News   Apr 24, 2024
 502     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 698     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 516     0 

The Hypocrisy of the International Community, Re: Russia

Dan416

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
8,234
Reaction score
1,153
Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv....wrusssgeorgia0814/BNStory/International/home

Don't see a thread on this so I'll start one.

I find it extremely hypocritical of the United States to be critical of Russia in regards to Georgia's breakaway states. Why should Russia worry about "territorial integrity" when the international community allowed Kosovo to break away from Serbia, despite the fact that Kosovo was clearly a part of Serbia (regardless of minorities).

This to me is partially backlash over Serbia losing Kosovo, and partly Russia trying to assert its supremacy in the wake of oil money, and partly their yearning for the good old days of Communism.

And looking through more articles, this one says it better than I could:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080813.wanalysis13/BNStory/Front
Russia no longer content to swallow its bitterness

MARCUS GEE
August 13, 2008 at 4:09 AM EDT

When it unleashed its troops in Georgia, Russian leader Vladimir Putin was doing more than delivering a beating to a cocky former dependency. He was delivering a message: Russia is back.

Since the end of the Cold War, Russia has endured what its leaders see as a series of humiliations. The expansion of its old foe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to its very borders. The U.S. plan to base a missile shield on its periphery. The recognition of an independent Kosovo over the objections of Russia's ally Serbia.

Each time, Russia complained bitterly. Each time, the West went right ahead anyway. Now, a newly confident Russia grown rich on oil is pushing back, reasserting its rights as a great power.

What better place to get back at the West than in Georgia, the little Caucasian thorn whose wildly pro-Western leader has the effrontery to say he wants his country to join NATO? By making war in Georgia, the Kremlin is making it as clear as Mr. Putin's cold blue eyes that that is not happening. In our own backyard, Moscow is signalling, it is we Russians who are in charge, not the State Department or the European Union or Human Rights Watch.

More broadly, Moscow is telling the West it will no longer put up with being overlooked on the issues that matter to Russia.

"What they are saying is that ignoring Russia's interests is going to come at a price, and they've said it in a pretty brutal way," said James Collins, a former U.S. ambassador to Moscow.

"Having recovered economically and, to a degree, politically and militarily, they are in a position to say, 'Enough is enough.' "

No one in the West can complain that we didn't see this coming. Since the days when President Boris Yeltsin ranted about the expansion of NATO into Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Russian leaders have complained that the former superpower was being encircled, encroached upon and disrespected by an arrogant West drunk on the taste of its Cold War victory.

To Russia, that victory was nothing less than, in Mr. Putin's famous words, "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" and Russians felt it keenly.

"Talking to ordinary Russians, there is a real sense of national humiliation," said Jeffrey Mankoff, a Russia expert at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. "Their sense of self-worth was dramatically undermined by the Soviet collapse. Their sense of being part of a major power was stripped away."

There wasn't much Moscow could do about it amid the turmoil and economic decline of the 1990s. Though its leaders might rant about how the West was pushing Russia's nose into its Cold War defeat, Moscow could only turn its cheek and receive blows such as NATO expansion or the NATO bombing of Serbia in the 1999 Kosovo war.

The days of turned cheeks appear to be over. U.S. historian Robert Kagan wrote this week that Aug. 8, 2008, the day Moscow made its move in Georgia, may come to be seen "as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell."

With a strong, popular leader in Mr. Putin, a growing economy and a new sense of national vigour, Moscow is no longer content merely to swallow its bitterness over Western moves that it sees - rightly or wrongly - as hostile.

Mr. Putin has taken a tougher and tougher stand on issues such as the possible expansion of NATO to Ukraine and Georgia and the U.S. plan to put missile-defence installations in Poland and the Czech Republic.

He has warned that Russia might point nuclear missiles at countries that hosted the missile sites and he has suspended Moscow's treaty pledges to limit European weapons deployments.

Last month, Moscow even put forward a proposal that would essentially sideline NATO and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and replace them with a new Eurasian security system that might include China and India.

But it was Kosovo that gave Moscow its chance to strike back. When the Balkan mini-state proclaimed its independence from Serbia in February, Moscow asserted, tit for tat, that it might respond by recognizing the self-proclaimed breakaway Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

It was a mischievous scheme. Moscow had condemned Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence and two wrongs don't make a right. But Moscow reckoned that if the West approved a breakaway Balkan state, it couldn't object to Caucasian breakaways.

When NATO said at its Bucharest summit in April that it expected Georgia and Ukraine to become members one day, a furious Moscow began preparing to strike back.

Moscow upgraded relations with the separatist governments in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, beefed up its troop presence, shot down a Georgian drone and sent fighter jets over South Ossetia. Though Moscow now says it has called a halt to the fighting that followed, a message has been sent to the West.

"The Kremlin's message is crystal clear: 'Don't tread on me,' " wrote Dmitri Trenin, an expert with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, for Radio Free Europe.

A related message: Don't try to push your Western democracy on us. Moscow is especially eager to teach Georgia a lesson because it is the site of the Rose Revolution, the populist 2003 uprising that led to the rise of pro-Western president Mikheil Saakashvili. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine followed, and that is more than enough colour for a Russian regime that believes those movements represent an attempt to subvert it from within.

Western countries appear to have misjudged the strength of the Kremlin's new determination to reassert itself. In the past, Moscow has often blustered about Western moves, then backed down, as it did when NATO admitted the Baltic nations in 2004 - something Moscow said it would never accept, then grudgingly did.

Others say it may back down again if the West shows some backbone over Georgia. University of Toronto expert Aurel Braun says "mollifying them only strengthens the extremists because they can say, 'Look, we faced down the West and won.' "

But so far the Western response has been mainly rhetorical and there seems little appetite to tangle with the Russian bear over a conflict that seems obscure to many in the West. Among other things, Western leaders are worried about how turmoil in the Caucasus could affect pipelines that carry Caspian oil and gas over the region to Turkey.
 
The United States' foreign policy is often hypocritical. Why, for example, does it push for Kosovar independance, or people worked up when Han Chinese start settling in Tibet, while the US tacitly supports illegal settlements outside Israeli borders? Why was the US funding paramilitaries in Central America to ouster elected leftist governments while supposedly demanding democracy?

If you support a free Tibet or a free Kosovo, do you support a free South Ossetia? Or a free Kurdistan?
 
I know this dreaming, but can you imagine what a beautiful world this would be if (for once) Russia, China, the US, Germany and France (along with perhaps India and Brazil, who seem to be taking recent delight in 'spoiling' the party these days) would all get on the same page?
Nearly all the messes in the world today have their roots in the Cold War or the maniacal distrust the world's 'super powers' have for each others motives.
We could clean up Darfur, Pakistan, Afghanistan (in fact, all of the 'stans'), the Palestinian question, etc. if these powers would stop treating each of these human tragedies for their own partisan politics.
 
The United States' foreign policy is often hypocritical.

If you recognize foreign policy's real objective, then it isn't purposefully hypocritical; super-power's will act in the best interests of those in power.

Russia's doing what is wants (levelling Chechnya in the 90's, while supporting SO separatists) and so is the USA (Iran-Contra, arming Saddam, propping up "firendly" dictatorships).
 
The lack of diplomacy and reckless disregard for international law from the United States and their lackeys, has created an unstable situation; akin to opening Pandora's box.

Kosovo is a precedent because it's the first time in history that a sovereign nation was split by foreign powers, with complete disregard to international law, principles of sovereignty and diplomacy... This opens the door for many frozen conflicts to tear apart nations worldwide.. From Canada to Spain, and closer to where it hurts; Belgium. Personally, Belgium deserves what it gets since it was a major proponent of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the separation of Kosovo. I'd say the way things are going in Belgium, that country has less than a decade before the French and Dutch parts dissolve the country.

Europe is already facing the consequences of its reckless policies towards Kosovo, and can only look back at it as a major mistake in its foreign policy.
 
The lack of diplomacy and reckless disregard for international law from the United States and their lackeys, has created an unstable situation; akin to opening Pandora's box.

Kosovo is a precedent because it's the first time in history that a sovereign nation was split by foreign powers, with complete disregard to international law, principles of sovereignty and diplomacy... This opens the door for many frozen conflicts to tear apart nations worldwide.. From Canada to Spain, and closer to where it hurts; Belgium. Personally, Belgium deserves what it gets since it was a major proponent of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the separation of Kosovo. I'd say the way things are going in Belgium, that country has less than a decade before the French and Dutch parts dissolve the country.

Europe is already facing the consequences of its reckless policies towards Kosovo, and can only look back at it as a major mistake in its foreign policy.

Yeah Belgium will probably split up within our lifetimes.

I agree with everything you said.
 
Not only Belgium, but things aren't looking rosy for Scotland either. The labour party's former stronghold in Scotland has waned and all that is left are nationalist parties that have promised to separate from the UK.

If only Europe was pragmatic with its policy toward Serbia this wouldn't have happened, now, not only will Europe suffer fragmentation, but Serbia will ask for a big chunk of Bosnia.. Because, according to the new 'international law' self-determination is key, and Serbs in Bosnia sure as hell don't want anything to do with that state.

All in all, I think that we're in for a lot of trouble back in the old country, eh?
 
Not only Belgium, but things aren't looking rosy for Scotland either. The labour party's former stronghold in Scotland has waned and all that is left are nationalist parties that have promised to separate from the UK.
It's England that gets shafted in the UK break-up scenario. Scotland gets its own Parliament, but where is the English-only Parliament? No, England is governed by a MPs from all over the UK, while the Scots get their cake (haggis?) and eat it too.
 
That's what I meant, England will suffer, and after their politics on fragmenting the Balkans, I can only say: bring it on!
 
Russia played some high caliber politics.

Anyone who is interested in international politics is having a field day with this one.

The ramifications this has are enormous.
 
What astounds me the most here is how the Russians completely misunderstood the West's reaction to their invasion/incursion into Georgia. The USA and EU allowed Albania to informally annex Kosovo in order to punish the Serbs. However, the Russians should have understood that the USA is always looking for a chance to make the Russians lose face. Of course, Putin and his gang can't stand the fact that no one cares, or more importantly worries about Russia anymore.

Russia's only smart move here, if they had to attack someone in order to show that the Bear still had teeth, was to attack a former Soviet-controlled territory that had not yet joined NATO. Imagine if Russia had attacked Estonia or Latvia, both NATO members since 2004. Even an attack against Ukraine, not yet a NATO member, would have sparked an immediate military reaction from the West.

It would be quite easy for NATO to reinforce Georgia militarily, since Turkey, a NATO member since 1952, shares a border with Georgia, with direct rail and road connections between the countries. Turkey alone is a force to be reckoned with, as it has one of the largest standing armies in the world and the second largest army of NATO, with a strong force of Leopard 2A4 and modernized M60T main battle tanks. Turkey's airforce operates modern F-16 fighters, plus the new Boeing 737 AEW&C.

Meanwhile, Russia's military, when fueled and sober, is operating mostly 1980s weaponry. Sure, they could re-deploy some of their best divisions southward, but if Georgia invites Turkey to reinforce their army, it would be either a very foolish or very drunk Russian who orders an all out attack on the Georgian-Turkish forces. Once you attack one NATO member (Turkey), you've attacked them all, and that means you've now got NATO building up its forces in Latvia, Estonia and Poland, right on Russia's doorsteps.

Russia will be forced to either escalate the conflict to the point of inviting an internal coup, or facing a humiliating stand-down in the face of NATO, and a coup again. Luckily for Russia, Georgia is not yet a NATO member. However, Russia should note that Turkey and Georgia have certainly been talking of joint military, economic and security matters, http://www.turkishdailynews.com.tr/article.php?webcat=diplomacy&enewsid=4163
 
Of course, Putin and his gang can't stand the fact that no one cares, or more importantly worries about Russia anymore

Well that just changed. I think the West views Russia as a legitimate up-and-coming superpower (like China).

Russia played the West perfectly. They knew Georgia was being pushed into them by the US, and that the US wouldn't be there when Russia pushed back.

Can't lose situation.

Georgia won't be joining NATO anytime soon. The primary reason they weren't awarded membership was because they were in a constant state of conflict (passive) with Russia over South Ossetia. It's like the health insurance company denying you coverage because you're a heavy smoker.
 
Meanwhile, Russia's military, when fueled and sober, is operating mostly 1980s weaponry.

I'd hardly call the Black Eagle MBT '80s tech. the world wrote Russia off after the collapse of the Soviet Union in '91, but Russia has slowly and quietly been re-arming and re-developing its military for several years. and as for the Georgian-Turkish army, remember Russia is quite friendly with China and Iran. I don't think Russia would have to push Iran too hard to engage NATO forces.
 
I'd hardly call the Black Eagle MBT '80s tech. the world wrote Russia off after the collapse of the Soviet Union in '91, but Russia has slowly and quietly been re-arming and re-developing its military for several years.
I'll definitely agree that Russia has been re-developing its military, in that Russia's military firms are still amongst some of the best. What I will disagree with though is that Russia is actually re-arming its military.

Russia is almost entirely out of cash for military re-armament. For example, the Black Eagle has been put on hold, since the company responsible for the Black Eagle's design, Omsk Transmash bureau, has been in a state of bankruptcy since 2002. Meanwhile Russia continues to deploy a fleet of T-72 tanks (somewhat modern versions of the T-72 are referred to as the T-90), none of which compare to anything in the west.

In the past qualitative supremacy was not important for Russia, since they would have massive fleets of tanks. Quantity was more important. However, today, the Russian military is tiny compared to its former self, and yet the quality of its equipment is still a generation or two behind the west. Russia has no equivalent to Chobham armour, nothing to compare to the F-22. Russia's best fighter the Mikoyan MiG-35 would a chance against the F-22, but they've not got many. Does the Russian navy even send its larger surface units to sea anymore? When was the last time Russia built a large warship?
 

Back
Top