The Surprising Upside Of The Russia Georgia Conflict!

[Median Democrat]

There is a lot of debate regarding the causes of the conflict AND the US involvement. Indeed, Saakashvili sounds really pissed, as though someone promised to back him up, but did not. So, Georgia now has its country cut in half, but what about the U.S., which had troops on the ground in Georgia, and Georgian troops in Iraq?

Well, Europe is now pushed towards the U.S. because of the threat of Russia. Likewise, all the other former Soviet controlled Eastern European countries are now being pushed toward the US with Poland agreeing to a missle defense system despite Russian protests. I mean isn't it amazing? The weakest country, Georgia, decides to pick a fight with Russia, and sounds genuinely surprised that the US isn't there to back it up. Indeed, did the presense of US troops in Georgia give it a false sense of security? Was this by design?

Now, the Ukraine and Poland are pushed closely to the US and away from Russia, and Europe is forced to acquiece with US strategy in the middle east or else they will be dependent on oil from a hostile nation, Russia. So, perhaps France and Germany will stop yapping about the U.S.'s occupation of Iraq, and recognize that they need it to avoid dependency on Russia. Indeed, maybe they will even provide some troops if the threat from Russia were to escalate.

Hmm, what can we do to escalate the threat from Russia? To be continued...

[Hardrada]

1. I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[Median Democrat]

8. Where I Am Going Is What Do We Get Out Of This?

The US did not militarize Georgia nor is it banging the rhetorical drums because of the goodness of its heart. The US has a goal. The goal may be misplaced or wrong, but the US/Neocons have a goal. The question is what is that goal. Is it political? Is it economic? Is it strategic?

Georgia as a member of NATO is problematic. Their President is openly antognistic of Russia, and is conducting military operations on Russia's border. In other words, would I want to make an ally of a poodle that picks fights with pit bulls? No.

So, dropping the rhetoric, what is the US trying to get out of this?

[stillcool]

2. and then there's this..

Aug 16, 2008
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page.html

The bear is back
By Richard M Bennett

Despite being rather moth-eaten and while still missing a claw or two, the Russian bear is definitely back in business.

The conflict with Georgia over its troublesome breakaway provinces has as much to do with nationalistic pride and the Kremlin's wish to reassert itself on the international scene as a determination to protect the predominately Russian citizens of South Ossetia or the determinedly independent-minded Abkhazians.

Despite constant assertions by Washington that Russia risks isolation for its military actions of the past week, it is arguable that it is United States itself that faces the greatest dilemma.

To enforce any form of diplomatic or economic "punishment" on the Russians, Washington desperately needs the wholehearted support of the international community and its closest allies in particular.

For a variety of reasons, this might not be forthcoming.

The former communist countries of Eastern Europe and Central Asia are increasingly and rightly wary of the growing confidence of Russia's leadership and the resurgence of Russian military capability.

Western Europe remains significantly reliant on Russian energy supplies and particularly at a time of the increasing instability of international markets.

India and China may well be loath to support Washington, particularly as both nations would wish to keep a free hand in dealing with areas such as Kashmir or Tibet. While not directly comparable, both these long-running problems are similar enough in that the protection of the lives and rights of their citizens may require military action at any time.

It cannot be seriously denied that Washington itself also desperately needs Russian cooperation in the "war on terror" and to be "on side" over the Middle East and Iran in particular.

--------------------------
Saakashvili - nationalist crusader
President Mikheil Saakashvili came to power after November 2003 elections on a wave of nationalism and with the promise of recovering both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

In the past four years, the acquisition of significant numbers of more modern armored vehicles, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, small arms, armed helicopters, reconnaissance drones and much else could not have failed to raise alarm in the breakaway provinces and in the Kremlin.

Western intelligence services were also fully aware of military developments and indeed significant numbers of US and Israeli military personnel helped the Georgian special forces in particular in preparing for large-scale counter-insurgency operations ... exactly the type of training required for any serious attempt to suppress the citizens of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who were certain to violently resist any Georgian takeover.

Richard M Bennett, intelligence and security consultant, AFI Research.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH16Ag01.html

[Submariner]

3. Because of Bush incompetence the US has been castrated

and appears weak to the rest of the world. The power brokers now are EU who are now getting into the middle of this. The speechifying of Condi and Dubya sounds so hypocritical in light of how Bush has destroyed Iraq over nothing.

Bush can't and won't do anything. He's a ball-less coward.

[Marr]

4. I'm not sure this episode will really encourage other former Soviet

states to cleave closer to the west. If Georgia is any example, they'll be more wary of US promises of support.

[Median Democrat]

7. Poland Suddenly Closed A Deal On A Missle System Despite Russian Threats

Just like the U.S., Russia can't get over-extended and invade everyone all at once. Russia committed itself to responding with force back in 2006 where it explicitly threatened that it would respond with force if Georgia used force in Ossentia. Yet, Georgia did just that on Thursday? Why? The US has been meeting with Georgia and the McCain camp has been tight with Georgia.

1. Was this a collosal screw up by US intelligence with the US getting surprised by BOTH Georgia's initial offensive and Russia's responze?

2. Did the US give Georgia a tacit go ahead, but was surprised by Russia's response?

3. Did the US give Georgia a tacit go ahead, but was also aware of Russia's possible response?

The answer has to be one of these three, and none of the answers is appealing.

[Marr]

9. I don't know about Poland, but-

I personally think your number 2 option is what happened in Georgia. The neocons were displaying their usual arrogance, trying to start some sabre rattling with Russia in order to help McCain's presidential campaign. I think it was going to be their October surprise; a little manufactured drama with shades of the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's why McCain so eagerly jumped all over this issue with his seemingly prepared statements, and why the corporate media went straight to cover it. It was meant to be a McCain campaign booster.

But in their usual style, the neocons overestimated themselves and underestimated the competition. The Russian leadership, unlike our own, is actually inhabiting reality-- and they're a hell of a lot more shrewd. They saw an opportunity and took it, leaving our amateurish "leadership" out in the cold.

[rockymountaindem]

11. That missile deal was going to happen anyway

We had so many carrots to give them in terms of weapons packages or more guarantees etc. we would have closed that at some point. The complete humiliation of our closest regional ally in the Caucasus and the utter destruction of their military was not necessary to achieve the agreement with Poland. I don't see where we would have started the one to get the other.

Therefore, I think option one is most likely. Saakashvili likely miscalculated the Russian response and went ahead with his operation in Ossetia as a means of eliminating one of the conflicts that has kept his country out of NATO. I don't see why the US would have approved of that beforehand.

[DailyGrind51]

5. We can't afford another arms race with Russia!

THEY have more domestic oil with less domestic demand.

[damntexdem]

6. I don't think so.

I hear that Germany is in new talks with Russia. I think western Europe is going to try to keep its distance from the Bushista nonsense that helped lead to all this.

[MasonJar]

10. Actually I do not see a pro-US angle here, since we obviously once

again (as with poppa Bush and Saddaam in Kuwait) encouraged the invasion of the South Offessia province and then reneged. Now Georgia is totally unlikely to get in NATO. Will France or Germany want to go to war with Russia over Georgia? Will any EU country? Americans forget that Europe suffered miserable wars twice in the last century on their soil. Sure we helped them, but if the USA had had two wars in our own country in the last 80 years then would not be so bellicose. P.S. Merkel is meeting for the fourth time with Russia to establish close ties...says so above.

[Median Democrat]

12. I Admit - I Am Confused About The US's Goals

Also, accoding to the articles in this thread, perhaps the Bush administration itself has been confused with respect to what it is trying to accomplish:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=3794729&mesg_id=3794729

The articles in the earlier thread all discuss the mixed messages given by the U.S., which probably helped lead to the conflict.

My question is what is the U.S.'s realistic endgame from a Neocon versus a reasonable person's perspective? A neocon may be misguided, but even they have goals such as achieving a democratic revolution through the mideast that is friendly to US interests.

[bemildred]

13. They are not confused, they want to cover their asses.

The problem is they are not sure how to do it, and they are not that well read.