Comments on: Georgia: Evil, reality and war

By: Adrien

Adrien — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:32:21 +0000

I read Hobsbawm’s On Globalization essays over the week-end. One of his themes was the end of the balance of power scenario after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Another of the arguments is that any effort by a state to establish global domination is doomed to fail because it’s beyond the reach of the possible. The inference is that American hegemony is a temporary situation.
.
Putin seems to me to be reasserting Russian power as well as testing the States. Georgia is allied with the US so in order to maintain that alliance it had to intervene. Russia wanted to see if the would. It’s global chess again. The Russians and the Yanks like playing chess.
.
Thing is the Rooskies are trying to win back influence. The old games never change. After all the new NATO frontline is controlled from Warsaw – http://www.praguemonitor.com/en/402/czech_national_news/26885/

By: b.lyle

b.lyle — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 06:29:00 +0000

On the Georgia thing, has anyone else seen the awesome photos taken by a soldier in Georgia? They are on Andrew Bolts blog. They make most war pics look like Disney, and it’s kind of amazing how Bolt kind of ignores how awesome they are in favour of saying ‘Russians are bad!.’

By: Kim

Kim — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 04:07:57 +0000

Thanks, suz, that’s an astute piece of analysis from Wallerstein.

By: Katz

Katz — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 02:13:31 +0000

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?

By: suz

suz — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 01:09:39 +0000

Immanuel Wallerstein’s analysis:
http://www.binghamton.edu/fbc/commentr.htm

By: Kingsley

Kingsley — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:42:55 +0000

A lot of people here are of view Russia’s invasion of Ossetia and parts of Georgia is less of an abuse than Israels invasion of Sth Lebanon. I struggle to see the parallel. Just how many missiles were the Georgians launching into Russia daily ala Hezbollah?

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”.

By: Katz

Katz — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 00:39:09 +0000

At the beginning of Operation Barbarossa (June 1941), the Wehrmacht budgeted 500,000 horses to transport supplies to the front line.

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.

By: Nabakov

Nabakov — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 15:20:28 +0000

“It’s doubtful that the Red Army would have prevailed without the Murmansk convoys and massive American aid”

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.

By: Kim

Kim — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:53:49 +0000

Publius at Obsidian Wings on John McCain’s “good and evil” foreign policy and how dangerous it is:

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

By: Katz

Katz — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 13:15:00 +0000

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.