MUZZLING THE BEAR...
Saturday, August 16, 2008 at 10:58PM So, first Russia invades Georgia, kills and destroys at will, agrees to an EU brokered "Peace Treaty" and then continues plundering and invading further into Georgia. Next a senior Russian general says it is 100% certain that Poland would be nuked if it allows a US missile defence system to be located on its soil. Now, Russia is considering arming its Baltic fleet with nuclear warheads for the first time since the cold war, senior military sources warned last night. Putin calculates that the "International Community" lacks the cajones to do anything but issue hollow rhetoric. He's right. ONLY the USA can respond with the sort of pressure that Putin needs imposed on him - let us support a robust US response. The bear needs muzzled and the sooner Bush economically isolates Russia the better.
View Printer Friendly Version
Reader Comments (20)
A few days ago (in the wilds of Scotland) I thought this crisis would blow over quickly.
Now I think it could get a lot worse. It's clear that Russia is after regime-change in Georgia, and next up will be Ukraine, which has also applied to join Nato and which has a large Russian minority.
Russia needs to be checked. But it's clear that the EU has already thrown in the towel, given the pathetic remarks of Angela Merkel. But Germany (and much of the EU) is heavily dependent on Russian gas supplies, so they've already surrendered.
But the question needs to be asked: why should Nato even be considering applications from Georgia and Ukraine, given their geographical status? These countries should be encouraged to be democracies with open economies, not members of Nato.
Peter,
Interesting points. Nato is a farce these days.
How was Scotland?
Russia has the goods the west is the customer. Russia needs the customers and the west needs the goods.
If the US puts missiles on Polish soil, or offers NATO membership to encircle Russia then the US is poking the bear with a stick, and the bear will respond. Is Bush prepared for that? Is the next president?
The bear needs de-fanged. Russia wanted this confrontation, Putin has engineered it, and the cringing reaction of the "International Community" - spineless and vapid - proves Putin to be be accurate in his assessment of our political class. Only Bush can stand up to Russia and I hope he does. He will be condemned for doing anything by the commie loving media.
George can send in an army of crack aromatherapists, other than that - not much. Russia wants to be recognised on the international stage so sanctions will work a littl, but she won't tolerate any western interference in her own back yard.
David
Scotland was brilliant as usual. Actually Mull in the Hebridies - a beautiful island with an abundance of wildlife.
Highly recommended.
"she won't tolerate any western interference in her own back yard."
Georgia, Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe are not the subjects of Russia, and if the Kremlin regards them as it's back yard they need to be told loudly and firmly to get lost.
ONLY the USA can respond .!!!.. but most of the respondents to this blog are anti American! We can't have it all ways...look after your own backyard and it is clear we cannot.
Oh the hypocrisy. Only the west are allowed to have the likes of nuclear subs.
Although I imagine, there's a Russian Vanceanovski website out there somewhere to balance things out. USA war mongers and Russian defenders of the faith.
USA / Russia - As bad as each other and make no mistake.
>>So, first Russia invades Georgia, kills and destroys at will, <<
Wrong right off.
First Georgia attacks South Ossetia. killing and destroying at will, flattening many residential districts and their populations and - most stupidly - killing Russian soldiers who had been stationed in the autonomous region by agreement with Georgia.
Yes, Georgia attacked first, but the Russian response was disproportionate and they've been spinning the facts to justify their invasion of Georgia.
'Yes, Georgia attacked first, but the Russian response was disproportionate'
Mmm - Was Israel's attack of Lebannon equally disproportionate?
However, that being said, Georgia fell into a trap (not unlike Israel at the time) - The Georgians were attacked first by Proxy.
The west needs to stand up to Russia, but because we are in a potentially life on this planet ending (although some might actively seek 'the rapture') scenario it would be foolish to get into a war over Georgia. Sad but true. The west may need to re-win another cold war, and that's where NATO comes in. Russia cannot risk attacking a Nato Country for the same reason NATO has to sit back and allow such treatment of non NATO countries in Russia's back yard.
Hi Daphne, (by the way, tried for hours to send you an e-mail from my mobile when on holidays but, alack, failed. Ill mail you today, ok?)
>>Yes, Georgia attacked first, but the Russian response was disproportionate<<
Indeed, it was, but the Georgian attack (mass artillery against a town in supposedly your own country, anyone?) was also an entirely disproportionate response to the South Ossetia's moves to reassert its autonomy (which had been agreed between all parties and then unilaterally abolished by the Georgian government.). The soldiers killed in this attack were almost all Russian.
BTW, as one who supports Israel's right to invade a neighbour any time a rocket is fired over its border, you are hardly well placed to call Russia's invasion in response to an artillery massacre "disproportionate"!
The fact is that the Georgian govt. thought that, with the US behind it, it could swallow this reluctant province, kill dozens of Russian soldiers there, show who's boss and get away with it.
It made a stupid mistake and will now have to face the wrath of its electorate, which I hope will show it less mercy than the Russians.
Another (the third in a row?) case of someone starting a war they thought would be a walkover but that will end in a walking race to get back out.
Georgia didn't just launch an unprovoked assault on South Ossetia, it was a response to weeks if not months of attacks against it. Also the Russian soldiers were not peacekeepers. There was an agreement to have Russian peacekeepers in the province but the Russians broke that treaty earlier this year when they massively increased their military presence beyond what had been agreed.
>>Georgia didn't just launch an unprovoked assault on South Ossetia, it was a response to weeks if not months of attacks against it.<<
Nonsense. There have indeed been border clashes between Georgia and SO, but Geogia gave at least as good as it got, and in fact most of the deaths were in SO, people killed by Georgians. If you have any info. on Georgian casualties prior to this war that could justify such its attack, I'd like to hear it.
The Georgian leader is a lunatic. He came to power in a blatantly rigged election and has since surrounded himself with US neo-con advisors.
One would have thought they'd have learned a lesson about rash invasions by now!
"The Georgian leader is a lunatic. He came to power in a blatantly rigged election and has since surrounded himself with US neo-con advisors."
What evidence is there that he came to power in a rigged election? His first victory was in 2004 after Sheverdnadze had been forced out and Saakashvilli was the only major candidate, earlier this year he won reelection in a election whose integrity was confirmed by all the major election monitoring organisations. You might be confusing Georgia with Russia as they do rig elections:
http://krotty.livejournal.com/36604.html
"He came to power in a blatantly rigged election and has since surrounded himself with US neo-con advisors."
Wow, is there anything "Neo cons" aren't responsible for?
I may have been mistaken about the 2004 elections, although when you consider that Saakashvilli claimed to have got no less than 96 pc (!) of the vote, and all other candidates combined less than 2 pc, maybe I wasn't.
And according to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) there were widespread irregularities and fraud in the 2008 presidential election.
Re. the neo-cons. Saakashvilli had for years a paid advisor in Randy Scheunemann, former chief engineer of the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century and head of the "Committee for the Liberation of Iraq". Scheunemann only ended his Georgian contract to become senior foreign policy adviser of John McCain (God help us!).
Saakashvilli's neo-con credentials are enhanced by his position of eminence on the pages of the Wall St. Journal, alongside fellow latter-day Cold Warrior Gary Kasparov.
"And according to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) there were widespread irregularities and fraud in the 2008 presidential election."
The OSCE concluded that the Georgian election was essentially free and fair, albeit with room for improvement. They did not as far as I can see allege that there was fraud:
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/01/29182_en.pdf
In contrast the OSCE had to boycott the Russian Presidential election.,
"Saakashvilli's neo-con credentials are enhanced by his position of eminence on the pages of the Wall St. Journal, alongside fellow latter-day Cold Warrior Gary Kasparov."
Gary Kasparov has put himself at great personal risk to try to oppose the reestablishment of dictatorship in Russia, is neo-con now simply a euphemism for anyone who supports democracy?
"The OSCE concluded that the Georgian election was essentially free and fair, albeit with room for improvement. They did not as far as I can see allege that there was fraud:
http://www.osce.org/documents/odihr/2008/01/29182_en.pdf
In contrast the OSCE had to boycott the Russian Presidential election."
Exactly, Ross. How many times does this need to be said to counter the "sure aren't the Rooskies and the Georgies as bad as each other" non-argument.
I'm not a big fan of the Neo-cons but can't Saakashvili surround himself with whomever he likes?