Russia invades Georgia! (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

From the Berliner Tag (Nazi Germany's leading news daily) September 1, 1939:

POLAND ATTACKS!

....the Polish Army struck deep into the heart of Eastern Germany with this treacherous surprise attack, slaughtering innocent German civilians. In Danzig, women and children of German descent are being rounded up and shot, their bodies thrown into pits...but now, said the Fuehrer, "we are answering bomb with bomb! It is a sad and unfortunate affair, but the Reich must defend itself!"

 

[Mr. Yuk]

Now is this time we must ban together and support our Georgian bretheren against their evil Russian overlords. Please print out this Georgian flag and post it in your window, at your office, on your shirt, your neighbor's lawn, your car, or anywhere else you can think of to show your support.

 

[bosoxs45]

 

[Mr. Yuk]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

Shake harder boy!

 

[Davej626]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion?

We make a public call for a ceasefire and work diplomatically to try to calm things down.

Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort?

No.

Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened?

No need. Russia is not going to attack a NATO country. Putin is not stupid and there is no reason to reaffirm something that is not in question.

And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think it is a little bit of a knee jerk reaction to take this conflict as a broader strategy to re-conquer the old Soviet Union break away Republics.

Its completely controlled here. Basically, Georgia is on its own. Nato isn't going to help. The EU isn't going to help. They knew what they were doing. They were waiting for this day to attack when everyone's attention would be on Beijing. They probably didn't expect Russia to counter over the top as they have. They would do best to offer to return to pre-conflict borders and hope Russia forgets about this...

 

[SofaKings]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

I was thinking we should go for Lepanto we don't want to get steamrolled by a Russian/Turkish alliance.

 

[SofaKings]

So much for my Black Sea cruise later this summer.

 

[Ozymandias]

So much for my Black Sea cruise later this summer.

I'm sorry. It is your African American Sea Cruise.

 

[Fennis]

Now is this time we must ban together and support our Georgian bretheren against their evil Russian overlords. Please print out this Georgian flag and post it in your window, at your office, on your shirt, your neighbor's lawn, your car, or anywhere else you can think of to show your support.

Since they removed the Confederate Battle Flag as part of their state flag, I am willing to do so.

Hi, new to the thread. Has anybody made any jokes 'confusing' the country of Georgia with the U.S state of Georgia yet?

Thanks.

 

[SofaKings]

So much for my Black Sea cruise later this summer.

I'm sorry. It is your African American Sea Cruise.

Better not be. Unless they are fetching me another biere.

 

[adonis]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

Timing not coincidental with Olympics starting. Story will be swamped by coverage, US probably will just bluster and talk smack, but ultimately do nothing.

What should the US do?

Beats me. I just work on computers and engineering, don't know about how important Georgia is to our interests, or even if we're tied to them in any way. We should probably talk some smack, say shame on them, work on a UN resolution to stop the madness, but focus on our own crap in the end.

 

[DanFouts]

Read that Georgia has 2,000 troops in Iraq (Number 3 behind U.S. and Britain)....

Wonder if they are attempting to now flank Moscow.....

 

[shining path]

From the Berliner Tag (Nazi Germany's leading news daily) September 1, 1939:

POLAND ATTACKS!

....the Polish Army struck deep into the heart of Eastern Germany with this treacherous surprise attack, slaughtering innocent German civilians. In Danzig, women and children of German descent are being rounded up and shot, their bodies thrown into pits...but now, said the Fuehrer, "we are answering bomb with bomb! It is a sad and unfortunate affair, but the Reich must defend itself!"

 

[shining path]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

I was thinking we should go for Lepanto we don't want to get steamrolled by a Russian/Turkish alliance.

 

[DevilsTrifecta]

After reading updated news stories, it seems that this city broke from Georgia in favor of Moscow back in 1992. Georgia then chose a time when many of Russia's leaders, including Putin, are in China to attack. It seems that Georgia is the aggressor here.

south ossetia is sovereign territory of georgia. their break has not been recognized by any state, not even russia. they are not even an autonomous republic (like, say, abkhazia). you cannot call georgia an aggressor for fighting rebels (that have been firing on them recently) in their own sovereign territory. russia is the aggressor here.

 

[Keerock]

"I saw bodies lying on the streets, around ruined buildings, in cars," Lyudmila Ostayeva, a resident of the South Ossetia capital, Tskhinvali, told The Associated Press.

She sounds HOT:shallowhal:

 

[texasheat]

this war is causing some serious problems... http://english.pravda.ru/news/world/europe...46-nudist_war-0

 

[Redwes25]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

I was thinking we should go for Lepanto we don't want to get steamrolled by a Russian/Turkish alliance.

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

I was thinking we should go for Lepanto we don't want to get steamrolled by a Russian/Turkish alliance.

I know you both got a good laugh out of that one. Though I think I attached SofaKings in every game I played with him.

 

[HellToupee]

good stuff from the pravda forums..

I agree.There are one thousand American "advisers" in Georgia right now. Georgia just finished the largest military practice in it's history, and that included some NATO-forces too.It is NO COINCIDENCE that Georgia attacked South Ossetia right after the military practice was over. The United States knew this was coming, but decided not to warn Russia beforehand.This "operation" would have never happened without US approval. They are the ones behind this, wanting to destabilize Caucasus and using dumb Georgians as their cannon fodder.This is the implementation of the Brzezinski/Neocon plan. It is happening now right before our eyes.

 

[Chadstroma]

As Garry Kasparov has noted, this guy Putin is the sort of guy that the Russians want. Again, refuting the argument, spread by this President and others, that everyone in the world wants democracy and freedom. The Russians felt insecure when they had political freedom; they prefer having a strong man tell them what to do. Whether it is a Czar, or Stalin, or Putin, they desire, perhaps need a strong man to give them orders and make them feel safe.

What a drastic and poor over simplification about this. It was not democracy and freedom that Russians 'felt insecure' about it was that fact that their economy was in shambles. Most peoples of the world will trade in 'democracy and freedom' in for money in their pocket. The Russian economy has made great strides under Putin while it was a joke under the 'democracy and freedom' regimes before him. Whether it is because of Putin or not is another discussion.

That is the biggest 'single' reason to the popularity of Putin in Russia. But as is the case in almost everything in life, it is not even that simple. Certainly not as simple as "Russians like strong armed leaders".

I normally agree with your perspectives, but first of all I don't believe that he was arguing that this was the only story in something as complex as the story of Russia. Second I would suspect from your prior posts here that you would agree with the proposition that Russia, given its history and culture, has shown itself to be rather unequipped to handle western-style freedoms successfully. They don't have the middle class institutions to do this - in reality they're only about 70 years removed from a largely peasant-based society, and many vestiges of that remain even today. The gravitation to Putin's dictatorial leadership was greatly aided by the corruption that a "free economy" enabled, and the fact that Putin - rightfully in most instances - represented a far better holder of power than did the organized crime bosses and robber barons who rapidly rose to the top of Russian society.

Russia as always is "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma", to use Churchill's words, but I think it's fair to say that much about

My point was really to dismiss the "Again, refuting the argument, spread by this President and others, that everyone in the world wants democracy and freedom." as Tim put it as being extremely simplistic.As you point out, Russia is an interesting country with a colorful history and culture unlike the West or the East.

As for how culture interacts with a people's wish for democracy and freedom, world history has already shown that great democracies can emerge from very different cultures with long histories of autocratic governments. The obvious examples to point out are Germany and Japan.

As for your second point, I do agree. I can point out an example of the challenges that Russia has had in it's transition and a reason why it is sliding back to the a more autocratic government in my own experience in visiting Russia. We were in a subway station and a person within my group was taking a picture. A worker freaked out and started yelling at us in Russian. Which since most of us did not speak Russian were like . A Russian that happened to be with us intercepted her and talked her down. He later explained that she was still stuck in "Soviet" thinking when it was illegal to take pictures of transportation hubs like a subway station. This happend in '98, well after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The point is that a people does not automatically understand democracy and freedom when for all or most of their lives have lived under a completely different system. Unlike a transition to Communism or another autocratic system, Democracy does not tell you how to think and act and enforce those directives with fear and force.

Democracy is fragile. Even more so when it is in it's birth and baby stages. Any leader who is not committed to Democracy and Freedom can easily reverse it. We have seen this in Russia.

 

[Chadstroma]

good stuff from the pravda forums..

I agree.There are one thousand American "advisers" in Georgia right now. Georgia just finished the largest military practice in it's history, and that included some NATO-forces too.It is NO COINCIDENCE that Georgia attacked South Ossetia right after the military practice was over. The United States knew this was coming, but decided not to warn Russia beforehand.This "operation" would have never happened without US approval. They are the ones behind this, wanting to destabilize Caucasus and using dumb Georgians as their cannon fodder.This is the implementation of the Brzezinski/Neocon plan. It is happening now right before our eyes.

It sounds like some of our very own FBGers are staff writers for them.

 

[T Bell]

As Garry Kasparov has noted, this guy Putin is the sort of guy that the Russians want. Again, refuting the argument, spread by this President and others, that everyone in the world wants democracy and freedom. The Russians felt insecure when they had political freedom; they prefer having a strong man tell them what to do. Whether it is a Czar, or Stalin, or Putin, they desire, perhaps need a strong man to give them orders and make them feel safe.

What a drastic and poor over simplification about this. It was not democracy and freedom that Russians 'felt insecure' about it was that fact that their economy was in shambles. Most peoples of the world will trade in 'democracy and freedom' in for money in their pocket. The Russian economy has made great strides under Putin while it was a joke under the 'democracy and freedom' regimes before him. Whether it is because of Putin or not is another discussion.

That is the biggest 'single' reason to the popularity of Putin in Russia. But as is the case in almost everything in life, it is not even that simple. Certainly not as simple as "Russians like strong armed leaders".

I normally agree with your perspectives, but first of all I don't believe that he was arguing that this was the only story in something as complex as the story of Russia. Second I would suspect from your prior posts here that you would agree with the proposition that Russia, given its history and culture, has shown itself to be rather unequipped to handle western-style freedoms successfully. They don't have the middle class institutions to do this - in reality they're only about 70 years removed from a largely peasant-based society, and many vestiges of that remain even today. The gravitation to Putin's dictatorial leadership was greatly aided by the corruption that a "free economy" enabled, and the fact that Putin - rightfully in most instances - represented a far better holder of power than did the organized crime bosses and robber barons who rapidly rose to the top of Russian society.

Russia as always is "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma", to use Churchill's words, but I think it's fair to say that much about

My point was really to dismiss the "Again, refuting the argument, spread by this President and others, that everyone in the world wants democracy and freedom." as Tim put it as being extremely simplistic.As you point out, Russia is an interesting country with a colorful history and culture unlike the West or the East.

As for how culture interacts with a people's wish for democracy and freedom, world history has already shown that great democracies can emerge from very different cultures with long histories of autocratic governments. The obvious examples to point out are Germany and Japan.

As for your second point, I do agree. I can point out an example of the challenges that Russia has had in it's transition and a reason why it is sliding back to the a more autocratic government in my own experience in visiting Russia. We were in a subway station and a person within my group was taking a picture. A worker freaked out and started yelling at us in Russian. Which since most of us did not speak Russian were like . A Russian that happened to be with us intercepted her and talked her down. He later explained that she was still stuck in "Soviet" thinking when it was illegal to take pictures of transportation hubs like a subway station. This happend in '98, well after the fall of the Soviet Union.

The point is that a people does not automatically understand democracy and freedom when for all or most of their lives have lived under a completely different system. Unlike a transition to Communism or another autocratic system, Democracy does not tell you how to think and act and enforce those directives with fear and force.

Democracy is fragile. Even more so when it is in it's birth and baby stages. Any leader who is not committed to Democracy and Freedom can easily reverse it. We have seen this in Russia.

 

[timschochet]

I do not think that what I wrote about Russia was overly simplistic. The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions. It's not a question of economics but of security- you certainly can't make the argument that Stalin provided great economic times for Russia, yet he was extraordinarily popular, more beloved than any American President in history: this despite the fact that he is certainly the worst mass murderer ever known.

As for the greater issue of the spread of democracy, I don't think Germany and Japan are good examples. Both of these countries had experiments with democracy between the two world wars, and both failed miserably, much like Russia. In order for democracy to flourish in those countries, the following factors had to be established:

1. A perceived destruction of the existing order but NOT destruction of the existing infrastructure.

2. A military dictatorship in which the governing force was trained for years prior and simply forced democracy on the people.

3. A population with a history of being both industrious and servile to authority.

It is almost impossible to recreate these conditions again. Take #1 for example: if Albert Speer had followed Hitlers orders in March of 1945 and destroyed the infrastructure of the Ruhr, there is NO chance we could have put in a democracy there; the country would have faced major starvation that we could not prevent, and would have become communist. And as far as #3, Germany and Japan are unique in world history for combining extraordinary industriousness with behavior servile to authority.

I think therefore that Germany and Japan are extremely odd examples and not to be used as instructive for areas with nothing in common, such as Iraq or Russia.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later. Russia is projecting military force on a piece of land that they think is rightfully theirs, where a good portion of the population wants to be part of Russia, and on land that borders their own country. It's not like they invaded Georgia bombing T' bilisi, capturing the government, instituting military law, and doing it all under false pretenses. We'll be paying for the mistakes of GW Bush for years, maybe decades.

Even if Russia is wrong these kind of conflicts go on all over the world several times a year. Any country that border The Congo has issues every day, Ethiopia in Somalia, Sudan in Tchad, Columbia in Ecuador.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

 

[shining path]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

I think he meant "popular" in a "would be highly ranked in a Russian Dictator draft" kind of way.

 

[Fennis]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

I think he meant "popular" in a "would be highly ranked in a Russian Dictator draft" kind of way.

Yuri Andropov - SOD

 

[T Bell]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

I think he meant "popular" in a "would be highly ranked in a Russian Dictator draft" kind of way.

Yuri Andropov - SOD

Flash in the pan.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

As Garry Kasparov has noted, this guy Putin is the sort of guy that the Russians want. Again, refuting the argument, spread by this President and others, that everyone in the world wants democracy and freedom. The Russians felt insecure when they had political freedom; they prefer having a strong man tell them what to do. Whether it is a Czar, or Stalin, or Putin, they desire, perhaps need a strong man to give them orders and make them feel safe.

This is the way that most of the world works. It's the old way. It certainly makes things predictable and secure. But if you want a quick way to understand how revolutionary the American Revolution and the ideas behind it really were (and are), look no further than the way that people tend to revert to think and be treated like sheep elsewhere in the world.

Sure. But we've had our moments. If George Washington had decided that he did not want to give up the Presidency, he would have had the support of the American people, and this country might have become a typical South American dictatorship. Then in 1934, during the Great Depression, if Huey Long had not been assassinated, he would most likely have been elected President, after which he would have done away with the Constitution.

And even now, if we were to have a real economic crisis in this country, with massive unemployment, inflation, and starvation, how soon would many Americans be willing to throw away our freedoms in return for security?

You're right. The US has had its moments when fascism (of some variety) looked appealing. And every time we've resisted that temptation. What was your point again?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened?

And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

Timing not coincidental with Olympics starting. Story will be swamped by coverage, US probably will just bluster and talk smack, but ultimately do nothing.

What should the US do?

Mind our own business, of course. This is about South Ossetian independence and some brutal repression by Georgia to expand into territories that don't want to be Georgian. The brutality goes both ways and I don't care who threw the first punch. I don't think anybody knows. If Medvedev has to pound Georgia over this, then so be it. Saakashvili has been trying for years to draw Nato into this. It's stupid. We're suckers if we side with Georgia here. It's no secret that ethnic cleansing of the 70,000 Ossetians in South Ossetia would be Georgia's preference without Russia staring them down. Kokoity has been trying to draw Russia into this for years. It's stupid. They're suckers for taking the bait. South Ossetia has been autonomous since the early 90s. Driving them into North Ossetia may be a positive end result for Georgia (and Russia), but it's none of our business how things work out there. Ossetians are a distinct ethnicity in a distinct geographical region with harsh siloviki politics. Georgia never should have tried to assimilate them when the USSR turned into statelets. The smaller the statelets the better I say. South Ossetia and Abkahazia (the bigger problem down the road), are not part of Georgia according to them and ever since the breakup of the Soviets. Russia's mistake has been being wishy washy. They have always sided with South Ossetian independence while internationally recognizing Georgia's agreed upon borders. If South Ossetia wins the recognition of its clearly established independence from Georgia then good for them. If not, oh well, they're mostly greedy thugs repressing people with state control of everything anyway. We have other things to worry about, and have absolutely no business meddling.

This is obviously a good post, but it's funny how every once in a while somebody who actually knows what they're talking about will drop some knowledge, and then that post gets no responses at all.Edit: I assume it's a good post because it's full of detail and spoken with authority. I don't know jack about Russian-Georgian relations and don't pretend otherwise.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later.

Oh come one. I know that you know better than this. Russia was always going to do what was in Russia's perceived best interests. Let's not pretend otherwise.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

This is obviously a good post, but it's funny how every once in a while somebody who actually knows what they're talking about will drop some knowledge, and then that post gets no responses at all.

I always just assume no one has a better response in those cases even if they hate my post. Now when I drop a funny and no one responds, well....that hurts.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later.

Oh come one. I know that you know better than this. Russia was always going to do what was in Russia's perceived best interests. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I think you missed my point. Our response has nothing to do with Russian interests, our response is limited because of foreign affairs mistakes we've made under the Bush administration. We are at probably an all-time low in the eyes of Europe and many of our staunchest allies, now we have very little to say when one of the countries that has embraced us the most (to protect their own interests) is in a bit of a pickle. This could be Russia, China, Brazil, Borneo, Malasia it doesn't matter. We've limited our ability to influence on a global stage, and that's a fact. In 2002 we could have done anything we wanted and everyone would have said yeah, you're right U.S. Now we fart and newspapers in Sweden are saying we did it to control the universe. That's this administration's fault, period.

 

[timschochet]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

I know this will shock you, but among the Russian people (not Ukranians or those upper echelon members of the Communist party who suffered under the Purges) Stalin was incredibly popular. Yes he was feared, but like Hitler, he was also worshipped. Please read Hitler and Stalin by Allen Bullock if you have the time. Also a wonderful little film that demonstrates the incredible popularity of Stalin was The Inner Circle which stars Tom Hulce as a film projectionist who works in the Kremlin. If you can find this, rent it. One of the things it demonstrates is how, when Stalin died, the Russian public did not feel liberated, as we might imagine; they felt empty and lost, because the man who had been their Father for so long, the guy who always knew what to do, was gone forever.

 

[Ozymandias]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later.

Oh come one. I know that you know better than this. Russia was always going to do what was in Russia's perceived best interests. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I think you missed my point. Our response has nothing to do with Russian interests, our response is limited because of foreign affairs mistakes we've made under the Bush administration. We are at probably an all-time low in the eyes of Europe and many of our staunchest allies, now we have very little to say when one of the countries that has embraced us the most (to protect their own interests) is in a bit of a pickle. This could be Russia, China, Brazil, Borneo, Malasia it doesn't matter. We've limited our ability to influence on a global stage, and that's a fact. In 2002 we could have done anything we wanted and everyone would have said yeah, you're right U.S. Now we fart and newspapers in Sweden are saying we did it to control the universe. That's this administration's fault, period.

And frankly, I think that's a good thing. The Europeans keep bragging about how superior they are to America, and that their economy is bigger. So now, if they get worried that Russia is flexing its muscles, let them do something about it. They have more population than Russia, and their GNP dwarfs that of Russia. Let them do something about it, rather than stand back with a critical attitude. But they won't, because they don't have the balls. And as for me, I believe the old Klingon saying.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later.

Oh come one. I know that you know better than this. Russia was always going to do what was in Russia's perceived best interests. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I think you missed my point. Our response has nothing to do with Russian interests, our response is limited because of foreign affairs mistakes we've made under the Bush administration. We are at probably an all-time low in the eyes of Europe and many of our staunchest allies, now we have very little to say when one of the countries that has embraced us the most (to protect their own interests) is in a bit of a pickle. This could be Russia, China, Brazil, Borneo, Malasia it doesn't matter. We've limited our ability to influence on a global stage, and that's a fact. In 2002 we could have done anything we wanted and everyone would have said yeah, you're right U.S. Now we fart and newspapers in Sweden are saying we did it to control the universe. That's this administration's fault, period.

And frankly, I think that's a good thing. The Europeans keep bragging about how superior they are to America, and that their economy is bigger. So now, if they get worried that Russia is flexing its muscles, let them do something about it. They have more population than Russia, and their GNP dwarfs that of Russia. Let them do something about it, rather than stand back with a critical attitude. But they won't, because they don't have the balls. And as for me, I believe the old Klingon saying.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

I know this will shock you, but among the Russian people (not Ukranians or those upper echelon members of the Communist party who suffered under the Purges) Stalin was incredibly popular. Yes he was feared, but like Hitler, he was also worshipped. Please read Hitler and Stalin by Allen Bullock if you have the time. Also a wonderful little film that demonstrates the incredible popularity of Stalin was The Inner Circle which stars Tom Hulce as a film projectionist who works in the Kremlin. If you can find this, rent it. One of the things it demonstrates is how, when Stalin died, the Russian public did not feel liberated, as we might imagine; they felt empty and lost, because the man who had been their Father for so long, the guy who always knew what to do, was gone forever.

I have a response but I have to look at something first. Will revisit this reply tomorrow.

 

[Oh the Humanity]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

Timing not coincidental with Olympics starting. Story will be swamped by coverage, US probably will just bluster and talk smack, but ultimately do nothing.

What should the US do?

Beats me. I just work on computers and engineering, don't know about how important Georgia is to our interests, or even if we're tied to them in any way. We should probably talk some smack, say shame on them, work on a UN resolution to stop the madness, but focus on our own crap in the end.

Couldn't we just sell arms to both sides? We could use the bread.....

 

[Chadstroma]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

Stalin was feared and hated. It has not been until recently that he has become popular as those who lived through his purges and lost loved one's have passed on and a new generation looks back on to the old 'strength' of Russia through the Soviet Union that Stalin represents. He has been used as a symbol of 'Russian power' by the nationalistic party lead by Putin, which is another contributing factor to his resurgence in popularity.

 

[SpurrierisisGod]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

Timing not coincidental with Olympics starting. Story will be swamped by coverage, US probably will just bluster and talk smack, but ultimately do nothing.

What should the US do?

Unleash Spurrier on them. He owns Georgia.

!I almost shot beer out of my nose!

 

[SpurrierisisGod]

Hi, new to the thread. Has anybody made any jokes 'confusing' the country of Georgia with the U.S state of Georgia yet?Thanks.

WOLVERINES!!!!!

 

[acapella]

Russia: "Who's preseason #1 now, B##ch?!?"

I LOVE THIS POST!!!

 

[timschochet]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

Stalin was feared and hated. It has not been until recently that he has become popular as those who lived through his purges and lost loved one's have passed on and a new generation looks back on to the old 'strength' of Russia through the Soviet Union that Stalin represents. He has been used as a symbol of 'Russian power' by the nationalistic party lead by Putin, which is another contributing factor to his resurgence in popularity.

He WAS feared and hated, and he was also loved. I had no idea Stalin had resurged in popularity; I was referring to the historical accounts I have read. Stalin was loved by the majority all throughout his rule. (He was also worshipped by Western leftist intellectuals like Lillian Hellman and Edmund Wilson, to their eternal shame, because they should have known better.)

 

[Doctor Detroit]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened? And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

Timing not coincidental with Olympics starting. Story will be swamped by coverage, US probably will just bluster and talk smack, but ultimately do nothing.

What should the US do?

Unleash Spurrier on them. He owns Georgia.

!I almost shot beer out of my nose!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later.

Oh come one. I know that you know better than this. Russia was always going to do what was in Russia's perceived best interests. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I think you missed my point. Our response has nothing to do with Russian interests, our response is limited because of foreign affairs mistakes we've made under the Bush administration. We are at probably an all-time low in the eyes of Europe and many of our staunchest allies, now we have very little to say when one of the countries that has embraced us the most (to protect their own interests) is in a bit of a pickle. This could be Russia, China, Brazil, Borneo, Malasia it doesn't matter. We've limited our ability to influence on a global stage, and that's a fact. In 2002 we could have done anything we wanted and everyone would have said yeah, you're right U.S. Now we fart and newspapers in Sweden are saying we did it to control the universe. That's this administration's fault, period.

In that case, then yes I misunderstood your point. It sounded like you were saying that since Bush did what (he thought) was is America's self-interest, that somehow magically freed Russia to act in its self-interest when it wouldn't have otherwise. You and I both know that's ludicrous. Nations like Russia, China, etc. are going to do their thing regardless of what we do. Having read your follow-up, I get where you're coming from, but I doubt we would have ever had the clout to do anything about this. Realistically, we're not going to go toe-to-toe with Russia over Georgia, and I don't see Putin as being the sort of guy who bends easily to "soft" power.

 

[SofaKings]

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened?

And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

I was thinking we should go for Lepanto we don't want to get steamrolled by a Russian/Turkish alliance.

So, getting serious here: what should the response of the United States be? Do we publicly condemn this invasion? Do we threaten Russia with economic action of some sort? Do we publicly reaffirm that we will militarily defend NATO countries if they are threatened?

And if we sit back and allow this, will Putin figure nobody is going to stop him from taking back all of the lands of the former Soviet Union? (He's probably right about this.)

I think shaking our fist in impotent rage is the play here.

I was thinking we should go for Lepanto we don't want to get steamrolled by a Russian/Turkish alliance.

I know you both got a good laugh out of that one. Though I think I backstabbed SofaKings in every game I played with him.

Fixed.

 

[SofaKings]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

Stalin was feared and hated. It has not been until recently that he has become popular as those who lived through his purges and lost loved one's have passed on and a new generation looks back on to the old 'strength' of Russia through the Soviet Union that Stalin represents. He has been used as a symbol of 'Russian power' by the nationalistic party lead by Putin, which is another contributing factor to his resurgence in popularity.

He WAS feared and hated, and he was also loved. I had no idea Stalin had resurged in popularity; I was referring to the historical accounts I have read. Stalin was loved by the majority all throughout his rule. (He was also worshipped by Western leftist intellectuals like Lillian Hellman and Edmund Wilson, to their eternal shame, because they should have known better.)

Add up the number of people he killed while taking power and during power, along with the casualties of WWII and there aren't many people left. I'm sure people "loved" him. Heck if I survived to WWII I would have though he was a heckuva buddy as well.

 

[Chadstroma]

The four most popular leaders in Russian history were Ivan The Terrible, Peter the Great, Josef Stalin, and now Vladimir Putin, and what they have in common is they are all not only dictators but strong leaders who make all decisions.

Stalin was "popular?" O RLY? Yeah the Ukraine loved him, so did all the Russians who were forced to relocate to different parts of Russia or to a Soviet satellite. People in Russia were frightened, he was popular because the overwhleming majority of Russians were afraid to be killed or worse, sent to Uzbekistan to live.

Stalin was feared and hated. It has not been until recently that he has become popular as those who lived through his purges and lost loved one's have passed on and a new generation looks back on to the old 'strength' of Russia through the Soviet Union that Stalin represents. He has been used as a symbol of 'Russian power' by the nationalistic party lead by Putin, which is another contributing factor to his resurgence in popularity.

He WAS feared and hated, and he was also loved. I had no idea Stalin had resurged in popularity; I was referring to the historical accounts I have read. Stalin was loved by the majority all throughout his rule. (He was also worshipped by Western leftist intellectuals like Lillian Hellman and Edmund Wilson, to their eternal shame, because they should have known better.)

Add up the number of people he killed while taking power and during power, along with the casualties of WWII and there aren't many people left. I'm sure people "loved" him. Heck if I survived to WWII I would have though he was a heckuva buddy as well.

The conversations I had with Russians was that the modern historical view from most Russians was hate for Stalin. Usually something along the lines of 'every family has someone that was killed by Stalin' was said to explain the hate. To Sofa's point, usually the only positive things I heard was that he lead the Soviets to defeating the Nazi's but that was again usually followed up by something along the lines of 'but he sent many Russians to their deaths in order to win'. This was back in 1998. I have seen some media coverage of the rise of the popularity of Stalin has been part of the ruling parties propaganda of resurgent nationalism and desire for the strength and world presence of being a world SuperPower again.

 

[PIK95]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later. Russia is projecting military force on a piece of land that they think is rightfully theirs, where a good portion of the population wants to be part of Russia, and on land that borders their own country. It's not like they invaded Georgia bombing T' bilisi, capturing the government, instituting military law, and doing it all under false pretenses. We'll be paying for the mistakes of GW Bush for years, maybe decades. Even if Russia is wrong these kind of conflicts go on all over the world several times a year. Any country that border The Congo has issues every day, Ethiopia in Somalia, Sudan in Tchad, Columbia in Ecuador.

 

[T Bell]

What are we going to say to Russia? This is why you don't invade Iraq on a foreign relations matrix because it allows nations like Russia to operate with impunity in these cases later and frankly, for many years later.

Oh come one. I know that you know better than this. Russia was always going to do what was in Russia's perceived best interests. Let's not pretend otherwise.

I think you missed my point. Our response has nothing to do with Russian interests, our response is limited because of foreign affairs mistakes we've made under the Bush administration. We are at probably an all-time low in the eyes of Europe and many of our staunchest allies, now we have very little to say when one of the countries that has embraced us the most (to protect their own interests) is in a bit of a pickle. This could be Russia, China, Brazil, Borneo, Malasia it doesn't matter. We've limited our ability to influence on a global stage, and that's a fact. In 2002 we could have done anything we wanted and everyone would have said yeah, you're right U.S. Now we fart and newspapers in Sweden are saying we did it to control the universe. That's this administration's fault, period.

In that case, then yes I misunderstood your point. It sounded like you were saying that since Bush did what (he thought) was is America's self-interest, that somehow magically freed Russia to act in its self-interest when it wouldn't have otherwise. You and I both know that's ludicrous. Nations like Russia, China, etc. are going to do their thing regardless of what we do. Having read your follow-up, I get where you're coming from, but I doubt we would have ever had the clout to do anything about this. Realistically, we're not going to go toe-to-toe with Russia over Georgia, and I don't see Putin as being the sort of guy who bends easily to "soft" power.

I agree with both of you. There was never a time when Russia was going to back down over a confrontation with Georgia because the U.S. told them to. That's in their own back yard. We don't have a great parallel to compare it to, but it's more or less like Russia trying to tell us how to deal with a dispute with Cuba. Our first response is essentially to tell them in our best Billy Connolly voice to "#### off!" I also agree that Bush's assertiveness and willingness to use military force in foreign policy has overextended us, and made us look bad in some instances. OTOH, the simple fact othat we have been willing to use force hasn't been all bad either. Either way, I don't think it would have much affected Russian belligerence here.