Sorry, just had to bring this one out in the open if you missed it. Some crackhead official Russian named Lavrov said,
Can you imagine the hoopla if one of our officials made such a comment? Good gravy! Even the implication that the US has made an economic deal with one of Russia's client states and they are sending bombers to buzz our ships and air bases like they were Soviet bad a**es again.
You know, though, the only reason some Russian loud mouth wants to bring the US in on their comments is the same reason that Ahmedinejad always directs his comments to the US. Not because they are always or literally threatened by the US, but because, if you want to look like a big boy you have to act like you can play with the big boys. That means acting like you have a beef with someone, even if you don't or even if you wouldn't stand a chance against them, but you know you don't count enough to actually warrant a response or we are busy doing something else, so you're safe.
The only people to blame here are the people in the region with the guns. That would be, largely and by far, the Russians, followed by the Georgians and the separatist Ossetians. Ol' Lavrov is just hoping we'll feel guilty enough not to interfere. Truth is, the Ruskies are looking for any excuse to take over Georgia completely. Any. Excuse. Lame as it may be and this is pretty damn lame.
I have a bad feeling that Georgia is about to become a Russian Republic again.
So, by that token, we can claim, officially and publicly, that the Russians are to blame for Iraq since they had the gall to arm and train Saddam's Iraqi army right up to three days before we invaded? And, if a wider war starts with Iran and Syria, we should also claim that the Russians are to blame since they are selling arms and sending trainers? Hey, we can blame them for Afghanistan, too, since most of the arms caches are Russian made, yes?It also likely will increase tensions between Moscow and Washington, which Lavrov said should bear part of the blame for arming and training Georgian soldiers.
Can you imagine the hoopla if one of our officials made such a comment? Good gravy! Even the implication that the US has made an economic deal with one of Russia's client states and they are sending bombers to buzz our ships and air bases like they were Soviet bad a**es again.
You know, though, the only reason some Russian loud mouth wants to bring the US in on their comments is the same reason that Ahmedinejad always directs his comments to the US. Not because they are always or literally threatened by the US, but because, if you want to look like a big boy you have to act like you can play with the big boys. That means acting like you have a beef with someone, even if you don't or even if you wouldn't stand a chance against them, but you know you don't count enough to actually warrant a response or we are busy doing something else, so you're safe.
The only people to blame here are the people in the region with the guns. That would be, largely and by far, the Russians, followed by the Georgians and the separatist Ossetians. Ol' Lavrov is just hoping we'll feel guilty enough not to interfere. Truth is, the Ruskies are looking for any excuse to take over Georgia completely. Any. Excuse. Lame as it may be and this is pretty damn lame.
I have a bad feeling that Georgia is about to become a Russian Republic again.
Good points, but lots to mitigate, I think.
First of all, Russians have historically been a lot like the esteemed R. Peters (an old face-to-face acquaintance, if you will), who has routinely said all sorts of insulting things about other nations and people without the slightest care as to actual fact, decency, or political impact (I'm remembering one extremely infuriating interaction with him). For example, he was so insulting to Germany a few years ago that the Germans publicly asked USAREUR To uninvite him from a conference he'd been asked to speak at. Good call, for my money....
But I digress. Last night I watched the opening ceremony of the Olympics, and at one cut-away during the ceremony, there was a shot of Putin talking with Bush, with other people looking on (not SS people, but friends, family, whatever). I know public faces are carefully maintained, but I don't think there was any serious tension there, even if they were talking about Georgia, and with both that and the nature of diplomatic fencing in mind, I think what Lavrov said was just one of two things: Surly noise from a clueless Russian version of Peters or one of those public diplomacy statements that's meant to serve a much different purpose than what's obvious. I think it was the latter, though it wasn't really all that ambiguous, and I seriously doubt Lavrov cares the slightest about whether the U.S. will feel guilty. If he wasn't being a buffoon (a possibility), then he was telling the U.S. in fairly plain terms to stay out of this and to stop sending arms there, because if we don't, Russia might start doing the same to places we are engaged in combat. He was not asking and he wasn't looking to make anyone feel guilty (they know the U.S. better than that), assuming that is, that he was speaking for higher-ups and not just running his mouth.
And with all of that said, I humbly disagree with this: "That means acting like you have a beef with someone, even if you don't or even if you wouldn't stand a chance against them." In this case, I'd say, yes, it may be for public consumption, but it's not all just talk. The U.S. will not go to war with Russia over Ossetia, and most likely not even over Georgia, and unquestionably not unless all of NATO agree to pony up to the fracas as well. Georgia is a troublesome, unpredictable slice of the world, and the U.S. has every bit of its hands full with what we're doing now in CENTCOM, Africa, and the Balkans, to say nothing of getting ready for what's surely coming from South America in the next 2-3 years. More important, The U.S.'d have an impossible time getting the U.N. to support any such action because not only would both Russia and China veto everything, but most of the rest of the world--and most vehemently the Europeans--would vote against us on this too.
The truth is that Georgia is far more important to Russia than it is to us, and it would be huge mistake for the U.S. to force this issue right now or to even get involved in more than a peripheral way. And the Russians know it, and if Lavrov wasn't just being like Peters, he was telling us that too.
And then finally, there's the side issue of who's arming whom. Russia may have been arming Iraq, but to what advantage, really? Russia had to know there was no chance Iraq could win, so all they did was get money/promissory notes from Hussein before we took everything else from him (I think the French did the same, as did a few other countries). Moreover, we armed Iraq during its war with Iran; we armed Iran's Shah, who would have failed every kind of human rights test; we armed Bin Laden and the nascent Taliban in its fight against the Russians; and on and on back over the past 70+ years, even to helping/blessing Japan's takeover of Northern China after WWI, and then we armed both Chang Kai Shek and Ho Chi Minh to fight against the Japanese in WWII. Of course, Russia armed the North Vietnamese while we armed the south, and China armed and fought beside the N. Koreans. Today we've armed the Taiwanese to the teeth, and we've even sold an M1 Tank production plant to Egypt (the only one like it). And on and on.... The Russians know this, everyone does, so why did Lavrov bring it up? Again, if he isn't a loose cannon, it was to make a much larger point without actually having to make threats and such.
I'm sure the DoS got the message, now we just have to wait for our answer....
V/R SangerM
However, I think it's crap that they are going to over run Georgia and no one is going to do anything or can. Worse, as i said in the other post, it gives these a&&holes control of a major oil pipeline out of the area. There goes our oil prices again.
Russian oil and natural gas pipelines run through Georgia. Georgia has, in the past, threatened those pipelines. Russia takes over Georgia. Presto, no more threats to the pipeline. Putin, I am given to understand, watches "The Sopranos".
Europe depends on the petrol products which run through that pipeline for a LARGE portion of it's heating fuel and, with winter coming on, would be foolish to risk having that shut off with no easy replacement source to hand.
On the other hand, I am all in favour of anything that will beat down the Russians in this venture of theirs, if it will force them to redirect their attention to the problem of Islamic Radicals in their own provinces, as well as along the Chinese border. One of these days China will take a dadly swipe at the bear, and as I see it at present, China would likely come out way ahead. Russia needs to address that issue far more than it needs to deal with Georgia.
respects,
I didn't say you said "we would go to war with them," I was discussing the whys and wherefores of Lavrov's comments. Moreover, Russia never stopped being one of the so-called 'poles,' except in relation to the U.S., which in the past 20 years has become so powerful that there are no other nations that could defeat the U.S. in a war, even if they attacked in alliances of 3 or 4 (a point that seems lost on that idiot Chavez). This is not to say, however, that the U.S. could not be hurt, and VERY badly, only that any attacker(s) would fare far worse.
Fact is, the world is still multi-polar at the next layer down, and Russia has never stopped being a pole in that layer, equally on a par with China, Germany, Japan, and the other 2nd tier countries. Russia may not again become a tier-one country, but it is far from being a 3rd rate power. It still manages to get rockets into space (even when we cannot), it still has a large nuclear arsenal (if not a functional Navy), and it does control massive reserves of oil and natural gas--to say nothing of its equality with the U.S. in the U.N. Russia is a country in a massive state of flux, still recovering from communism and from its own version of the carpet-bagger invasion of our post civil war south (the oligarch takeovers), but that doesn't mean by a long shot that it's no longer one of the major powers.
And with that in mind, I don't see that Russia is 'agitating' for anything. Russia does not see that it ever stopped being a big fish in the pond, albeit not as big as it once was. More important, contrary to what AW1 Tim wrote, Europe does not depend on Russian pipelines through Georgia because there aren't any. The major Russian pipelines which, in 2007 at least, carried about a 25% of the oil and gas consumed by the EU, run through Ukraine and Belarus (both of which have threatened Euro-needs), while the "Blue-Stream" natural gas pipeline actually bypasses Georgia by going directly from Russia to Turkey for 246 miles beneath the Black Sea. I have read of negotiations aimed at putting pipelines through Georgia from Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan into Turkey, but that's not Russian goods, that's an attempt to reach Europe and Israel by other countries. And finally, as an aside, Russia is working with Germany and other EU countries to run a pipeline across the Baltic Sea to bypass the so-called 'transit' countries, to prevent oil-hostage taking and keep costs under control.
Frankly, I don't think Europe really cares about Georgia or has any reason to, leastways not because of possible energy shortages, nor because of proximity, since Georgia is more closely related to Turkey, Armenia, Iran, and the 'Stans than it is to Europe. And finally, for my part, I don't care if Russia takes over the country either. First of all, some of my grandparents were born there, but being Jews, their families had to leave or be killed by the pogroms of the late 1800s. Secondly, Georgia, like many other countries in the region, is a cauldron of ancient multi-layered relationships and interconnections that cut in deadly lines right across political, religious, cultural, and Westphalian boundaries; and to me, one less of those kinds of countries in the world can only be good for all of us in the long run. I don't have a problem with small nations, but I do have a problem with small nations that just can't seem to keep their squabbles from sucking everyone else's blood and gold! In the end, I just don't see how it would be bad for the world if Russia took over Georgia (or South Ossetia, anyway).
V/R
SangerM
P.S. AW1 Tim: In a manpower struggle, China has about 60 million men it can waste right now without much of a loss, so Russia would be hard put to win that kind of fight (logistics aside), but Russia would not give up its land that easily and I've no doubt nukes and chemicals would be used as needed to secure the frontier--especially since Russia does run pipelines to the east. Further, both would be worried that we opportunistic Americans might wait to see them both toasted and then finish the job (and who's to say we wouldn't). Yeah, China may take a swipe at Russia, but I'd bet on it heading into Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam, Burma, other southern Regions first, for a number of reasons. And who would really care if China took over those countries, eh? Indonesia, Japan, South Korea? India? Even if they did, so what, eh? It's not like they would fight China to prevent it.
My dear friend Sanger,
There are more than 1.2 million barrels of oil that travel to western markets every day through Georgia, and that does not include the oil products from Azerbaijan,. Russia has it's eye on blackmailing Europe through it's threatening of oil and natural gas. Yes, I was mistaken on the amount flowing to Europe through Georgia, but make no mistake: Russia is acting in regard to it's oil products in very much the same manner as Tony Soprano.
Russia suffers from terminal angst and a paranoia almost unheard of in western lands. Everyone is it's enemy, and no one is a true friend to the bear, at least in the bear's mind. Would that another Alexander Nevsky could rise up and save the nation, but sadly, Putin and his circle are the antithesis of that great hero, and more likely to plunge the nation into disater than anything the left could consider Bush doing.
Imagine a nation run by the mob and you have Russia. Thus has it ever been so, and thus will it ever be, barring some miracle.
Respects,
I don't watch soap-opera television, so I've only ever seen one Sopranos episode, but I assume you are referring to the rapaciousness of organized crime. I can't argue with that, but I don't see Russia as any more greedy or protective of its own in-terests than we are in the U.S.--or any nation for that matter (the Falkland Islands war still ranks as the most extremely silly example I can recall). Our methods are certainly different, as is our national character, but our strategic goals are really not so terribly different in the end. The U.S. is a voracious and willingly violent competitor for natural resources (as it should be), and historically has had only minimal moral or ethical problems using its military and diplomatic power to ensure its access to those resources (also as it should be). For example, the U.S. did not attack Iraq in the 90s to free Kuwait, but to keep Iraq from threatening the oil supplies of the West (again as it should have). Other examples abound, stretching back to the time of Teddy Roosevelt, at least.
All of which is not to say I think this is a bad thing--not even a little. I am all for using whatever power and influence is necessary to sustain our national health and to ensure a prosperous and safe future, even at the expense of other nations. Of course, we all know that we do well when others do well, so I certainly prefer that all nations prosper and move ahead together, but that's always secondary to my first concern, which is the U.S. foremost and forever.
In fact, the immense flow of wealth from the West into the coffers of the Middle East worries me far more than Russia's supposed attempts at blackmailing Europe (which it has not yet done, that I can recall), and while 1% of the world's oil supply is no niggling amount, it doesn't hold a candle to what Russia is sending through Belarus and Ukraine right now, nor to what it will be sending when it gets all of its northern route lines done. And for my part, I just don't see how Europe dependant on Russia is any worse in any way than us dependant on Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, or even the currently friendly countries in the 'stans.
Again, I personally just don't see that it really matters all that much who owns Georgia (from the political standpoint), though I absolutely do concede (with a grin of chagrin) that my previous analysis of Georgia's value to the U.S. was careless and sloppy. True, as an independent nation, there's little value in Georgia's existence; however, I acknowledge its value as a strategic corridor for oil. In fact, there is an excellent article in the Financial Times here that explains a lot--some of which I knew, some of which I didn't. And I could have dug further last night, but I didn't--got lazy and tired. Oh well, it won't be the first or last time I'll have been been wrong and had to admit it. Ugh.
Anyway, that’s my two cents. Now it's back on my head....
V/R
SangerM
:-)
And yeah, squatters would work, but Russia's not above just boxcar-ing people or killing them. China would have to take an active role to protect the squatters. I dunno, that might be the way to do it, especially given Russia's alarmingly shrinking populations in the outer regions (whole towns empty, but for a few remaining oldsters, etc.).