Russia is at it again!

[Lit_1nce]

I believe Russia has a right, by use of force if necessary, to defend against NATO encroachment, to rise again to a dominate world power, hopefully through mostly peaceful means, to consider the re-annexation of territories primarily of ethnic Russians back to Russia by plebicite (SO may be a good example), and to maximize their strategic position w.r.t. oil/gas position in the world.

Whoa there... NATO and Warsaw Pact.. they are military alliances..  You don't "defend against alliances" with force..  kind of like beating up someone because they about to make friends with someone you don't like..  If Russia wanted to stop it .. wouldn't they make an alliance with Georgia ???  doesn't that make more sense ?  ... Has NATO invaded countries, or forced them to join ??

[steviej]

This is Poland's reaction to Russia's campaign in Georgia:

US, Poland agree to missile defense deal

By VANESSA GERA and MONIKA SCISLOWSKA – 1 hour ago

WARSAW, Poland (AP) — Poland and the United States reached an agreement Thursday that will see a battery of American missiles established inside Poland, the prime minister said, announcing a plan that has infuriated Russia and raised the specter of an escalation of tension with the region's communist-era master.

The deal, which Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said was to be signed later Thursday in Warsaw by Poland and the United States, includes what he called a "mutual commitment" between the two nations — beyond that of NATO — to come to each other's assistance in case of danger.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hdNtXPW9-1UZEmhgLC5VZ3dDa25wD92I7QP82.

As I noted, if you play the bully and try to impose respect through force, this will push other countries to seek protection.

The deal might have been concluded even without what happened in Georgia, but I doubt it would have been concluded so quickly and with such enthusiasm by Poland if Russia had not invaded Georgia.

OH great .. here we go again. Another "mutual" defense agreement by the US? Oh great. That means, if Canada attacks us, .. Poland will come to our rescue ? Right. History does indeed repeat itself. Anybody remember anything about WWI or WWII ? Are "good intentions" so seductive that we'd agree to another bloodbath to "protect" Poland? The hard truth is Poland would have to defend itself, or become part of Russia or Germany. That's the way it's been for hundreds of years. Nobody else needs to be involved. What is the appetitie for moralistic self destruction that the West is so addicted to? I just cannot understand it. Lemmings to the death.

[wxman]

I agree with diverboy about NATO encroachment. Since the fall of USSR government, NATO has added 10 countries pushing to the EAST right up to Russian's doorstep. NATO is a military alliance. This aggressive movement and expansion to the East was primarily pushed by the US. We still have many cold war dumbos and belligerants in US government and state departments. Few of the posters in this thread seem to ask themselves, "What would I do if I was Russia in these circumstances ?" I believe Russia has a right, by use of force if necessary, to defend against NATO encroachment, to rise again to a dominate world power, hopefully through mostly peaceful means, to consider the re-annexation of territories primarily of ethnic Russians back to Russia by plebicite (SO may be a good example), and to maximize their strategic position w.r.t. oil/gas position in the world. The US does all of this all the time, and has since the end of WWII aggressively.

The fact that US soldiers are in Georgia is a disturbing presence to me, as a US citizen. Bush has also just announced we're going to give lots of "aid" now to Georgia. Aid? We have NO money !! We are the largest debtor nation in the world now. My sons are burdened with a national debt and trade deficits that means the sweat of their brow for decades of their lives are already committed to paying back China, Saudia Arabia, and many other international powers that Bush, et al have borrowed trillions of dollars from. The US is simply insane in its current foreign policy state. Someone earlier said something about Americans wanting to go everywhere in the world, fight in everyone's fights because we want to help the "good guys". There is nothing American about that. US guys need to reread the principles of the Founding Fathers about the long term security of a republic of democratic states. They emphatically say two things: first, do NOT get involved in foreign wars. Second: do NOT get seduced into thinking we are the freedom fighters of the world.


The US needs to keeps its nose out of everybody else's business, good or bad. Our roads are decaying, our bridges are falling, our children cannot afford public university anymore, we have the largest government deficit in history and in the world right now, jobs are going overseas by the 10s of thousdands every month, we have 300,000 - 400,000 illegal mexicans crossing the border every year, we have a social security system that will be bankrupt in a few years. What the hell are our leaders doing? Bush even committed some $3Billion (or was it $30Billion) to the "global fight against aids" ??????? We have lost our bearings.

Look on the bright side. At least we are not Japan. Japan's debt is the largest among major industrial nations at about 180 percent of gross domestic product, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Ours is not even close. What the heck does Japan spend that all on? Oh yea, social programs like health care and social security.

[diverboy70]

Seviej

I just wish that there were more level headed people as you in the US, that sees the bigger picture and don't just buy all the crap that the government are feeding the people. Fighting the terrorism, yes sure, but effectively? Why not just focus on the internal security and not create a lot more terrorists, by aggressive foreign policies, that in turn have to be fight! What is these wars costing you in the long run? and is it worth it? And is the US in any position to critize Russia, when they again are starting to do the same thing as the US has been doing for decades. Is just so that US got used to be the only superpower and don't like competition from Russia?

[Misha]

Whoa there... NATO and Warsaw Pact.. they are military alliances..  You don't "defend against alliances" with force..  kind of like beating up someone because they about to make friends with someone you don't like..  If Russia wanted to stop it .. wouldn't they make an alliance with Georgia ???  doesn't that make more sense ?  ... Has NATO invaded countries, or forced them to join ??

Good point. It is the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union that had to keep invading countries (Hungary 1956l Czechoslovakia 1968) or threaten to invade them (Romania in the 1970's; Poland in the 1980's) to keep the Communist bloc in line.

[diverboy70]

Good point. It is the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union that had to keep invading countries (Hungary 1956l Czechoslovakia 1968) or threaten to invade them (Romania in the 1970's; Poland in the 1980's) to keep the Communist bloc in line.

Its not that easy! Georgia was from the start looking west! When they finally broke away from the USSR why do they want to go back?

[wxman]

Seviej

I just wish that there were more level headed people as you in the US, that sees the bigger picture and don't just buy all the crap that the government are feeding the people. Fighting the terrorism, yes sure, but effectively? Why not just focus on the internal security and not create a lot more terrorists, by aggressive foreign policies, that in turn have to be fight! What is these wars costing you in the long run? and is it worth it? And is the US in any position to critize Russia, when they again are starting to do the same thing as the US has been doing for decades. Is just so that US got used to be the only superpower and don't like competition from Russia?

Running tail between the legs and locking our doors doesn't solve any problem. If the US were to do what you suggest, do you think that some other superpower would not move in where we ran from? Like you said, Russia is now doing what the US is doing. IS that more acceptable? Apparently so, because you feel what the US is doing is wrong, and it's completely acceptable in your eyes to have Russia do that instead. 2 wrongs do not make a right. But in some eyes the wrong is ok, as long as it's Russia doing it.

[Shadow]

Running tail between the legs and locking our doors doesn't solve any problem. If the US were to do what you suggest, do you think that some other superpower would not move in where we ran from? Like you said, Russia is now doing what the US is doing. IS that more acceptable? Apparently so, because you feel what the US is doing is wrong, and it's completely acceptable in your eyes to have Russia do that instead. 2 wrongs do not make a right. But in some eyes the wrong is ok, as long as it's Russia doing it.

It is not right for any country to invade another one unannounced or without reason. That goes for Russia, the US and any other country in the world.
It is also not right for any country to attack an area where, as result of an earlier conflict, there are peace troops. If they do so, they should expect the peace troops to ask for a reaction that will stop the attacks. This is what happened, and perhaps it is good to remember that Russia before retaliating did request UN intervention.
But in some eyes, as long as Russia is doing it, its wrong.

[wxman]

It is not right for any country to invade another one unannounced or without reason. That goes for Russia, the US and any other country in the world.
It is also not right for any country to attack an area where, as result of an earlier conflict, there are peace troops. If they do so, they should expect the peace troops to ask for a reaction that will stop the attacks. This is what happened, and perhaps it is good to remember that Russia before retaliating did request UN intervention.
But in some eyes, as long as Russia is doing it, its wrong.

Just because one asks for UN intervention, does not then justify the action. The purpose of a peace keeping force is to keep peace and  if neccessary, defend oneself. It does not mean taking the offensive and marching across another country.

[diverboy70]

Running tail between the legs and locking our doors doesn't solve any problem. If the US were to do what you suggest, do you think that some other superpower would not move in where we ran from? Like you said, Russia is now doing what the US is doing. IS that more acceptable? Apparently so, because you feel what the US is doing is wrong, and it's completely acceptable in your eyes to have Russia do that instead. 2 wrongs do not make a right. But in some eyes the wrong is ok, as long as it's Russia doing it.

Im not saying what Russia is doing is right or wrong, I just say that I understand why they are doing it and I don't see anything that has anything to do with the US.

I just say that the balance of power is changing again and that all involved parts should use restraints. The bigest threat to world peace today is the US pushing the misile shield and trying to push NATO closer to the Russian border. It is just stupid to think the conflict in Georgia began because of the stated reasons. It is a part of a bigger picture. NATO & US mowing in too close to Russia! What is the reason for the US to provoce Russia in that way? Do the US want to go back to the cold war to increase the military budget even more?

[Ronnie]

I have problem with the term "the beast" doesn't seem like objective journalism to me! I don't really give jouralists using those terms any merit at all. The best thing is to ignore them totally! I must say that both the Swedish and Finnish media has been able too keep the reporting on a very objective level!

Diver Boy,
Mina Rakastan Sinua, but I'm very disappointed in some of your observations here.  One must not get confused between commentary and reporting.  Cavuto is not a reporter..we all know that and commentary is clearly that.

I'm also disappointed that you would offer any suggestion that Georgia should be part of Russia's sphere of influence because of it's proximity to Russian territory.  I wonder how a Finn can make such a statement when he sits in his living room practically within sight of St Petersburg.  And, wasn't Finland Soviet Russia's very first experiment with gaining influence by invasion?  Did it work?  Was Russia justified because Finland is small and within Russia's neighborhood?  Finland may not be a Nato member, but you have joined several other organizations that can only be seen as Pseudo-aliances with the west.

The so-called Sphere of influence is not a geographical determination as some, including Russia would like to think.  Influence is won in the manner of Dale Carnegie, not Leonid Brezhnev or Nikita Khrushchev or Vlad Putin. 

In the final analysis it's up to the individual to decide who are his friends and who are not.  Georgia made it's choice.  As did Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, et. al.   The Kremlin didn't like those choices.  The biggest loss will be Ukraine. 

The war in Georgia was not about the Ossetians or the Abkhazians or oil or a pipeline.  This war is a desperate attempt to turn the tide that has been flowing to the west.   Corruption, betrayal and rolling tanks are the Kremlin's calling card and the means by which it maintained her empire after WW2.  This is how she will continue to try to maintain what's left of her shrinking empire in the new century. 

Someone said Putin is smart and clever.  I couldn't disagree more.  Putin is small-minded and heavily steeped in the mentality of the KGB.  That mentality consists not of fair negotiating or win-win bargaining.  That mentality does not consider such behavior to be anything but weakness and a loss for his side.  That KGB mentality says you will swim the way I tell you or you will swim with the fishes. 

This morning Defense Secretary Robert Gates pointed out that each August for the past 5 years, there has been an exchange of gunfire and artillery between Georgia and the Ossetian separatists.  Since this is a verifiable fact I suspect Gates would not falsely make the claim.  He hinted that Russia planned to use this summer's annual flare up as a pretense to punish Georgia for it's wayward thinking and to send a signal to Ukraine. 

Now, Russia has completely lost any credibility it may have been given after the SU break up.  Respect?  Flushed down the toilet. 

In future generations of time, when history professors teach about King Pyrrhus and his victories against the Romans, I suspect the Kremlin's actions of late will be given as a new example of what a Pyrhhic victory can look like in a modern context.

[steviej]

Running tail between the legs and locking our doors doesn't solve any problem. If the US were to do what you suggest, do you think that some other superpower would not move in where we ran from? Like you said, Russia is now doing what the US is doing. IS that more acceptable? Apparently so, because you feel what the US is doing is wrong, and it's completely acceptable in your eyes to have Russia do that instead. 2 wrongs do not make a right. But in some eyes the wrong is ok, as long as it's Russia doing it.

Please tell me you are kidding !! wxman, you have my full support as an individual to go over to Georgia and fight, and get your legs blown off or killed, to defend them because you think its "right". Also, you have my full permission to liquidate your total personal net worth, and donate it to Georgia for recovery. God speed in your adventure.

[Ronnie]

NATO & US mowing in too close to Russia! What is the reason for the US to provoce Russia in that way? Do the US want to go back to the cold war to increase the military budget even more?

I hope diverboy, you can come to the realization that nations choose there alliances.  They are not forced upon them as the above statement seems to portend.  If you are against war you cannot appease an agressive nation.  It's the lesson taught to us by Neville Chamberlain.  Had NATO allowed Georgia and Ukraine membership.  This small but tragic chapter in history would not have to be written now. 

Now, the well-intentioned but misguided appeasor nations who voted against membership for Georgia will pat themselves on the back and say, "Aren't we glad we didn't let Georgia in,... think how bad it would have been!"  The truth is Putin's Russia would not have attacked a NATO country.  It never has and it never will.  That will be and should be Georgia's argument next time.  And, it's a very solid one at that.

[diverboy70]

Ronnie

Yes you have got a point I will give you that. But it is still a bit of a difference compared to for eg Finland. Finland has not been a part of Russia since 1917. Georgia was a part of the SU, it has since the fall of the SU been an area of conflicts. And it is a strategic region for Russia! And for your information the resitance to NATO is quite massive in Finland.

I should be the first to oppose of any aggressive action by Russia, Russia has allways been the big ghost for Finland, my grandfather fought them behind their lines and got the Mannerheim medal, the highest medal in the finnish army. But I cannot just say that Russia is wrong in this case.

And Ronnie, Putin may not be the smartest fish in the sea, but Bush is not either! Just to give you a perspective of what the Europeans think about your President, the avarage number in all European countries is about 80 % of the population thinks he is a bad president, I'm one of them! I have absolutely not anything against Americans but i do not approve of the imperialist ambistions of the US foreign policy!

Im sorry that you are disapointed, but there are allway two sides to every story!

[diverboy70]

I hope diverboy, you can come to the realization that nations choose there alliances.  They are not forced upon them as the above statement seems to portend.  If you are against war you cannot appease an agressive nation.  It's the lesson taught to us by Neville Chamberlain.  Had NATO allowed Georgia and Ukraine membership.  This small but tragic chapter in history would not have to be written now. 
Now, the well-intentioned but misguided appeasor nations who voted against membership for George will pat themselves on the back and say, "Aren't we glad we didn't let Georgia in,... think how bad it would have been!"  The truth is Putin's Russia would not have attacked a NATO country.  It never has and it never will.  That will be and should be Georgia's argument next time.  And, it's a very solid one at that.

Had this happened, we would have a real intenational crises now, really threatening the world peace, and not a regional one as this really is!

[Makkin]

Diverboy,

  Make it easy on yourself and agree murder of innocent women and children is wrong by Russia. How difficult is that for you to see oh "wise one"..lol

Makkin

[Misha]

It is also not right for any country to attack an area where, as result of an earlier conflict, there are peace troops. If they do so, they should expect the peace troops to ask for a reaction that will stop the attacks. This is what happened, and perhaps it is good to remember that Russia before retaliating did request UN intervention.
But in some eyes, as long as Russia is doing it, its wrong.

I agree that it is wrong to attack peace keepers. However, Russia's "peace keepers" are a bit of misnomer IMHO. The Russian forces sided with the breakaway regions of Abkhasia/South Ossetia in the 1990's as they drove out ethnic Georgians; sends troops in as "peace keepers" and then starts handing out Russian passports in both regions where they are there for allegedly altruistic reasons. They are hardly the neutral party in the conflict.

[Ronnie]

Please tell me you are kidding !! wxman, you have my full support as an individual to go over to Georgia and fight, and get your legs blown off or killed, to defend them because you think its "right". Also, you have my full permission to liquidate your total personal net worth, and donate it to Georgia for recovery. God speed in your adventure.

Stevie;
When my dad was dying of cancer and leaving behind no money, no insurance, a mortgage in arrears, and a wife with three small children, even her relatives turned their backs on her.  My dad's relatives were born-again Christians, told her this was God's punishment because she did not heed their invitations to convert.  The only help we received came from neighbors who didn't know us well but had heard about our plight.

Steviej, I hear in your postings an attitude that says,  "Neighbors?  Screw'em!  What have they ever done for me and why should I lift a finger for them?" 

I did not serve in the military because it was my country right or wrong.  I'm one of the countless Americans, Canadians, Brits and others, who believe in freedom and the right of self-determinaton.  America has become symbol of those characteristics.  It's the reason we can no longer accept all the people of the world who want to come here in their ever-increasing numbers. 

America's future depends on helping our neighbors rid themselves of the cancers that drive their citizens to want to leave their native countries.  We do so without violence in 99% of the cases but when we must get involved in a violent conflict as the only remaining vehicle we should and do proceed militarily. 

The greatest legacy that can be left to our children and grandchildren, is a world of democratic nations guided by the aforementioned principles, free of corruption and ever improving.   Why leave our children a few fish when we should leave the rod and tackle instead?

[BC]

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty or ABMT) was a treaty between the United States of America and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against missile-delivered nuclear weapons. On May 26, 1972, the President of the United States, Richard Nixon and the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Leonid Brezhnev signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. The treaty was in force for thirty years, from 1972 until 2002. On June 13, 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent, the US unilaterally withdrew from the treaty.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe

After Russia was not willing to support the US missile defense plans [ABM] in Europe, Putin threatened a "moratorium" on the treaty in his April 26, 2007 address, and then raised most of its demands for rewriting the treaty during the Extraordinary Conference of States Parties to the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, held in Vienna on June 11-15 at Russia’s initiative.[11] As his demands were not met during this conference, Putin issued a decree intended to suspend the observance of its treaty obligations on July 14, 2007, effective 150 days later, stating that it was the result of "extraordinary circumstances (...) which affect the security of the Russian Federation and require immediate measures," and notified NATO and its members.[12][13] The suspension applies to the original CFE treaty, as well as to the follow-up agreements.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_Forces_in_Europe

Folks,  It's all tit for tat politics.. a dangerous game where when one party is weak, the other tries to gain ground.  In 2002, obviously RU was a weakened force and the US 'strong'.  This allowed more politically achievable goals to be reached while a 'window of opportunity' was open.

Now RU has a similar 'window of opportunity'.  Are they expected not to use it?

Fact is that RU did what they did in 2008 and there ain't a damn thing the US or EU can do about it.. just as it was in 2002 when RU couldn't do a damn thing about it.

Get used to it folks.. RU is in Georgia to stay.  They did exactly what they said they would do and all the whining in the world isn't going to change that.

Want a new cold war? The choice is yours.

[Misha]

The bigest threat to world peace today is the US pushing the misile shield and trying to push NATO closer to the Russian border.

Why is it the biggest threat? The shield is defensive. This is the only way that the shield could (in theory) play a role in an American attack on Russia: submarines launch nuclear missiles off of Russia's Pacific Coast and cruise missile using both nuclear and traditional bombs take out Russia's nuclear defenses and the defense shield is used to destroy any Russian nuclear bombs that may survive a stealth American first attack. However, if Russia is really worried about this, they should be upgrading their radar in the Russian Far East. From what I have read, there are some pretty major holes in their defenses.

[diverboy70]

Why is it the biggest threat? The shield is defensive. This is the only way that the shield could (in theory) play a role in an American attack on Russia: submarines launch nuclear missiles off of Russia's Pacific Coast and cruise missile using both nuclear and traditional bombs take out Russia's nuclear defenses and the defense shield is used to destroy any Russian nuclear bombs that may survive a stealth American first attack. However, if Russia is really worried about this, they should be upgrading their radar in the Russian Far East. From what I have read, there are some pretty major holes in their defenses.

Densive from the US side yes, but i don't really think Russia think it is really defensive for them

[Misha]

Densive from the US side yes, but i don't really think Russia think it is really defensive for them

Again, how is it not defensive? Just explain to me how it could be used offensively against Russia?

[diverboy70]

Diverboy,

  Make it easy on yourself and agree murder of innocent women and children is wrong by Russia. How difficult is that for you to see oh "wise one"..lol

Makkin

We don't really know yet who has murdered whom. When two parties are fighting it is rare that one part in totally innocent. We just have to wait until the dust has settles and wait for some unbiased investigations

[BC]

Why is it the biggest threat? The shield is defensive.

U.S.and Poland sign missile shield deal
Officials said the deal included a U.S. declaration that it will aid Poland militarily in case of a threat from a third country and that it would establish a permanent U.S. base on Polish soil in a symbolic gesture underlining the alliance.

http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia-35013820080814

Yeah.. so are new US bases in Poland.

Escalation.. we were lucky one time.. will we be so lucky a second?

Maybe the bunker building business will start profiting again..

Sad, sad, sad..

[diverboy70]

It can be percieved as offensive if one part is making a defenisve meassure if the other part has no opportunity to do the same. Its quite simple. Again it is throwing off the balance that de facto has kept the world peace for decades.