The Russians have never quite gotten over the Cuban missile crisis and haven't forgotten the defeat they took over that, equally we in the West should have learnt a lesson about installing missiles thousands of miles from our shores and the antagonising it does to the country that they are being aimed at. That said the Russian rhetoric about any installation inviting a reaction "100%" is a little over the top, not tp say dangerous. Quiet diplomacy should come into play, but I suspect they are taking advantage of the last few months of the Bush presidency to push him into making concessions.
So they've launched an attack on another country due to a potential weapons threat? Outrageous.
i suspect that they're taking advantage of the fact that America and some European mini-mes have engaged in non-UN sanctioned invasions of other sovereign states and are not in a position to do jackshit about Russia doing the same, actually. We can't change the rules of the game and then look all upset when someone else does exactly what we've done.
being concerned that a Russian General threatened to Nuke Poland is hardly what I call paranoia, lets just hope its an empty threat. Russia has been going backward for some years now and the yanks haven't helped.
Russia has been going backward for some years now and the yanks haven't helped.
...............
This is all about controlling oil and gas supplies. Russia were going backwards in the 90s with the fall of the Soviet system, but then all those oil revenues started kicking in and most of the CIS States either produce oil/gas or have pipelines to the west. They have two choices, either become a Russian vassal state and kow-tow to the Russians or do what the Georgians tried - and link themselves to the west via Nato.
The Russians will not allow any neighbouring State to join Nato and why should they? The Americans wouldn't allow missiles on Cuba and via the CIA have done their best to de-stabilise any regime in Latin and South America that might have a government less than friendly to America's perceived interests.
As for the Yanks - this is the logical consequence of the Neo-con project, if America, Britain and even Georgia can invade Iraq because Iraq has WMD - which was the official excuse, then it justifies the Russians using the same excuse/rhetoric against Poland. The world doesn't need this kind of brinkmanship.
Gooner - I work for an investment bank and have never voted Labour in my puff, so it's fair to say I'm not a party member.
Why do you extreme right types always take any honest criticism of imperialist foreign policy, no matter how dishonest and financially damaging it might be, to be a direct challenge to western freedoms?
BFR I agree with much of what you say, although the polish missles are ABMs and not nuclear, although if you look at the various SALT treaties and the MAD doctrine these are as much an issue. Perhaps a buffer region around Russia until it eventually becomes (without wishing to patronise) more developed would have been a better idea, pushing NATO membership for these countries is a serious error I think.
I think the Georgians did heavily miscalculate Russia reaction here, but then Russia are clearly attempting annexation (by the back door) of the two breakaway regions.
If it was seriously all about oil I think they would have proceeded to take the whole of Georgia including the southern pipeline - of course they may still do so.
It is also possible they are trying to intimidate BP to the extent that they relinquish their interests in Russia to Russian ownership.
Its a complex issue, but what scares me is that over the last few years the regime in Russia is resorting to more and more serious methods of maintaining its power and flexing its military muscles. It doesn't help that American diplomacy is as subtle as an Elephant, nor that their FP is also highly morally dubious.
If it was seriously all about oil I think they would have proceeded to take the whole of Georgia including the southern pipeline - of course they may still do so.
...........
It's a mess, Russia have played the long-game since the fall of the Warsaw Pact and ultimately want to dominate East Europe and Eurasia again, which has always been their objective. Under the Soviet system this meant satellite vassal states surrounding Russia. Now it's about Russia controlling these states economically, politically they can do what they like, as long as they acknowledge Russian hegemony. If on the other hand you dare go up against Russia you'll find their wrath inflicted on you. For example you might recall two years ago in mid-winter Russia turned off gas supplies to the Ukraine. The Ukraine both imports gas and exports it to the West via a pipeline. The Russians had been selling gas to the Ukrainians at a much lower price than the market price.
In Georgia you've had two armies facing each other with Russia trying to find an excuse to intervene. Unfortunately they found it, the Georgians moved in to quell trouble in South Ossetia, where there are ethnic Russians albeit of dubious origin. The actions of the West haven't helped, promising Georgia that they could join Nato etc, as I say above that isn't negotiable for Russia who take it as a direct threat. As a side issue Georgia is also building a pipeline which would deliver gas to the West and as long as Georgia is pro-west it circumvents Russian control.
Having invaded Iraq claiming that Saddam had WMD and was a threat, we in the West are hypocrites if we object to Russia using the same rhetoric. They've told Poland in pretty clear language that they won't allow US missiles on their soil under any circumstances. So that's a plan a threat as you could make - what does the US now do? Cave-in, cancel plans to deply the missile system in Poland and let Russia "win" or go ahead and risk a reaction from Russia? They are taking advantage of Bush being a weak president and for following the neo-con dogma for too long.
Regarding their relationship with BP, I think they will use BP for as long as they can, there's no point producing and exporting oil/gas if they can't supply it to a market - and the most affluent market is western Europe. Right now BP is ideally placed for them, but I wonder for how much longer. What seems to be happening there is a continual ratcheting up of demands - wanting more and more concessions from BP - eg that the MD of the TNK-BP joint-venture stands down while there are other less distinct threats about licences being revoked etc. I can't see this ending in a nice way for BP. Shell was pressured into selling a controlling stake in its Sakhalin-2 oil project to Gazprom at a below-market price after environmental regulators threatened it with billions of dollars in fines, and you might recall the head of Yukos being sent to prison for tax avoidance after falling foul of Putin a few years ago.
This isn't about right/left wing politics, but realpolitics and although they are being heavy handed about it the Russians seem to be out neo-conning the Americans, who to be fair have wielded power and influence with the subtlety of a sledgehammer themselves.
not wishing to split hairs but Saddam was under inspection for WMDs by the UN and recourse was taken to the UNSC which was hamstrung by the interests of the permananet members opposed - I see the Iraq war as a failure of the security council as much as American unilaterlism i.e. a unified response would have forced Saddam into complying.
In this case Russia has pursued expansion into these breakaway ('ethnic Russian' we are told) areas, by giving them backing both in issuing them all Russian passports, and then moving to defend them by invading. The similarities with Nazi Germany is very worrying.
I think you are right in the sense that its a redrawing/reassertion of Russian influence, however I don't think they are necessarily looking to completely dominate but most certainly exercise more influence and therefore rewards from the natural resources it would then control.
But Saddam did comply - he either destroyed or used all his WMD and even allowed UN weapons inspectors in, and they found nothing. The problem was that the US had made the decision to go to war and were trying to strong arm the UN into sanctioning an invasion. When the UN SC refused to pass a motion allowing force to be used (the wording on UNSC 1441 lacked clarity), the Americans gave Saddam five minutes to surrender and then invaded, presumably expecting to find some evidence of a WMD programme to justify the invasion after the fact.
Essentially what is going on in Eurasia is power politics. Russia isn't going to send their tanks in to East Europe and places like Georgia unless they have to and when they do it's going to be in short bursts, with limited objectives. They made the mistake of annexing Afghanistan and are still hated in East Europe for the fifty years or so of Soviet dominance. Even more so they can look at the US pissing away $2bn a week in Iraq. This is about soft power - controlling and dominating the economies of East Europe/Eurasia and means to do that is with controlling energy supplies.
As I recall it that is not the case, he was not giving inspectors full cooperation hence the yanks and us had a grievance arguably.
Inspections were ongoing, and they also asked for 3 more months.
The US however were anxious to avoid going in during the winter or summer I forget which but operationally it would have been a problem. Not saying I agree with the unilaterial action but as I said if they UN security council had been fully comitted it may have been avoided, Saddam knew this and played on it.
Agree about Russia, essentially they don't have to because they have significant ethnic Russian minorities in many of these states, these militias will do the dirty work ethic cleansing etc. This clearly has a limited scope though.
The US spent several months prior to the invasion preparing for it, by the time of the invasion there were around 250,000 soldiers based in the Gulf, with the support networks etc. Diplomatically Bush and the neo-cons had lied their way into preparing for the war - telling us that they knew where the WMD were, that Saddam was developing a nuclear programme, that he was involved in Sept 11 and the other excuses. The weapons Inspectors were sent in on a "slam dunk" mission - Colin Powell even presented a dossier of faked evidence to the UN etc. The problem was that the expected evidence didn't exist and therefore there was no rationale for the invasion, without this the UN refused to sanction a motion that would lead to an invasion, so Bush ordered the troops in anyway. If he hadn't it would have been an embarrasing climb down - the troops were there and he'd spent the previous six months preparing the world for an invasion.
plus entirely destroying Georgia's military capability isn't that 'soft'.
...........
True, but Georgia insisted on doing its own thing, as I say, joining Nato was never going to be allowed by Russia and the oil pipeline made some sort of confrontation likely sooner or later. Georgia's mistake was that it didn't play the diplomatic game that well. Russia have used them as an example to the Americans and anyone else that they are not to be trifled with.
You have to prepare for an invasion you can't just ship those troops in overnight, if you are backing UN resolutions in this way it can add pressure for compliance.
Incidentally I don't disagree about the smokescreen thing with Iraq, just saying its not directly comparable. The yanks do however have a lot to answer for.
You have to prepare for an invasion you can't just ship those troops in overnight, if you are backing UN resolutions in this way it can add pressure for compliance.
............
Sure but to have sent them back without having had them invade Iraq - and remember the grounds for the invasion had been carefully prepared, would have been a diplomatic humiliation for Bush, more so if Saddam was still in power. Once they had been deployed there was only ever going to be one outcome.
You might at this point want to read the Downing Street papers - whereby Blair was privately admitting that the US was fitting the evidence around the policy.
Iraq wasn't just about oil - but also about controlling the Middle East and replacing one anti-US/western regime with one that was going to be friendly to and accede to Western demands and interests.
not disagreeing with motivations behind any of it, and I've seen footage similar to what you describe. But are you seriously suggesting you shouldn't prepare for an invasion?
he he we could go on forever, lets leave it there, the real point I was making was the US at least attempted UN channels.
Sorry Morts i was confused by your terms "other European minimes" and "imperialist forign polices" but it all became clear when you said you were a Merchant Banker , blow me down i should have guessed.
This Russian sabre rattling is hardly new. Putin has said that they could easily target their nukes at Europe again including Poland. This is largely symbolic given they could at any time re-target their weapons. I didn't think the Russian General was actually suggesting the nuke Poland, merely that they make themselves a target by carrying the missile defence systems. Exaggerating the facts never stopped The Sun from putting out a news story. I think some understanding of the geo-politics of that region is needed. Russia has always worried about being encircled and just because the Soviets are no longer in charge doesn't stop that mentality from holding sway. I think there needs to be more, not less engagement with the Russians over their geo-politcal concerns but at the same time we mustn't allow them to re-draw the European boundaries back to the 1960's and 70's. A careful, watchful but robust approach is required.
Comments
i suspect that they're taking advantage of the fact that America and some European mini-mes have engaged in non-UN sanctioned invasions of other sovereign states and are not in a position to do jackshit about Russia doing the same, actually. We can't change the rules of the game and then look all upset when someone else does exactly what we've done.
"other european minimies""
you keep singing that old Red Flag
...............
This is all about controlling oil and gas supplies. Russia were going backwards in the 90s with the fall of the Soviet system, but then all those oil revenues started kicking in and most of the CIS States either produce oil/gas or have pipelines to the west. They have two choices, either become a Russian vassal state and kow-tow to the Russians or do what the Georgians tried - and link themselves to the west via Nato.
The Russians will not allow any neighbouring State to join Nato and why should they? The Americans wouldn't allow missiles on Cuba and via the CIA have done their best to de-stabilise any regime in Latin and South America that might have a government less than friendly to America's perceived interests.
As for the Yanks - this is the logical consequence of the Neo-con project, if America, Britain and even Georgia can invade Iraq because Iraq has WMD - which was the official excuse, then it justifies the Russians using the same excuse/rhetoric against Poland. The world doesn't need this kind of brinkmanship.
Why do you extreme right types always take any honest criticism of imperialist foreign policy, no matter how dishonest and financially damaging it might be, to be a direct challenge to western freedoms?
Guess it's a McCarthy thing, huh :-)
I think the Georgians did heavily miscalculate Russia reaction here, but then Russia are clearly attempting annexation (by the back door) of the two breakaway regions.
If it was seriously all about oil I think they would have proceeded to take the whole of Georgia including the southern pipeline - of course they may still do so.
It is also possible they are trying to intimidate BP to the extent that they relinquish their interests in Russia to Russian ownership.
Its a complex issue, but what scares me is that over the last few years the regime in Russia is resorting to more and more serious methods of maintaining its power and flexing its military muscles. It doesn't help that American diplomacy is as subtle as an Elephant, nor that their FP is also highly morally dubious.
...........
It's a mess, Russia have played the long-game since the fall of the Warsaw Pact and ultimately want to dominate East Europe and Eurasia again, which has always been their objective. Under the Soviet system this meant satellite vassal states surrounding Russia. Now it's about Russia controlling these states economically, politically they can do what they like, as long as they acknowledge Russian hegemony. If on the other hand you dare go up against Russia you'll find their wrath inflicted on you. For example you might recall two years ago in mid-winter Russia turned off gas supplies to the Ukraine. The Ukraine both imports gas and exports it to the West via a pipeline. The Russians had been selling gas to the Ukrainians at a much lower price than the market price.
In Georgia you've had two armies facing each other with Russia trying to find an excuse to intervene. Unfortunately they found it, the Georgians moved in to quell trouble in South Ossetia, where there are ethnic Russians albeit of dubious origin. The actions of the West haven't helped, promising Georgia that they could join Nato etc, as I say above that isn't negotiable for Russia who take it as a direct threat. As a side issue Georgia is also building a pipeline which would deliver gas to the West and as long as Georgia is pro-west it circumvents Russian control.
Having invaded Iraq claiming that Saddam had WMD and was a threat, we in the West are hypocrites if we object to Russia using the same rhetoric. They've told Poland in pretty clear language that they won't allow US missiles on their soil under any circumstances. So that's a plan a threat as you could make - what does the US now do? Cave-in, cancel plans to deply the missile system in Poland and let Russia "win" or go ahead and risk a reaction from Russia? They are taking advantage of Bush being a weak president and for following the neo-con dogma for too long.
Regarding their relationship with BP, I think they will use BP for as long as they can, there's no point producing and exporting oil/gas if they can't supply it to a market - and the most affluent market is western Europe. Right now BP is ideally placed for them, but I wonder for how much longer. What seems to be happening there is a continual ratcheting up of demands - wanting more and more concessions from BP - eg that the MD of the TNK-BP joint-venture stands down while there are other less distinct threats about licences being revoked etc. I can't see this ending in a nice way for BP. Shell was pressured into selling a controlling stake in its Sakhalin-2 oil project to Gazprom at a below-market price after environmental regulators threatened it with billions of dollars in fines, and you might recall the head of Yukos being sent to prison for tax avoidance after falling foul of Putin a few years ago.
This isn't about right/left wing politics, but realpolitics and although they are being heavy handed about it the Russians seem to be out neo-conning the Americans, who to be fair have wielded power and influence with the subtlety of a sledgehammer themselves.
In this case Russia has pursued expansion into these breakaway ('ethnic Russian' we are told) areas, by giving them backing both in issuing them all Russian passports, and then moving to defend them by invading. The similarities with Nazi Germany is very worrying.
I think you are right in the sense that its a redrawing/reassertion of Russian influence, however I don't think they are necessarily looking to completely dominate but most certainly exercise more influence and therefore rewards from the natural resources it would then control.
Essentially what is going on in Eurasia is power politics. Russia isn't going to send their tanks in to East Europe and places like Georgia unless they have to and when they do it's going to be in short bursts, with limited objectives. They made the mistake of annexing Afghanistan and are still hated in East Europe for the fifty years or so of Soviet dominance. Even more so they can look at the US pissing away $2bn a week in Iraq. This is about soft power - controlling and dominating the economies of East Europe/Eurasia and means to do that is with controlling energy supplies.
Inspections were ongoing, and they also asked for 3 more months.
The US however were anxious to avoid going in during the winter or summer I forget which but operationally it would have been a problem. Not saying I agree with the unilaterial action but as I said if they UN security council had been fully comitted it may have been avoided, Saddam knew this and played on it.
Agree about Russia, essentially they don't have to because they have significant ethnic Russian minorities in many of these states, these militias will do the dirty work ethic cleansing etc. This clearly has a limited scope though.
:)
O
I
L
end of.
This was the end game, only problem is that the country is a total mess.
...........
True, but Georgia insisted on doing its own thing, as I say, joining Nato was never going to be allowed by Russia and the oil pipeline made some sort of confrontation likely sooner or later. Georgia's mistake was that it didn't play the diplomatic game that well. Russia have used them as an example to the Americans and anyone else that they are not to be trifled with.
Incidentally I don't disagree about the smokescreen thing with Iraq, just saying its not directly comparable. The yanks do however have a lot to answer for.
I also don't disagree its a lot to do with Oil.
............
Sure but to have sent them back without having had them invade Iraq - and remember the grounds for the invasion had been carefully prepared, would have been a diplomatic humiliation for Bush, more so if Saddam was still in power. Once they had been deployed there was only ever going to be one outcome.
You might at this point want to read the Downing Street papers - whereby Blair was privately admitting that the US was fitting the evidence around the policy.
Iraq wasn't just about oil - but also about controlling the Middle East and replacing one anti-US/western regime with one that was going to be friendly to and accede to Western demands and interests.
he he we could go on forever, lets leave it there, the real point I was making was the US at least attempted UN channels.