The vital central city of Gori has fallen today and the capital is next! :-(
Sure, Georgia overplayed it's hand when it tried reclaiming it's breakaway province more loyal to Russia than the Georgian government, but Russia has really overstepped it's bounds in this insane invasion.
I can almost understand Russia invading to help the breakaway province a la Germany invading Czechoslovakia before WWII, but to not stop and start invading Georgia proper and now taking central cities... freaking nuts.
The problem is Georgia is one of our strongest allies...but they are small and weak. They are ][ close to joining NATO which Russia of course hates. But we need Russia to help stop the Iranians from getting nukes.
Do we save Georgia and screw our relationship with Russia? Or do we let Georgia be annihilated and show our utter weakness?
Russia is showing that they don't really care about this province... what they really want is to take out the Georgian President, a huge USA fan, and remove this thorn from their side.
[UPDATE]
Seems like there were conflicting stories about the city... Gori was not taken originally, just surrounded.
But now, just a day after the cease-fire was signed they took the city anyway. Georgian forces seem to have already evacuated towards the capital, just 40 miles away
[ August 13, 2008, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Telperion the Silver ]
Posted by JLM (Member # 7800) on :
You can trust Russia as far as you can throw it. They have always been and always will be imperial expantionists. Sooner or later, war with Russia (be it hot or cold) is inevitible.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Russia's defence ministry quickly issued a statement rejecting the claim, saying there were none of its troops in Gori.
Later, a spokesman for the Georgian interior ministry told the BBC that there had never been Russian troops in Gori.
He said the Russian army had taken up a position just outside the town after destroying a military base and admitted Georgian troops had fled the area without putting up a fight.
If Russia decides to take Georgia, or to take some portion of it, they'll get it, and it'll only embolden them to try and take more territory from other former SSRs. No one is going to send a massive military force to Russia to repel an invading force. Even if we had the will, we in America don't really have the means. Russia's no pushover. Georgia is.
I have less, but not zero sympathy though for the country that started it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I happen to recall that France's largest policy mistakes of the 20's and 30's was making these large coalitions with you geussed it small and weak nations.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Actually aside from the Baltic states Georgia was the only former SSR thats really moved away from Russia, Ukraine's government had to compromise with the Pro Russia crowd so they're efforts are going to slowly slow down, Kazakistan and Belarus actually want to return to some sort of stronger confederacy type government (Union of Belarus and Russia for example) and most of the other central asian states I haven't much from but considering they're geographical position I doubt they have moved far.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Methinks most of Ukraine's compromising has to do with a large Russian military and the fact that Russia can cut off their gas and oil with Winter forthcoming.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I can almost understand Russia invading to help the breakaway province a la Germany invading Czechoslovakia before WWII, but to not stop and start invading Georgia proper and now taking central cities... freaking nuts.
What is nuts about it? What bad consequences do you foresee for the Russians?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I can almost understand Russia invading to help the breakaway province a la Germany invading Czechoslovakia before WWII, but to not stop and start invading Georgia proper and now taking central cities... freaking nuts.
What is nuts about it? What bad consequences do you foresee for the Russians?
Zero.
At least it seems like Gori has not fallen and fighting seems to have slowed down..
What I don't get is why would Georgia basically perform such a suicidal act...it must have known what would have happened...
Did Russia bait Georgia in some way? An attempt to claim the pipeline perhaps?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote: Do we save Georgia and screw our relationship with Russia?
I can't see "saving" Georgia without a full-out war between US and Russia.
This is something we've managed to avoid for the last 60+ years, with good reason! I'd rather my country not be a steaming crater of glass, thank you very much.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I happen to recall that France's largest policy mistakes of the 20's and 30's was making these large coalitions with you guessed it small and weak nations.
Um, no. The mistake was to make those coalitions and then not back them up. Poland and the Czechs between them could easily have matched the Wehrmacht as late as 1938. Add France, and all that was needed was a tiny bit of leadership.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Well, I got a forward from my colleagues in Georgia today, asking us to sign a petition and urge the US to help out. This was the response I got to my inquiries about how they all are doing. I guess if they are able to e-mail requests for political help, no one over there has been hurt yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It looks like things might be fizzling out a little bit of the reports of truces and six point plans are to be believed.
I don't think Russia is backing down at all though. I think they pretty much just tested the waters and proved to the world that if they want something, no one is really going to stop them, and all they'll get is a loud of complaining. Granted this thing didn't really go on long enough to escalate to the point where someone MIGHT have done something, but if Russia had reall wanted to, Georgia could either be totally overrun or a pile of rubble right now. No one jumped to their defense physically.
With the exception of stuff like Russia's "diplomatic standing" with the world, or how people feel about Russia, which I don't think equates to a whole heck of a lot most of the time, I think this was a major coup for Russia. They just flexed, and no one really pushed back.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
What I don't understand is why the World isn't angry about the military agression? Where are the anti-war demonstrations with hundreds of thousands condemning Russia for its Emperialism? Where is the peace-nicks traveling over seas for the sit-ins at bomb targets? Where are the body bags demonstrating the numbers killed on both sides? I will tell you where. Scared of Russia and perhaps even supportive of its actions (that kind of shows they aren't anti-war, just anti-United States).
When "the wall fell down" on Communist Russia I had hope it would become better over there. For maybe a few years it was better, but then Putin came into office. Almost all of his actions have been totaltarian. I think the only thing holding him back from returning to the old ways is the memories of the old ways by the majority who lived it. Give it another generation if Russia continues to vote in a Putin type President and the "Evil Empire" will return.
As to backing Georgia? To be honest, I really don't know what Georgia might have done or if Russia was unprovoked. There has been conflicting reports with perhaps more silence about any motive from either side, just Russia invaded Georgia.
History is keeping me from really caring what Russia does to Georgia. Like everyone here (I assume), I lived during the fall of Communist Russia and rather enjoy the illusionary peace. I am afraid that we are entering a new Cold War with a real Superpower and not even realizing it. There are serious problems with antagonizing a beast that has proven more than once it will bite. Iran can posture, but holds no serious threat (for now). N. Korea doesn't have the money for more than a Hail Mary. China has the numbers and the power, but likes its mix of historical isolationism and U.S. imported commerce. Russia, on the other hand, wants its glory back and has the power to try.
Both McCain and Obama's reactions (and the next U.S. President is going to have to deal with this in the long run) have me scared. The rhetoric is reaching war-like cries. The United States is strong, but its real allies either think its too conservative (Europe) or too liberal or decadent (Middle East). It has never been liked and for that reason I get very upset by those who think the United States is Emperialistic. No, it is not. At least, not since the bulk of its States were organized. Meanwhile the real Empirialists - the ones that really are willing and can start WWIII - are considered harmless. Then again, maybe it is because they aren't considered harmless that the U.S. can be the World's punching bag. No real regrets, but a sense of having stood up to a powerful force.
I hate Russia. On the other hand, I don't want to get it angry.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Russia has taken Gori for real now, after the supposed peace accords were sign.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Oh crap...
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Hey Telp, you might want to change the thread of the title to reflect the confusion and the update. Just so that people who are following this will know there's been an update.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Occasional have you ever heard of "Shock Therapy" in terms of Boris Yeltsin's handling of the Russian economy and how it nearly collapsed the Russian economy? Things were very bad just before Putin to the average Russian Putin is seen to have brought about a upward turn for the economy.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:With the exception of stuff like Russia's "diplomatic standing" with the world, or how people feel about Russia, which I don't think equates to a whole heck of a lot most of the time, I think this was a major coup for Russia. They just flexed, and no one really pushed back.
Bad enough that Moscow just let all their former territories know Russia will do whatever they feel like with them. The subtext here is even more disturbing though - "The West is unable and unwilling to stop us."
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
What about the Georgian military? Are they setting up a line around Tblisi? I assume so.
It's looking more and more like Russia is gunning for the capital, as their troops headed down the highway from Gori to Tblisi, only to set up a base an hour away from the city.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
considering they cut and run without a fight from Gori I wouldn't hold my breath, the Georgian military has been a rather large disappointment.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
But if Tblisi falls there is no more Georgia...there is no more cut and run...they've run as far as they can. I hope the whole racoon-backed-into-the-corner gives the Georgians more resolve in saving themselves.
Though if Russia says "surrender or we flatten the city" it's a big incentive to surrender. BUT, if Russia really did try and flatten the city then the world might be goaded enough to actually do something serious against Russia... though they still have Europe by the stones by holding their fuel hostage.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
???
Georgia is somewhat bigger then it looks, you could have a significant geurilla campaign and annoy, so far none of that has happened.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:considering they cut and run without a fight from Gori I wouldn't hold my breath, the Georgian military has been a rather large disappointment.
Georgia is somewhat bigger then it looks, you could have a significant geurilla campaign and annoy, so far none of that has happened.
Or Georgia has decided, in an effort to stop its tyrannical bullying six-hundred pound gorilla of a neighbor, to avoid fighting wherever they can in order to deny Russia any further pretexts for continued aggression. When there is no longer a hope for Russian aggression and invasion to cease, things may very well change.
Do you make even the slightest effort to examine any of your preconceptions before speaking, Blayne? This isn't China we're talking about. Think! Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Occasional: it isn't like such reactions happen in the case of any small war the US isn't involved in. You're acting like this is somehow different from typical behavior when it is exactly the same as typical behavior for wars like this.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I thought this would be a good place to post Ron Paul's assessment of Russia and Georgia back in 2002. Granted it is not directly related to the current conflict because Russia didn't use "terrorism" as an excuse to attack, but it is still interesting.
1 minute and 10 seconds.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Blayne,
quote:considering they cut and run without a fight from Gori I wouldn't hold my breath, the Georgian military has been a rather large disappointment.
Georgia is somewhat bigger then it looks, you could have a significant geurilla campaign and annoy, so far none of that has happened.
Or Georgia has decided, in an effort to stop its tyrannical bullying six-hundred pound gorilla of a neighbor, to avoid fighting wherever they can in order to deny Russia any further pretexts for continued aggression. When there is no longer a hope for Russian aggression and invasion to cease, things may very well change.
Do you make even the slightest effort to examine any of your preconceptions before speaking, Blayne? This isn't China we're talking about. Think!
Your giving a huge benefit of the doubt there when journalists more or less confirmed they cut and run. This isn't some grand strategy to stop provoking Russia, Georgia's entire C&C infrastructure is currently toast the Georgian government has no idea of whats going on anywhere.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
"You're acting like this is somehow different from typical behavior when it is exactly the same as typical behavior for wars like this."
Let me clarify then. The typical rection is what worries me. Unlike all those small wars, reactions to this one can have huge consiquences because of who we are dealing with. This is no second rate country that can't be found on a map beating up on another second rate country. This is Russia. I would feel the same way if this was China invading Taiwan . Say and do the wrong thing and nuclear war could be the end product.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Blayne,
quote:Your giving a huge benefit of the doubt there when journalists more or less confirmed they cut and run. This isn't some grand strategy to stop provoking Russia, Georgia's entire C&C infrastructure is currently toast the Georgian government has no idea of whats going on anywhere.
Heh, so now you're trusting the accounts of journalists? It's fun watching when you'll believe journalists and when you won't.
I'm sure there's more than a little frantic retreating going on. I'm equally convinced that such a thing also serves Georgian interests for the time being as well.
Georgia has no hope of repelling a committed Russian invasion. Zero. Why shouldn't they retreat? Ask yourself what Russia would be doing if they were putting up stiff resistance with lots of Russian casualties.
I would also ask you to put yourself in their shoes and wonder what you would do were you them, but you're famously incapable of doing that.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
No I think your giving way to much credit to a country with a second rate military. With no or piss poor command and control remaining I highly doubt some "higher" strategy of combat avoidance is in effect, Your giving them way to much credit.
Stiff resistance would "buy them time", would show the world they are worth backing up, if they're so unreliable as to run away at the first sign of trouble are they worth this much effort by NATO?
If I were georgia I wouldn't have done anything at all, I would not have attacked a Russian enclave knowing the probably outcome, not without a massive amount of preparation and mobilization in the first place.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Stiff resistance would "buy them time", would show the world they are worth backing up, if they're so unreliable as to run away at the first sign of trouble are they worth this much effort by NATO?
Nonsense. Buy time for what? Military aid from elsewhere? Don't kid yourself: that's not ever coming, no matter if they've got Patton, Napoleon, Sun Tzu, and Robert E Lee wrapped up in one amazing general. Had they fought back as effectively as you describe, there would be more Russian troops in the region, not less.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Irrelevent to your argument that they're somehow "planning" deliberately to avoid combat. Poland's situation was helpless but at least they fought for something worth fighting for.
Georgia? What are they fighting for? Or not fighting for.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what the next president will inherit:
quote: Russian troops will leave "sooner or later," Kosachev said, saying the timetable depends "definitely on how Georgians will continue to behave."
"If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there," Kosachev said. "The same answer would be toward this situation."
--j_k
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Does Russia have any neighbors who do not hate it? Sooner or later, relying on conquest as a means for securing its borders is going to backfire on Russia, in a most horrible and terrible manner. Remember, the Ukraine and Georgia and some of the other former provinces still may have a few nukes lying around somewhere.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
i believe according to treaty all of the former SSR's handed over their nuclear warheads over to the Russian Federation being the successor state to the Soviet Union.
Also, I should point out that the Central Asian SSR's like Kazakistan have friendly relations with Russia and in the case of kazakhstan intends to enter a tighter level of soverigenty with Russia akin to "Treaty of the Union of Russia and Belarus" who also has friendly relations.
Armenia is also a close ally to Russia and last I heard Azerbaijain allows for Russian troops to be stationed in their territory.
This is the first case of Russia using armed force against a former SSR, a case where I might add georgia started it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is the first case of Russia using armed force against a former SSR, a case where I might add georgia started it.
A surprising and simplistic description.
Wait, it's actually not surprising. I'm not saying Georgia is blameless, but then neither is your buddy Russia.
But even if they did start it, Russia has gone quite a few steps too far. Something just about everyone except you and Russians agree on.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
odd, did you see the youtube video with the 12 year old girl and the babushka? It think it is a far cry indeed to claim only "I" agree with with Russia.
Iraq was allegedly making WMD's so they got invaded.
Georgia attempts ethnic cleansing against South ossetians and somehow they're the good guys?
Or is this even simpler?
Iraq, people the US didn't like.
Georgia people the US does like.
So its okay to invade people the US doesn't like but not okay to invade people the US does like?
And what is a "few steps to far"? what would have been the appriobiate response? Boycott Georgia? "Let them" invade South Ossetia and hope for an internetional mediation?
Georgia ATTACKed a Russian protectorate this called for an immediate military response to STOP the opposing military force from taking over the protected region.
What should they have done?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Georgia ATTACKed a Russian protectorate...
All else aside, why do you consider that particular part of Georgia to be a Russian protectorate?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
90% Russian citizens/passports implies a certain level of obligation on Russia to 'defend' the region. The Russian constitution also makes the President bound to protect said citizens wherever they may be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:90% Russian citizens/passports implies a certain level of obligation on Russia to 'defend' the region.
That raises an interesting question. If Islamic Kazaks started rioting right now, in an effort to institute harsher sharia law, would Russia have to invade to protect those of its citizens who still live in the 'stans?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*snort* It's predictible how you believe just about everything the Russians say about Georgia.
That aside, do you remember why so many residents in South Ossetia have Russian citizenship?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
ok blayne, you really should get your facts straight, those provinces are not Russian property, they are Georgian and the whole world recognizes that fact. They were not wrong to try and take back the land from the rebels. Russia had been building up forces there for a year, just waiting for an excuse to invade.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That aside, do you remember why so many residents in South Ossetia have Russian citizenship?
Presumably because they felt like getting one when the Russians were freely giving them out?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Presumably because they felt like getting one when the Russians were freely giving them out?
Bingo!
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:This is the first case of Russia using armed force against a former SSR, a case where I might add georgia started it.
A surprising and simplistic description.
Wait, it's actually not surprising. I'm not saying Georgia is blameless, but then neither is your buddy Russia.
But even if they did start it, Russia has gone quite a few steps too far. Something just about everyone except you and Russians agree on.
Russia wasn't the aggressor... In fact on some regards much of the Russian population considers this on level with what the US did after 9/11. The fact that Georgian ethnic cleansing was taking place in South Ossetia (which has 90% Russian citizenship, and only 1/5th of its population is actually Georgian), is reason enough to invade. If you think of Ossetia as our version of Puerto Rico then you wouldn't be that far off from how the Russian government views it. The Russians even warned Georgia that they would intervene if conflict arose between the Georgians and the Ossetians. I'm not saying Russia is totally clean in this, but saying that Georgia was the aggressor isn't being simplistic, its being truthful.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Whether or not either of our statements is accurate remains to be seen. Time will tell.
How 'factual' is Georgian ethnic cleaning in South Ossetia, exactly? Thus far I've heard a lot of talk about it from Russia, but nothing close to objectively documented.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Picture this.....
The Southern States want to separate from the United States.
England comes to their aid--their long lost English children.
While negotiations for what to do about this rebellion go on, souther forces violently attack US troops.
The US invades the South to reclaim its lost property.
England comes to the aid of its English children, and sends in troops to help the Southern cause.
That is fine.
Then the English forces start conquering the West.
France and the other countries see this as dangerous and demand that England leave. A truce is declared and England says its leaving, while it advances on Chicago, Cleveland, and aims for New York.
South Ossetia is filled with mostly Russian people. Why? Because after Russia conquered it, the Stalinist era gulags ate up the Georgians living there, and Russians moved into the nice warm countryside.
Imagine if 2,000,000 Mexican illegal immigrants settled in Nevada. Then Mexico demanded Nevada as a state?
Georgia has a claim on South Ossetia as much as Russia does.
At the risk of invoking Godwin, Nazi Germany invaded Austria, Czechoslovakia, and eventually Poland on the claims very similar to Russia's--to protect the Russians/Germans living there.
Still, there is cause and effect. If this was all that is on Russia's mind, then with the truce signed, the troops should be leaving. The Russians in S. Ossetia are safe.
But the Russians don't seem to be leaving like they say they are.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: ok blayne, you really should get your facts straight, those provinces are not Russian property, they are Georgian and the whole world recognizes that fact. They were not wrong to try and take back the land from the rebels. Russia had been building up forces there for a year, just waiting for an excuse to invade.
This is naive, simplistic, and encourages a "Black and White" altitude to the world. Also what evidence have they been building up for a "year"?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is naive, simplistic, and encourages a "Black and White" altitude to the world.
So are you willing to grant that maybe Tibet isn't Chinese? Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Its been under the de jure control of the Chinese State for 700 years, longer then the existence of most countries.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So it's a duration thing, then? When does one country stop having a claim to the land? Does it need to spend a certain percentage of its total geological existence under someone else's control?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It has not been under the de jure control of the Chinese state for 700 years going backwards from today. Heck, it hasn't even been under the de jure control of the Chinese state for 700 years total, much less any continuous period.
For instance, several of the hundreds of years you are attributing to Chinese rule, Tibet was ruled, entirely separately from China, by the Mongol Empire, which had not yet become a Chinese dynasty. The Chinese gov't doesn't even try to claim that period as Chinese rule, so you're rather reaching.
In the period the Chinese gov't does like to claim as Chinese rule, there's a lot of controversy for all but a slice of it. Specifically, there is no historical record of China controlling the area of Tibet governed by Lhasa, though they definitely controlled the rest of it.
Then there's the time where the Dzungar's briefly ruled Tibet.
In the first few years of the twentieth century China wasn't even strong enough to enforce the treaties they had made regarding Tibet with Britain on Tibet. Of course, then Tibet kicked the Chinese out of Tibet and asserted full independence.
Very importantly, even when Tibet was all or partially under the control of China, the parts ruled from Lhasa were treated as a subject nation, not as part of China.
But since you claim to know something about international law, you should know none of that is particularly relevant. The Chinese invasion of tibet wasn't legal or illegal, it was just an invasion, and it was an invasion of a country that was not under the control of China, and which China had signed an agreement to not interfere with militarily in relatively recent history. Make of that what you will, but stop trying to act like China's invasion was just an internal dispute.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
fugu your clearly mistaken the Yuan Dynasty aka the when the Mongols were in control is considered a part of Chinese history. Also I should note that Kublai Khan himself placed the start date of the founding of the Yuan Dynasty with when Ghengis Khan conquered northern China.
Secondly, The "Chinese invasion" was perfectly legal and within constraints of international law as A) Every map at the time showed Tibet as a part of the "Republic of China" and since the People's Republic of China is the successor state to the ROC it is perfectly within its right to enforce control over the region.
It was in fact an internal dispute, the fact that Tibet was a signatory to the Constitution of the Republic of China missed you did it?
The assertion of Independence is!= true independence, de jure Tibet was recognized by the international community as a part of "China".
De jure China's Suzerainty over Tibet has been recognized since the 1300's, that Tibet wasn't under constant administrative control is simply you being nitpicky. And yes duration does play a large point in things.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Before we start drawing comparisons, is South Ossetia supposed to be Georgia's Tibet or is it Russia's Tibet? Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Of course the period the Mongols were in charge was a part of Chinese history. However, you are the mistaken one. The Yuan dynasty was the name by which the Mongols ruled China, but the Yuan dynasty was not in control of Tibet, the Khanate was.
After a while that became the same thing, but good luck living if time travel is ever developed and you try telling the early Khans they were Chinese to their faces.
You're making yourself look more and more childish in this thread.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Classic fallacy, insulting people who disagree with you. Why is it that in every thread I'm involved "I'm childish" as soon as I voice a disagreeable educated opinion?
Your arguing semantics and being nitpicky over events happening far before the birth of the United States, what matters in essence is that this is when Tibet was first incorperated into what would become effectively a Chinese state, now when I say "Chinese" I mean the overarching principle of zhongguo minzu, they may not be Han but in retrospect they are part of the Chinese national identity.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Classic fallacy, insulting people who disagree with you. Why is it that in every thread I'm involved "I'm childish" as soon as I voice a disagreeable educated opinion?
Generally when you are being childish it is a response to your representative maturity level involving any one of a number of subjects.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:before the birth of the United States,
Why does that have any bearing on the conversation?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Classic fallacy, insulting people who disagree with you. Why is it that in every thread I'm involved "I'm childish" as soon as I voice a disagreeable educated opinion?
Generally when you are being childish it is a response to your representative maturity level involving any one of a number of subjects.
Define childish, to me it reflects far more badly on ones maturity to throw around insults without properly understanding their proper context.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I was suggesting you might re-examine how you're arguing.
Indeed, I wouldn't call it much of an argument at all. Most of your 'argument' is saying the same things over and over again, and just pointing at anything anyone else brings up and either just saying they're wrong (typically without even a single founded reason) or their statement is irrelevant (see previous parenthetical).
That is how a child argues, and that is why you're being childish.
edit: I'd like to rephrase my last statement, for being unfair to those times children argue well, as many I have known do on occasion.
That is how many children argue when unable to come up with a good argument, and that is why you're childish.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
except the flaw in your argument is that nothing I have said is actually wrong on the face of it, it just can be interpreted "wrong" when one argues semantics. I say the "same things" over again because I am absolutely right in anything that involves historical context. I am not wrong when i say China has de jure Suzerainty over Tibet for roughly 700 years, with de facto administrative control being on and off, Tibet for the most part has always had an important relationship with the Dynasties of Imperial China.
I would also like to point out that the huffaw over Tibet is political in nature, had the ROC won the civil war and enforced its sovereignty over Tibet (which there is mountains of evidence that it regarded Tibet every bit as important to China's territorial integrity as the Communists did) I highly doubt we would be having this discussion.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
wow. You're right in anything historical? I hope you dont mean that the way it sounds.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...because I am absolutely right in anything that involves historical context.
Oh, he meant it. That idea is behind most of Blayne's posting on anything Chinese-politics related.
He'll be backing off or qualifying that statement at some point in the future (I doubt even he can let that statement stand on its own), but I have no doubt he meant it.
Aside from that, Blayne saying that to fugu is even more entertaining than Blayne saying it just in general:)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Define childish, to me it reflects far more badly on ones maturity to throw around insults without properly understanding their proper context.
There's this guy I know on this internet forum. He's basically this massive commie fanboy who suspends critical reasoning when it would otherwise impede his vacuous and automatic defense of tyrannical Communism-associated regimes such as China. He absorbs a lot of stock concepts from dubious sources and 'independent research,' constructs apologist agitprop talking points and 'historical facts' out of them, and rattles them off en masse as a defense against criticism of his fanboy-favored regimes and/or historical figures. Then, when an argument between him and other more reasoned individuals drags on, his tone becomes increasingly dismissive and petulant, he begins spouting off controversial platitudes as 'facts' and refuses to compromise them even in the face of well-reasoned arguments against the veracity of his claims. It becomes increasingly evident that he is not open to a revision of his preconceived notions and will instead resort to increasingly garbled dismissals. When you look at these dismissals, a depressing trend emerges: they're little more than constant recycling of his own talking points (regardless as to accuracy, credibility, or even relevance), and often wildly off-the-mark assurances that he's right and that his opponents just couldn't possibly have a more credible and unbiased interpretation of controversial regimes or historical incidents than him. He's also a notorious hothead and it starts leaking through his posts pretty easily once you assault his rigid and oddly incurious worldview. I am totally blanking his name but between all that, his limited capacity for reasoning, and his other generally childish 'argumentative' tactics, he's kind of a perfect example of what I would call a childish debater.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A few minor things worth elaborating on:
Blayne, you keep using the term suzerainty. For a good portion of time this was an accurate description of the Tibet/China relationship, including through the end of the 19th century. However, suzerainty is a reciprocal relationship where in exchange for bowing to the central state in outside relations, the protectorate enjoys significant internal autonomy. At all points in the last few hundred years, at least significant parts of Tibet have been under Chinese suzerainty, not sovereignty, until the PRC invaded. Suzerainty not being sovereignty, but no suzerainty existing in official parlance nowadays, which side things come down on (sovereignty or not sovereignty) in formerly suzerain situations has never been clearcut.
And if you're claiming the PRC is the continuation of the ROC in all things diplomatic, one wonders what the agreement reached with Tibet shortly after the revolution meant to China, since they totally ignored it.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
At this point, it seems to me that our gov't is really poking the bear over there. (Ha!) One of the things I've heard mentioned that Russia wants is to be recognized as a world power, and our Administration's contemptive stand appears to be putting further tension on an already volatile situation. I head on the radio yesterday a couple of Georgians talking about Russia being a serious and dangerous threat and needing to be treated with respect; about our 'strong positions' only angering the Russians and provoking more violence.
And now with the agreement in place to position an American balistic missle base close to Poland's Russian border, Russia is obviously angered further. This is not helping the Georgians (or the Polish or Russians either, IMO), and I am not suprised that some are regretting their gov't's fielty with the West.
Are we trying to start another Cold War? After all, fear sells and what the party's selling needs some help. Okay, that's just speculation, but I still don't think poking the bear is a good idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Russia is in serious trouble. As recently as 2000 we were providing food aid to prevent starvation, and it wouldn't take much for Russia to need it again. The only things they're making money on are old military stuff and natural resources, and the latter aren't panning out nearly so well as they'd like. The Russian economy is otherwise gone to pot. The capital investment they've been drawing is increasingly running scared due to Putin's tendency to take over any company he doesn't like much/is making money that his friends aren't getting.
Did it not have the legacy of military equipment and old power, Russia would be treated like one of the poorer countries in Europe, because it is (on a per capita basis). Even with the oil revenues and military sales, Russia's GDP per capita is a bit under Lithuania, and much less than Estonia. Without the military sales . . . well, they would need a lot more food aid.
The only things that let Russia have pretensions of super power are a corroding but still large compared to most others military and a good number of nuclear weapons.
vonk: I suspect it angers Russia most that we're acting like we're being strong when we're not showing any commitment to it. It would still anger Russia if we were actually acting strongly, but just about everything angers Russia. What is far more important is that they'd back down if we could show we had the strength to enforce our position.
You treat a threat with respect by being polite, stating your positions clearly, giving them an opportunity to save face, and having a nearby aircraft carrier.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A pretty detailed write-up on some of the events leading up to the start of the war.
Reading this, I kind of wonder what behind-the-scenes shenanigans are occurring now as Russia sends mixed signals about a withdrawal. Simply being contrary and calling out the West's bluff in dictating what Russia should do or internal bickering/power struggles over how to proceed or something else?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't know how much internal bickering there is. Putin's hold on power seems very solid. I mean, look at that article. It doesn't even mention Medvedev. And I don't think Russia has held to any of the promises Medvedev has made.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Whats your hypothesis for the delayed withdrawal?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Putin doesn't want to withdraw until it is absolutely necessary. So he isn't having Russian forces withdraw yet.
edit: also, by ignoring Medvedev, he asserts internal power, demonstrates his hold on power to the outside world, and makes former satellite states scared of the west's seeming inability to make him do squat.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Sounds plausible.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What is the real image America has throughout the world? We are represented as "cowboys," who are too ready to use decisive force, even doing it to oppose aggression proactively. But we are also represented as being "weak" and "indecisive," and bullies like Russia's Putin are eager to take advantage of it. C'mon, which is it?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A) Those two views do not necessarily seem mutually exclusive B) (6-0.30) billion people can hardly be expected to have a simple opinion that can be summed up in an either/or
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I don't want to follow the details, but correct me if my general scheme is wrong:
There have been skirmishes in South Ossetia between Russian nationalistish gangs and Georgian forces for years. There was a cease fire loosely brokered. The Georgian military goes back on the ceasefire and bombs South Ossetia, then the Russian forces use this as an excuse to march through the territory like a Riefenstahl movie, even past the disputed area, and now Putin talks about pulling back while at same time, Russian forces are digging trenches and measuring for a good place to set up a fence and a military base. Is that the general picture?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
AFAIK Putin hasn't talked about pulling back, Medvedev has. Also, the Russian forces don't seem to be setting up much outside South Ossetia (yet), though they have pushed outside it.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: What is the real image America has throughout the world? We are represented as "cowboys," who are too ready to use decisive force, even doing it to oppose aggression proactively. But we are also represented as being "weak" and "indecisive," and bullies like Russia's Putin are eager to take advantage of it. C'mon, which is it?
Well, why don't you organize a vote? Let's not be lazy now, that's only six billion people to poll.
EDIT - hmm, missing Mucus's post takes some of the wind out of my snarky sails.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A contrary opinion from Mikhail Gorbachev link Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: A contrary opinion from Mikhail Gorbachev link
Beaten, I totally read that yesterday and planned on linking it.
I think Gorbachev gives us a good version of recent events.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now that's interesting, I went to quote a paragraph I had contemplated quoting earlier from the article, and it is different, slightly but relevantly.
Here's the paragraph:
quote:The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed.
It used to have a date (the 18th, iirc) for when Medvedev said hostilities would cease, not just 'now'. The change is quite telling, because Medvedev decided to cease hostilities on the 18th (and several other times in the days before that), but the Russian forces strangely kept fighting . . .
I think Gorbachev gives a good version of the beginning of recent events, but not how they have played out. As I noted earlier, I think it makes sense to concede Russia's control of the two breakaway regions: it would deal with Georgia's abuses there, and they're going to have control of them anyways. However, Russia's forces have clearly gone above and beyond taking and controlling those regions, and Gorbachev understates the seriousness of those actions.
Further, he completely ignores the continued and continually false assurances of stopped hostilities by Russian authorities, which are troubling at best and outright provocation at worst. That severely hurts his credibility in arguing for the justice of Russian actions.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Perhaps it hurts his credibility, but it does not change the facts leading up to the invasion.
I also think his purpose is to warn people, especially Americans, not to get sucked into thinking, "OH NO! It's the USSR 2.0! LOCK AND LOAD!"
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
As I said:
quote:I think Gorbachev gives a good version of the beginning of recent events, but not how they have played out.
edit: oh, and his version of the facts leading to invasion isn't entirely pure, either. Russia has clearly been issuing more and more passports to create a justification to take the two provinces away from Georgia, given an opportunity. Whether that's acceptable is something I have mixed feelings on, though I tend to accept it given Georgian treatment and how things have played out, but it is a major part of the facts that he left out.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Another angle beyond the facts leading up to the war that I was interested in, was to get an idea of how a more moderate/conciliatory Russian may view current events. Although I have little knowledge of Gorbachev's career these days, I thought it might at least start to shed some light on that (further insight is welcome).
Unless we intend on fighting Russia, moderates and all, we may have to consider their views.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
Saying that Tibet rightfully belongs to the Chinese just because it had once been a part of China for hundreds of years in the past doesn't make China's 1950 reconquering of it as an independent nation any more legitimate than Italy conquering Egypt because of it's part in the Roman Empire once upon a time.
Georgia has a similar history under Russia's control. It once reluctantly joined the Russian Empire to prevent itself from being conquered by the Persians. Then they eventually gained independence, only to be conquered by the Soviet Union in 1921.
As for Georgian ethnic cleansing of Russians, it was the Russian seperatists who started ethnic cleansing against Georgians in the break away regions at the start of their movement after independence from the Soviet Union. Tens of thousands of Georgians were killed. Tens of thousands more were expelled. That didn't seem to concern the Russians. Seems that they hold a double standard about acts of genocide, if that's what in fact happened a couple of weeks ago. Either way, the Russian government was aiding those regions at the time, so Russia really has no right to point any fingers on that subject.
What Russia has done is supported an independence movement in a foreign territory while it went around the world saying the US shouldn't meddle in the affairs of nations like Serbia, double standard number two (not that the US is free of any double standards itself, but this isn't a "if _____ jumped off a bridge" discussion).
Russia conquered a nation that had once been under its control, allowed several of its people to congregate there, supported an independence movement within it once Georgia gained its independence again, looked the other way when one act of genocide was occuring, then acted once its interests were threatened. There's no benevolence anywhere in this.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Khav its historical fact that it was the Georgians who initiated hostilities in 1992 by a) trashing the Stalinist era constitution that granted them Autonomy and then by committing ethnic cleansing against them.
quote: The Georgian Supreme Soviet adopted a law barring regional parties in summer 1990. This was interpreted by Ossetians as a move against Ademon Nykhas and led to Ossetians proclaiming South Ossetia a Soviet Democratic Republic,[20] fully sovereign within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Ossetians boycotted subsequent Georgian parliamentary elections and held their own contest in December. The Georgian government headed by Zviad Gamsakhurdia declared this election illegitimate and abolished South Ossetia's autonomous status altogether on 11 December, 1990.
This was the start of everything.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Also of interest:
quote: t the time of the dissolution of the USSR, the United States government recognized as legitimate the pre-Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact 1933 borders of the country (the government of Franklin D. Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the Kremlin at the end of that year[22]). Because of this, the first Bush administration openly supported the secession of the Baltic countries, but regarded the questions related to the independence and territorial conflicts of Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan and the rest of the Transcaucasus — which were an integral part of the USSR with international borders unaltered since the 1920s — as internal Soviet affairs.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
It was a piece of Georgia that was taken from them almost immediately after Georgia was conquered by the Soviet Union. That happened in 1922. That was the start of everything.
South Ossetia wasn't absent of any Georgians when Georgia became independent of the USSR, and still isn't, minority or not. The hostilities in Ossetia were tit for tat until Russia intervened. Then it was relatively peaceful until a couple of weeks ago when both sides claimed to have been shot at by the other.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
SO wasn't "taken" from Georgia in 1922 it was made an Autonomous Oblast within Georgia.
I hardly considering Georgian advancement of 2000 troops into SO killing Russian peacekeepers tit for tat but an escalation of a volatile situation and highly irresponsible of Georgia.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
I had equated "autonomous" with "independent of", which I guess wasn't the case. That does nothing but weaken the independence debate a bit.
I'm not familiar with that 2000 event, but if they targeted Russian troops without just cause, then they would be stupid for doing so, even if Russia had little justification for being there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, I was wrong I see. Blayne is going with the 'pretend it never happened' tactic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I have no idea of what your talking about, just more spiel and otherwise unwanted garbage from your mouth Rakeesh, stop posting if you are incapable of arguing with any level of integrity or decency.
Khav, Russia had every reason to be there, they had a UN Mandate to have a Russian led CIS force there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh its so on.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
The CIS is Russia's NATO, which has nothing to do with the UN. They don't have a UN mandate. The UN is keeping a watchful eye on the situation. They have a cooperative peacekeeping force set up by the OSCE (which operates under the wing of the UN to allow dialogue to happen between regions but doesn't have any real power) to include Russians, Georgians, and Ossetians. Right now, one of those three are not present in South Ossetia. The only UN resolution involved (edit: besides extending observer missions) is one recognizing that Abkhazia commited ethnic cleansing of Georgians and needs to let them back in. Instead, Abkhazia took advantage of Georgia's conflict with South Ossetia and expelled any remaining Georgian military presence, so the only region officially violating a UN mandate is Abkhazia.
[ August 22, 2008, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Khavanon ]
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And Georgia is what completely innocent in the matter according to you? Never committed ethnic cleansing themselves?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Georgia is definitely not completely innocent, but if they've tried to commit ethnic cleansing in the region they're very bad at it; most of the people there are still of Russian ethnicity.
I don't think what Georgia was doing reached anywhere near the level of ethnic cleansing. The brutal use of military force against a civilian population they didn't much care about in order to bring them into line yes, ethnic cleansing no.
Posted by Khavanon (Member # 929) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: And Georgia is what completely innocent in the matter according to you? Never committed ethnic cleansing themselves?
See, I don't know. I'd like to see what information comes out of there other than what we've got right now. If Georgia attempted to either exterminate or expel the Ossetians, that would be a grave crime indeed. All I'm saying is, Russia certainly isn't guilt-free in any matter relating to Georgia. I'm undecided as to whether South Ossetia ought to be independent, but I definitely think Abkhazia gave up that right with their actions. Russia has no justification whatsoever to be involved with that half of the issue, unless you consider racial favoratism to be justification.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Georgia is definitely not completely innocent, but if they've tried to commit ethnic cleansing in the region they're very bad at it; most of the people there are still of Russian ethnicity.
I don't think what Georgia was doing reached anywhere near the level of ethnic cleansing. The brutal use of military force against a civilian population they didn't much care about in order to bring them into line yes, ethnic cleansing no.
SILENCE! Do you not know to whom you speak? You address the Great and Powerful Blayne! Arbiter of Discussions of Historical Matters! Keeper of True Knowledge of History!
I quote here the G&PB so that you will remember yourself, and still your insolent tongue before it gets you into trouble! You have been warned. Begone!
quote:I say the "same things" over again because I am absolutely right in anything that involves historical context.
----------------
OOC: Yeah, I know, I'm not being at all helpful to the serious political discussion at hand here. But I just can't seem to help myself, or more accurately don't care to, hehe.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)