and the existence of the Transnistrian government, which its huge deficits) are subsidized by access to cheap Russian gas and oil. Romania has been trying to change this, but there are problems on our side of the border (indolence, corruption, fear of Russia, lack of vision) not just on the Moldovan side.
Just recently, with the joint Moldova-Transnistria-Russia commission on vacation, the Russians organized military exercises in Transnistria, with river crossings of tanks and troops to simulate putting down extremists on the other side of the Dniester river. This is in spite of the Commission having to be notified in advance of any exercise in the region.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-held-military-exercise-in-transnistria-2015-4
So, South Ossetia was a poison pill. Abkhazia was one as well. Transnistria was a poison pill. The maintenance of the Nagorno-Karabakh ethnic issue of Armenians inside Azeri borders was also a feature, not a bug, for a central government that would move entire populations at whim. And, of course, the liberal sprinkling of Russian colonists in Moldova and the Baltics, as well as the Central Asian stans, that make these countries susceptible to the Medvedev Doctrine of interference in their internal affairs under the guise of protecting the Russian minority.
Two jokes here:
1. A Russian in Odessa refuses to go to the Russian theater and to read Russian newspapers. His friends ask him why. He replies that he’s afraid that, if he is seen speaking in Russian, the Russian will send troops over to protect him.
2. This is a very obscene joke that I heard from military people – why is American imperialism preferable to Russian imperialism, if we get to choose? Because at least the Americans wash their d***s.
You either have to grow very strong very quickly or become very useful for your neighbor (even if only as a buffer state :-). However, you also have to remember, regardless of which side you choose, they won't be around forever, and payback is a bitch.
Now, what is ironic is that the Russians made a big mistake in annexing large portions of Poland because with that they inherited a troublesome population and only really managed to get rid of it in the second half of the 20th century.
Another ironic thing is that Russia was, for a long time, a source of slaves for the Muslim empires, which likely toughened the remaining Russian people up, while the US became a destination for slaves, which is causing problems to this day.Replies: @LondonBob, @Romanian
Undoubtedly happens, but the explanation is much simpler. The press doesn't know war vs peace or good vs evil. The press only knows R vs D. War is good when D runs it. War is bad when R runs it.
Nothing new about this. The Vietnam antiwar movement started on the day when Nixon was elected. The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ's war. The war was evil and criminal when it was Nixon's war.Replies: @Former Darfur, @NOTA, @Harry Baldwin, @melendwyr
The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ’s war.
I guess you weren’t around then. LBJ and his war were hated. It’s why he wouldn’t run for reelection. I’m actually a little embarrassed to be responding to your message as this is really basic stuff.
If American history included the USA being invaded 6 times by an assortment of "honourable"
nations; intent on changing our government and reversing our decisions regarding how we wished to govern ourselves, over the preceeding of 200 years, we too might have a jaundiced view of our neighbours and their intentions. Smart people refrain from sticking their peckers into the hornets nest just to tease the hornets, Americans are not smart people it would appear.Replies: @Sam Haysom, @Stan Adams
It would appear from your spelling (but not your punctuation) that you are not American.
Americans and/or anyone living in America should assimilate to American norms – norms defined, maintained, and enforced by Americans. One of those norms is omitting the “u” from words such as neighbor and honor.
As an American, I adhere religiously to all American norms, except the ones I don’t like.
In America of this year, appearance is everything.
Undoubtedly happens, but the explanation is much simpler. The press doesn't know war vs peace or good vs evil. The press only knows R vs D. War is good when D runs it. War is bad when R runs it.
Nothing new about this. The Vietnam antiwar movement started on the day when Nixon was elected. The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ's war. The war was evil and criminal when it was Nixon's war.Replies: @Former Darfur, @NOTA, @Harry Baldwin, @melendwyr
“The war was good and necessary when it was LBJ’s war.”
Hey, hey, L-B-J! How many kids did you kill today?
– Vietnam era protester chant
While I have no particular animus towards the Russian people, I am aware, as a patriot, of the historical issues and the current difficulties a small country faces when being in the orbit of a great power. It is natural for Poland, Romania, the Baltics especially and others to try every method of ensuring that their continued existence and freedom is not at the pleasure of Russia, the USSR, the Czarist Empire or whatever new political incarnation that great people will adopt. While American patriots have the right to argue against NATO enlargement and poking the bear, and I am also sympathetic to that and to the resentment of the security subsidy the US has been offering its allies for 60 years, the smaller countries also have the right to grab for whatever lifeline was thrown to them, even if it came from the hands of neocons. It is also obvious that we, in Eastern Europe, want peace, not war, because any war will automatically be fought on our soil. That being said, I'd like to add something to the discussion on the various post-Soviet breakaway regions - they were by design. Every former Soviet Republic was emancipated within its administrative borders as defined during its stint in the USSR. After having their civil society repressed, their elites killed or coopted and their policies decided by fiat from the center, they were not in any position to salami slice their way to viable statehood. But, as Steve Sailer remarked, South Ossetia was not a part of the historical Georgian medieval incarnation. North Ossetia is still in the Russian Federation. Crimea was not a part of Ukraine etc. These internal shuffles of imperial possessions and new acquisitions were expressly done to undermine any sort of push for independence and secession, like a poison pill. This was the role not just of frankensteining the Soviet Republics away from their normal borders, but also of the massive population transfers. The transfers were not just of Russians settling new areas alongside the indigenous populations and the smaller indigenous Russian communities (we have these very old Russians in Romania as well, we call them Lipoveni, just like Romanian communities could be found all the way to the Bug River, where Kiev is in Ukraine, and in the whole of the Balkans, under the name of Vlachs and other Romanian variants). They were also of other populations from other parts of the "empire". The deportations to Siberia were punishment for the affected locals, were punishment for those taken away, were a way to undermine the cohesiveness and natural majority of the host populations and were a colonization effort, all rolled into one. A documentary on the subject with English subtitles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NP_bXq4NI44Having done this, distrust and enmity at local levels were a guarantee of obedience to the central authorities as the keepers of the peace and enforcers of a higher identity necessary for cohesiveness. From my side, Transnistria or Trans-Dniester was never a part of the historic Moldovan medieval state, even though it has always had Romanian communities, and the colonization of Ukraine's sparse regions in centuries past was done by the Czars by bringing in Ukrainians, Romanians, Serbs, even Swiss colonies (in Budjak - Bugeac). But Transnistria was organized by the USSR as the Moldovan SSR prior to the incorporation of Bessarabia (Eastern Moldova) in WW2. The Moldovan SSR simply expanded to incorporate what was actually Moldova. Kind of like if Mexicans were creating an administrative unit called Texas on the border of the real Texas to incorporate Texas itself at a later date. Then Bessarabia was further shorn of Southern Bessarabia, which is the Bugeac region, and its Northern part (called North Bukovina),which were given to Ukraine.When Moldova declared its statehood, the poisoned pill immediately went into effect and Transnistria tried to break away, leading to a short war and a frozen conflict. I think the Moldovans might have let it go, with some population transfers, if it hadn't been for a number of reasons - 1. Transnistria claimed territory on the Western side of the Dniester, in Moldova proper, which it retains to this day; 2. Transnistria would have become an obvious staging point for Russian troops,even though Russia was already hundreds of kms away after the independence of Ukraine (Chișinău gets many of its behavioral cues towards Russia from Kiev, by necessity); to this day, there are Russian "peacekeepers" in Transnistria, despite a signed agreement in 1999 to withdraw them by 2002 between Russia and Moldova. And 3. In the development of the Moldovan SSR, Transnistria was intentionally made the focus point of investments concerning energy production and heavy industry. Without infrastructure links to the West, Moldova without Transnistria was not a viable functioning entity at the beginning of the 90s and would have ended up poorer than it already is. To this day, Moldova buys Transnistrian energy, whose profits (and the existence of the Transnistrian government, which its huge deficits) are subsidized by access to cheap Russian gas and oil. Romania has been trying to change this, but there are problems on our side of the border (indolence, corruption, fear of Russia, lack of vision) not just on the Moldovan side.Just recently, with the joint Moldova-Transnistria-Russia commission on vacation, the Russians organized military exercises in Transnistria, with river crossings of tanks and troops to simulate putting down extremists on the other side of the Dniester river. This is in spite of the Commission having to be notified in advance of any exercise in the region.
http://www.businessinsider.com/russia-held-military-exercise-in-transnistria-2015-4So, South Ossetia was a poison pill. Abkhazia was one as well. Transnistria was a poison pill. The maintenance of the Nagorno-Karabakh ethnic issue of Armenians inside Azeri borders was also a feature, not a bug, for a central government that would move entire populations at whim. And, of course, the liberal sprinkling of Russian colonists in Moldova and the Baltics, as well as the Central Asian stans, that make these countries susceptible to the Medvedev Doctrine of interference in their internal affairs under the guise of protecting the Russian minority.Two jokes here:
1. A Russian in Odessa refuses to go to the Russian theater and to read Russian newspapers. His friends ask him why. He replies that he's afraid that, if he is seen speaking in Russian, the Russian will send troops over to protect him.
2. This is a very obscene joke that I heard from military people - why is American imperialism preferable to Russian imperialism, if we get to choose? Because at least the Americans wash their d***s.Replies: @The most deplorable one
Well, that is the fate of a small country/people on the edge of a large country/people.
You either have to grow very strong very quickly or become very useful for your neighbor (even if only as a buffer state :-). However, you also have to remember, regardless of which side you choose, they won’t be around forever, and payback is a bitch.
Now, what is ironic is that the Russians made a big mistake in annexing large portions of Poland because with that they inherited a troublesome population and only really managed to get rid of it in the second half of the 20th century.
Another ironic thing is that Russia was, for a long time, a source of slaves for the Muslim empires, which likely toughened the remaining Russian people up, while the US became a destination for slaves, which is causing problems to this day.
What you say about smaller countries fearing their larger neighbors is true, but there are exceptions in the world, many of them occurring in modern times for various reasons. Germany and its smaller neighbors, for instance. What happened before was before, but you can't argue today that Austrians have anything to fear from ze Germans. Neither do Serbia and Bulgaria have anything to fear from Romania, despite us officially being three times their individual size in population. Would that we were an island!
Let me ‘splain it for you:
Your obsession with All Russkies Considered is maybe border line coherent, but definitely border line pathological.
(Out of your 603 comments there are 96 mentions of the dreaded Permanent-Evil Empire in various forms)
My friend, even an Applebaum/Gessen/King-Kong Axis of Experts ain’t got sh#t on you!
But, it’s good for the traffic on UR, so don’t give up….
I guess you weren't around then. LBJ and his war were hated. It's why he wouldn't run for reelection. I'm actually a little embarrassed to be responding to your message as this is really basic stuff.Replies: @Desiderius
LBJ was also from Texas, which cancelled out any Pokemon points he might have gotten for being a D, the Great Society, etc… The Left had no love for LBJ.
There are no U.S. bases in Norway.
Since NATO won’t admit any prospect that has a quarrel over dirt with a neighbor, it would seem the New York Times has it entirely correct. Putin said “check”.
Let me ‘splain it for you:
Your preoccupation with All Russkies Considered is maybe border line coherent, but definitely border line obsessive.
(Out of your 603 comments there are 96 mentions of the dreaded Permanent-Evil Empire in various forms)
My friend, even an Applebaum/Gessen/King-Kong Axis of Experts ain’t got sh#t on you!
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
"preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility."
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
"there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia."
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Sam Haysom, @Karl, @Ben Tzot-Abrit, @The Man From K Street
Steve, in the early stages of the 73 war the Egyptians were blasting Israeli tanks in Sinai to smithereens with new rockets Israel couldn’t counter. The Syrians had opened an unobstructed path down the Jordan Valley. Moshe Dayan was ready to announce at a press conference that the fall of Jerusalem and Israel proper were imminent.
Many have argued that if the Syrians went straight for Jerusalem instead of admiring their success, the Arab armies would have ended Israel before Sharon had a chance to take control. All this despite Sadat’s modest ambitions for the war.
Russia was obligated to defend itself in the face of Georgian belligerence. But Moscow was never on the line.
I don’t think you have a strong analogy here.
Not to mention the Israeli nukes.
While the analogy obviously has some limitations, it roughly shows us just how misleading the MSM has been, with no further aims.Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
And many have argued for the opposite. You know, mobile motorized/armored offensive operations are not among Arabs’ strengths.
Not to mention the Israeli nukes.
While the analogy obviously has some limitations, it roughly shows us just how misleading the MSM has been, with no further aims.
The Israeli Air Force also took significant losses in 1973 because of the new SAMs they did not know Egypt had.
Cause hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, Japan, etc. are enough. That is a hell of a long way from retreating within our borders.
And every single war since WW 2 that we have failed to win? Places where it doesn't matter.
Like a salesman that can't take yes for an answer, we can't seem to declare victory and cash in. Enough is enough except for elites whose careers demand conflict. There is no imaginable political entity that won't sell oil in Global Markets. Including non sovereign ISIS.
As someone who has personally used a Citi bank card in Hanoi, I can't remember what we were fighting for. The French?
We are by far the safest and most powerful nation in the history of the world and we are acting like scared little bitches.Replies: @FUBAR007, @guest
What you’re describing isn’t the Buchanan-ite position. That position consists of dissolving NATO (i.e. leaving Western Europe) and withdrawing the U.S. from overseas commitments–in other words, retreating inside our borders.
The problem with that worldview, fundamentally, is this: even if we decide to leave the rest of the world alone, the rest of the world won’t leave us alone. “Live and let live” is not a viable foreign policy. That’s not even getting into the 2nd- and 3rd-order effects of letting other powers fill the vacuum we’d leave behind.
That’s because there is no victory. Until there is a single world government with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and the capability to enforce global laws and keep everybody in line, there never will be.
Peace and security without authority are not possible.
Nope. To prevent a COMINTERN domino effect in SE Asia (i.e. control over the Strait of Malacca), our fear of which, as the Vietnamese explained to us later, turned out to be overblown.
Had we had better intel and been less ideological, we’d have done with the Vietnamese what we’re doing now: turning them into an ally and a local client as a hedge against their ancient enemy and our chief economic rival, China.
“And over the last 8 years, high-level foreign and military policy has been in the hands of people with whom establishment journalists feel culturally [my emphasis] comfortable.”
Nicely esoteric, Steve, and I mean that. I wish I had your patience.
Russia now may not be the USSR, but they have a lot of the USSR’s weapons. So we better care what they think of whether we’re bound or not.
Has Tyrion ever shown any actual aptitude at diplomacy? Other than to save his own skin, I mean. He had real authority twice. King’s Landing was saved by his father’s alliance, as brokered by Little Finger. In the pyramid city he screwed everything up and had to be saved by dragons.
If anything he should be in the department of defense. He kept order in the capitol, he devised the wildfire trap, he freed the two dragons so they could be of use later.
Reagan could’ve retaliated and he wouldn’t have been in the wrong.
BTW there was no way for the Russian (I believe) battalion to retreat while under attack and artillery fire.
Of course it would be very convenient for Georgia: heads I win, tail it’s a draw. But war doesn’t work like this. The Russians withdrew from Georgia quickly after the war.
You either have to grow very strong very quickly or become very useful for your neighbor (even if only as a buffer state :-). However, you also have to remember, regardless of which side you choose, they won't be around forever, and payback is a bitch.
Now, what is ironic is that the Russians made a big mistake in annexing large portions of Poland because with that they inherited a troublesome population and only really managed to get rid of it in the second half of the 20th century.
Another ironic thing is that Russia was, for a long time, a source of slaves for the Muslim empires, which likely toughened the remaining Russian people up, while the US became a destination for slaves, which is causing problems to this day.Replies: @LondonBob, @Romanian
Stalin should have left East Prussia alone then the GDR could have been the successor state to Prussia, perhaps permanently cleaved from Germany as Austria was. Poland wouldn’t have had their borders moved east but could have been given the province of Galicia instead, thus giving Poland a permanent restive population to distract them and a permanently Russophile Ukraine.
You either have to grow very strong very quickly or become very useful for your neighbor (even if only as a buffer state :-). However, you also have to remember, regardless of which side you choose, they won't be around forever, and payback is a bitch.
Now, what is ironic is that the Russians made a big mistake in annexing large portions of Poland because with that they inherited a troublesome population and only really managed to get rid of it in the second half of the 20th century.
Another ironic thing is that Russia was, for a long time, a source of slaves for the Muslim empires, which likely toughened the remaining Russian people up, while the US became a destination for slaves, which is causing problems to this day.Replies: @LondonBob, @Romanian
Don’t forget about Mongols, Tatars and other assorted central Asian devils.
What you say about smaller countries fearing their larger neighbors is true, but there are exceptions in the world, many of them occurring in modern times for various reasons. Germany and its smaller neighbors, for instance. What happened before was before, but you can’t argue today that Austrians have anything to fear from ze Germans. Neither do Serbia and Bulgaria have anything to fear from Romania, despite us officially being three times their individual size in population. Would that we were an island!
I’m amazed by the weird implication that Georgia was in the wrong there. “Invading” your own territory is not possible. Likewise, separatists have clearly given Georgia a casus belli. A simple Wikipedia search will confirm as much.
Those of you who defend Russia, those of you who seem to implicitly think that a neutral, isolationist America is possible much less desirable, really, really don't get it. There is no balance in international relations. There is no fair play. There is no global social contract or independent, impartial body to play referee. The UN is a toothless tiger (by design, incidentally) and has no monopoly on any legitimate use of force.
International relations is Game of Thrones. It's dominate or be dominated. If we don't do it, someone else will. There are legitimate arguments to be had over how best to do that, but make no mistake, that is the inherent nature of the game.
And, for a nation as large as ours, neutrality simply isn't an option. This Buchanan-ite sentiment that we can somehow retreat within our borders and stay out of the global Great Game is childish and naive. It ain't 1850 anymore.
With Putin and Russia, take the rose-colored glasses off. He's not a role model, and he's not your friend. Nor is he just a humble, reasonable Russian patriot seeking to defend his homeland. He's a dictator and a kleptocrat who plays by the rules of realpolitik. He, and Russia, will do whatever they can get away with in order to expand Russia's power and its borders. That's nothing unique to Russia, mind you--China's doing the same thing in the South China Sea; that's just how the game is played.
The biggest mistakes we made were: 1) not integrating Russia into the West--and NATO--in the 1990s the way we did Germany after WWII and 2) buying into the notion that the "path to Moscow" ran through Kiev instead of the other way around. Had we had our shit together 25 years ago, NATO would extend across the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic would be a Western lake, and there'd be NATO bases all along Russia's southern frontier with American and Russian troops serving side by side. Alas, though, it's way too late for that.Replies: @Verymuchalive, @vinteuil, @Anon, @IA
Yeah, and now Germany has Muslims raping German women and much, much more to come.
I'm all for lateral thinking, but sheesh.
How about Tywin Lannister (http://gameofthrones.wikia.com/wiki/Tywin_Lannister) as played by the steely Charles Dance? Nobody messed with him. Soft power, my butt.
But you would recognize how tendentious it would be for someone to report in an aside:
"preventing Arab nationalism was a centerpiece of the career of Ariel Sharon, who invaded Egypt on October 18, 1973 largely to forestall that possibility."
You would be pointing out that twelve days before Sharon crossed the Suez Canal on 10/18/73, the Egyptians had crossed the Canal on 10/6/73.
"there was never any danger of Georgia actually invading Russia."
Despite Israeli panic, there was never any danger that the Egyptian Army would somehow fight its way across all the rugged land that had taken Moses 40 years to cross and invade Israel proper. (In fact, the Egyptian war plan was to simply to cross the Suez Canal and win one battle over Israel.)
In 1973, the US not only massively airlifted weapons to Israel, but escalated the nuclear war alert status to scare the Russians into staying out.Replies: @Yojimbo/Zatoichi, @Sam Haysom, @Karl, @Ben Tzot-Abrit, @The Man From K Street
The panic was not about the Sinai Front. It was about the very near-run collapse of the Golan Front, which if it happened, would put Syrian troops in a very real position to invade Galilee. (That the Syrians had not planned for such a spectacular windfall does not mean they would not have taken it should it have fallen into their lap–history is full of examples of the forces who end up like the defensive back who gets a football popped out of a tackle and sees a clear path to the end zone).
At which point, Israeli air superiority would take command as the Syrians got out from under their air defenses and then the Syrian advance is cut off, surrounded, and destroyed in Galilee by the Israeli reserve.
I don’t doubt that things were pretty scary at the Israeli HQ for a few days (both the Egyptians and Syrians made use of new tactics and technology — e.g., the Syrians had night vision in their tanks, which the Israelis did not — and thus the Israelis couldn’t be sure of what else was in their bag of tricks).
But there were good reasons why the Egyptian and Syrian war aims were so limited in 1973, as the course of the fighting quickly showed.
Australia retained a paranoia about a Yellow Peril into the early 1960s when it begged the US to commit forces to halt the supposed Chinese Communist advance in Vietnam. Do the same arguments apply? If not why not?
Tywin was masterful. Just look at what happened to his family after he died. (Okay, his daughter is on the throne, but through highly unusual circumstances, and for how long?)
Not to mention the Israeli nukes.
While the analogy obviously has some limitations, it roughly shows us just how misleading the MSM has been, with no further aims.Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
Perhaps not, but the Syrian-Israeli front of the 73 war was the largest tank battle since WWII and one of the largest in history. And the Israeli tanks were outnumbered and the battalions woefully unprepared because of the hubris that infected the Israeli military after 1967.
Israeli nukes were to be used if the war was lost. They were not a tactical advantage, they were a nihilistic “Sampson Option.”
I think my (and Steve's) point still stands, though: it would be misleading to say that the war was started by Israel, because "neither Egypt nor Syria can invade its own territory", or somesuch argument. The analogy is not perfect, but it highlights the important point that the MSM's treatment of the Russo-Georgian war is demented.
Is there any disagreement left between us?Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
When the Russians held their 'Kavkaz (Caucausus) 2008' exercises from 15 July-2 August that year, and units started moving through the Roki tunnel in the days after, starting with irregular North Ossetian and Cossack forces(3-4-5 August), followed by elements of the 33 Mountain Infantry Regiment (5 August), elements of 135 and 693 Motor Rifle Regiments, (7 August) and some GRU units.
Of course the Georgia war cannot be viewed in isolation: the Russian recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (and withdrawal from an old CIS accord prohibiting same) came after the US recognition of Kosovo earlier that year. Russia fostered an agreement where the leaders of S. Ossetia, Abkhazia, and Trans-Dniester (the Russian pocket-Oblast in Moldova) promised military support to each other. Putin promised consequences, and here they were.
Putin was intent on making a point in Georgia in any event. The Russians, if sufficiently motivated, will always manage to escalate provocations to a crescendo, then claim the other guy hit first. When Russians sponsor "breakaway provinces" supported by Russian "volunteers", the question isn't "who shelled first?", or "why the hell didn't Saakashvili put a laser-guided bomb into the Roki tunnel?" It's: "do we care?"
Do we care that the Russians are salami-slicing their way around the old Soviet space? Do we care about Nagorno-Karabakh? Do we care about Trans-Dniester? To ask if we care about South Ossetia, Abkhazia is really to ask if we care about Georgia. Do we care about Crimea? About Donetsk and Luhansk?
How much is peace in Europe worth to us?Replies: @anonymous, @Karl
i don’t know if you’re right or wrong…
…but at least you didn’t call yourself Japayuki
We’ll have to disagree on the inevitability of an Israeli victory.
The Egyptians were on a seemingly unstoppable offensive, and Sharon pulled a completely counterintuitive assault on them with a small force of three brigades. And he beat and bewildered them back across the canal. Had he not pulled off that epic feat, Israel would have lost the war. At the most critical stage he essentially turned a two-front contest into a one-front contest. And he knew this would save the northern command.
There’s a reason why David Elazar, Eli Zeira, Moshe Dayan, Shmuel Gonen, Golda Maier and Aryeh Shalev all had their careers ended by the war. It was no ordinary cock-up. It was a near catastrophe averted by Sharon despite the resistance and heated dispute of most of the IDF High Command.
Steve, what you seem to be implying here sounds very like the WWII Pacific revisionist argument. That Japan had overreached, had no hope of progressing on to the Australian mainland whose northern reaches are impenetrable and thousands of miles from cities, unlike the few islands and thin coastlines Japan had managed to dominate. Therefore the Pacific War was at least partly a massive American (and Australian) over-reaction, so they say. They were spoiling for a fight with the US obviously, and were formidable opponents, but could it have been settled with diplomacy? The Dutch lost their colonies anyway.
Australia retained a paranoia about a Yellow Peril into the early 1960s when it begged the US to commit forces to halt the supposed Chinese Communist advance in Vietnam. Do the same arguments apply? If not why not?
The logical Israeli policy toward them after 1967 would be, given they planned on eventually giving up the land anyway, to curry their favor and raise their expectations so as to reduce their future loyalty to Egypt.Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
Bedouin in Egypt and Jordan are treated like sh*t. I haven’t seen the former for myself, but I’ve seen the latter. The right to defecate in the caves in Petra seems to be the big perk of being a Bedouin in southern Jordan. In Wadi Rum they’re basically indigent (but still hospitable!).
They certainly have material and quality-of-life advantages in Israel, from what I’ve seen and what you’d imagine. And the Bedouin and the Druze have both shown themselves willing to switch loyalties depending on who controls their territory.
But they don’t immediately embrace new conquerors without some degree of confidence the new folks will remain in power. Between 67 and 73 it seems unlikely that many Sinai Bedouin would have found it prudent to start identifying with Israel.
OK, I accept your major point, which is that for Israel its very existence was or at least seemed to be on the line.
I think my (and Steve’s) point still stands, though: it would be misleading to say that the war was started by Israel, because “neither Egypt nor Syria can invade its own territory”, or somesuch argument. The analogy is not perfect, but it highlights the important point that the MSM’s treatment of the Russo-Georgian war is demented.
Is there any disagreement left between us?
I think my (and Steve's) point still stands, though: it would be misleading to say that the war was started by Israel, because "neither Egypt nor Syria can invade its own territory", or somesuch argument. The analogy is not perfect, but it highlights the important point that the MSM's treatment of the Russo-Georgian war is demented.
Is there any disagreement left between us?Replies: @Ben Tzot-Abrit
We’re agreed. I digressed (with others) on to the question of Israel’s vulnerability during the 73 war. But that wasn’t the point you and Steve were making. I’m in full agreement with you that Georgia invaded Russian territory, Russia had an obligation to defend itself, and that the American news coverage was a Russophobic snowjob.
That is a huge oversimplification. Tensions were growing, but it’s obvious it was driven by the desire of Georgia to force the breakaway republics back into the fold.
According to the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia:
Sorry for the huge copypaste, I copied it from the pdf file.
This is the link where you can check for yourself.
Hey, if a certain group of people can always act like it’s still 1938, then why should we be down on the Russians for thinking it’s still 1941…or 1812.
WTF does that have to do with NATO?
I’m all for lateral thinking, but sheesh.
IIRC, both sides were running out of ammo towards the end. I read somewhere that the war, short as it was, consumed a year’s worth of ammo production.
Cause hegemony over the Western Hemisphere, Western Europe, Japan, etc. are enough. That is a hell of a long way from retreating within our borders.
And every single war since WW 2 that we have failed to win? Places where it doesn't matter.
Like a salesman that can't take yes for an answer, we can't seem to declare victory and cash in. Enough is enough except for elites whose careers demand conflict. There is no imaginable political entity that won't sell oil in Global Markets. Including non sovereign ISIS.
As someone who has personally used a Citi bank card in Hanoi, I can't remember what we were fighting for. The French?
We are by far the safest and most powerful nation in the history of the world and we are acting like scared little bitches.Replies: @FUBAR007, @guest
“That is a hell of a long way from retreating within our borders”
Yeah. I remember watching the movie The Bridges at Toko Ri, wherein Bill Holden plays a pilot who questions a senior officer about just why we’re fighting in Korea, and the guy says something like he’d rather fight them in Korea than at the Grand Canyon. And I’m thinking, what happened to our border? Can’t we fight them there, at least?
Nevermind whether they’re coming over at all. Nevermind that Korea is thousands of miles away. They can’t even imagine fighting simply for our country. It’s gotta be fighting IN our country, like we’re already losing. So it’s either fight thousands of miles away or lose.
There’s always that loaded deck when talking to global imperialists. Either you’re literally everywhere or you’re losing.
Americans and/or anyone living in America should assimilate to American norms - norms defined, maintained, and enforced by Americans. One of those norms is omitting the "u" from words such as neighbor and honor.
As an American, I adhere religiously to all American norms, except the ones I don't like.Replies: @CK
So do I. Did you ever hear Ike pronounce the word schedule?
In America of this year, appearance is everything.