Could there be a more weasly invention than foreign policy “realism”.

How about “principled” bellicosity that pledges the “courageous” sacrifice of someone else’s last drop of blood?

I must have missed the debate and authorisation in the UNSC for Russia’s response. Even if you fall on the side of the legal argument that the Iraq Invasion was illegal to say the Russians even made a modicum of a similar effort to the COTW is twaddle. Likewise where is the decade plus of non compliance with UNSC resolutions by Georgia?

If anything the Left have to race to put out their spin on these “comparisons” as it displays the weaknesses of their opposition to the Bush Administrations actions even further.

I also note with interest this attitude of expanding NATO is provocative. You would do well to remind yourselves that those nations looking to join NATO are soveirgn and have every right to decide for themselves which defence alliances they wish to enter. In no way does it authorise Russia to use force or meddle in their affairs. How quickly you people give away other people’s rights and freedoms if it means the chance to have a crack at the Bush Admin.
You’d be lucky to fill a thimble on this site with sympathy for the Baltics Ukraine Georgia etc. To busy being “clever” and sophisicated “realists”. Could there be a more weasly invention than foreign policy “realism”.

Yes, horses! The bulk of Wehrmacht supplies was carried by horses.

Nothing had changed by the Battle of Staingrad (the end of 1942), except for the fact that by then most of those horses had been killed or disabled and nothing replaced them.

Stalingrad was 2000 miles from Germany.

Imagine fighting the Red Army 2000 miles in enemy terrirory when relying on non-existent horses.

The Wehrmacht could have beaten the Red Army? It is to laugh.

Oh the Russkies would have prevailed sooner or later, with or without Western help. Remember their main high tech manufactured weapons that really made a difference like T-34s and Il-2 Sturmoviks were being churned out in quantity well before Western support came on line. Plus, if yer talking about totalitarian states with immense population, geographical and raw material resources, mobilised for total war because they were invaded, then no one will ever beat Russia on these terms.

No doubt a few thousand deuce and half trucks helped out. But you have to say that Stalin would have eventually pissed on Hitler’s grave with or without Western help. Only room for one mustachioed dictator in Eurasia by then. At least we stopped him at the Elbe.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/08/the-dangerous-w.html

Indeed Katz, but France is not far behind that-notably both France and Germany put the kybosh on Bush’s pushing for Ukraine and Georgia’s entry to Nato on 3 April this year.

Yes.

And Russian sabre-rattling adds a complicating ethico/judicial element to French and German calculations about their relative levels of compliance with the US or Russia.

Time is on the side of Russia so long as Russia does not overplay its hand.

Germany especially appears to be gagging to make itself amiable to Russia.

Indeed Katz, but France is not far behind that-notably both France and Germany put the kybosh on Bush’s pushing for Ukraine and Georgia’s entry to Nato on 3 April this year.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/world/europe/03nato.html

the German and French position was supported by Italy, Hungary and the Benelux countries, a senior German official said. Mr. Bush was said to have accepted that his position was not going to prevail.

And these are the very same people who did most of the heavy lifting for us against the Nazis in WW2.

The point stands GregM, with the qualifications I’ve given on the semantics of “for us”. Your interpretation implying Russian altruism by me was incorrect and a strawman. “For us” = the Allies didn’t have the impossible job of making mincemeat out of 300 Wehrmacht divisions, the Ivans did it “for us”.

Can we get back to the substantive issues now?

We can “trust” Russia to look after its interests first and foremost, and especially in its own backyard. Cuba springs to mind as a parallel vis a vis the US.

I’d argue that US non-recognition of the Castro regime was also a foreign policy mistake.

However, the status of Cuba is of peripheral moment in US strategy (unlike its momentously stupid non-recognition of the PRC).

I’d rank Russia’s military adventure in Georgia somewhere between these two US mistakes in terms of magnitude. Russia’s status as an energy supplier is its trump card. Judicious playing of favourites among NATO consumers would appear to be the proper road for Russia to travel.

Sabre rattling merely complicates this otherwise simple game. Germany especially appears to be gagging to make itself amiable to Russia. Georgia just makes this process of cosying up to Russia more difficult than necessary.

Exactly Geoff, my original point in one sentence about “heavy lifting” appears to have been misconstrued.

No it wasn’t Peter. It was perfectly correctly construed. And rebutted.

GregM, claiming that Russia’s actions have nothing to do with foreign policy…

sg. I’ve made no such claim. It has everything to do with foreign policy. That is Russia’s foreign policy which has been , for the last three hundred years to solve its perceived problems by swallowing up its neighbours.

Is it any wonder then that its neighbours look for protection from anywhere they can get it; NATO etc.

Perhaps if you knew a bit more about Russian history and foreign policy you’d take a more nuanced in your appreciation of what’s happening in Georgia than blaming their neighbours.

However if your confused comment about France means that I’d see things differently if the Russians were invading France rather than Georgia well the last time they did that was in 1812 and I think that on that occasion they did the right thing.

Not even a superpower is capable of ordering its affairs by bluster, threat and bellicosity.

As a general principle I’d agree, the USA is a prime example, BUT, only for a relative short period in the 21st century can any power get away with it without serious consequences. I’d suggest that Russia has no need to repeat this venture in the near future, the lesson has well and truly sunk in to former USSR states, the EU and the USA.

By the time the Russian government recognises this, Russia may well have eroded its credibility and trustworthiness in the eyes of the rest of the world.

With the EU dependent on Russia for some 25% of its gas supplies, such credibility and trustworthiness continues as long as they don’t turn off the gas, which is in no-ones’s interest. The west needs Russia more than they need the west, additionally for international cooperation in so many areas, not the least of which is the Iran issue.

For who is going to trust Russia and who is going to believe that relationships with Russia can be conducted on the basis of win/win after this?

We can “trust” Russia to look after its interests first and foremost, and especially in its own backyard. Cuba springs to mind as a parallel vis a vis the US.

Russia is committing a serious error in its foreign policy.

Masterstroke is how I would describe it. Time will tell and you could conceivably be right if the Russian’s overcook it.

It’s possible to recognize Russia’s actions as being a little more nuanced than just straight-out Imperial belligerence without hailing them as saints, you know.