Return to: Home | World Affairs | Europe

55 comments from readers

lumidek
28 August 2008 at 09:52

As a Czech guy, I find the comment that the 1968 occupation of Czechoslovakia was the "end of communism" to be utterly absurd. The occupation meant a return of hardcore communism to Czechoslovakia for 2 long decades. And we were very lucky that it ended at all. It ended because of economic/military pressure by Reagan and Thatcher. The message from both events is that force matters a lot in politics, and whoever thinks otherwise, is a weird utopia dreamer disconnected from reality.

The Russian protection of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, provoked by Saakashvili's incredibly ill-conceived provocation, is the beginning of Russian control over the Caucasus (and probably other regions) for the decades to come. And yes, they deserve it.

Russia has obviously won this short war. It was won by its leaders who are much better strategists than virtually any current Western politician. The anti-Russian proclamations of the Western media and politicians only show how ludicrous, irrational, empty, and hypocritical these portions of the Western society have become.

Russia has achieved certain things, it will certainly not undo them for free, and it has achieved them by following the very same methods, moral principles, and justifications that NATO and the U.S. have been using at other places, especially Serbia and Kosovo. Also, Russia has done these things much more smoothly and elegantly than NATO. And yes, the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is much more natural because of historical and ethnic considerations than the case of Kosovo: the Kosovar nation is a fake copy of the Albanian nation that has spread across Europe much more than what would be decent while the Abkhazian and Ossetian nations are unique nations that only live on their current territory for centuries which is why it historically belongs to them. From more "current" legal perspective, the three cases are clearly isomorphic, and it is the West, not Russia, who began to pour excrements at the international laws and treaties. Whoever thought that Russia wouldn't respond to this systematic and illegal violation of its interests in an analogous way is simply mad.

The West should agree that Russia seems to be a wise manager of these regions of the world that have belonged under its military umbrella for centuries. The West should give up this ludicrous campaign because it needs Russia much more than Russia needs the West. The only way to have a chance to force Russia to allow the Georgian mad man to exterminate the "inconvenient nations" that belonged to the Georgian territory is to start a full-fledged military conflict against Russia. Do you really want to do such things? What are exactly the benefits?

And I would like to warn you that Russia is the only (other) country in the world that is capable of a full destruction of the U.S., among targets. This is a very dangerous game and every sane person should disapprove it.

Alexander
28 August 2008 at 11:36

Dear Mr Boyes,

When referring to "bloodthirsty cossacks" do you mean those cossacks who expelled Napoleon's army from Russia after the invasion of his huge multi national army which raped and pillage and freed Europe from Naploeon?

Gege
28 August 2008 at 12:10

Hi

This Czech guy must be Russian. Didn't Putin offer you Russian Passport? I know many Czechs, most of them have very different opinion about Russia.

Let Russia control Caucasus and you will have them in Czech republic max in two decades. As much as Czechs want to be free and part of the west, so wants Georgia too or any other country on Caucasus.

Please give me a break about Georgia attacking south Ossetia. One week prior to the main conflict artillery barrage of Ossetians have killed 15 civilian Georgians, Russian Peacekeepers never intervened and said they lost control. Apaprantly they can control if they want. By the way during the so called war 44 civilian Ossetians died. I believe some of them were killed by Russian artillery and aerial bombardment.

Why no one is interested in the fact that Russian tanks were on the way when Georgia decided to attack. Saakashvili had only tactical choice: to fight in Ossetia , or fight next morning in Gori region. I understand the choice, for them who know Georgian landscape it is easy to understand.

Russian soldiers have even been stilling toilets from Georgian army bases, and taking off the shoes from dead Georgian soldiers they have been robbing population and ousting them from their own villages. Cases of murder and rape are in dozens. They have bombed condominiums of civilians and market places. These people proved to be barbarians of 21 century.

You think they should be allowed to control Georgia. Why don’t you go and try to see Armenia controlled by Russians and compare even to todays destried Georgia. I guess you will understand why Russians shouldn’t be allowed to control others. These people have proven that they don’t know how to leave well and don’t like when someone leaves better than them.

In one thing you are right though, Europieans showed them selves very week. Well may be you are right in a sense that if Georgians have to chose sides, they should go with Russia. we have seen so far what Europe and NATO can do for you when you are in danger. Does it really make sense to be a member of NATO?

Gege
28 August 2008 at 12:14

Hi

This Czech guy must be Russian. Didn't Putin offer you Russian Passport? I know many Czechs and most of them have very different opinion about Russia.

Let Russia control Caucasus and you will have them in Czech republic max in two decades. As much as Czechs want to be free and part of the west, so wants Georgia or any other country on Caucasus.

Please give me a break about Georgia attacking south Ossetia. One week prior to the main conflict artillery barrage of Ossetians have killed 15 civilian Georgians, whilst during the so called war 44 civilian Ossetians died. During ossetian attaks Russian Peacekeepers never intervened and said they lost control. Apaprantly they can control if they want. Why no one is interested in the fact that Russian tanks were on the way when Georgia decided to attack. Saakashvili had only tactical choice: to fight in Ossetia , or fight next morning in Gori region. I understand the choice, for them who know Georgian landscape it is easy to understand.

Russian soldiers have even been stilling toilets from Georgian army bases, and taking off the shoes from dead Georgian soldiers they have been robbing population and ousting them from their own villages. Cases of murder and rape are in dozens. They have bombed condominiums of civilians and market places. These people proved to be barbarians of 21 century.

You think they should be allowed to control Georgia. Why don’t you go and try to see Armenia controlled by Russians and compare even to todays destried Georgia. I guess you will understand why Russians shouldn’t be allowed to control others. These people have proven that they don’t know how to leave well and don’t like when someone leaves better than them.

Des Carroll
28 August 2008 at 13:34

Morbid fascination had me read this piece — disbelief growing the while — until I read the tag byline. The prick writes for Rupert who, thanks be to Marx, is no longer an Australian.

lumidek
28 August 2008 at 13:39

Dear Gege, I am not only a Czech but also a guy who was a kind of student hero in the fight against communism right before the Velvet Revolution and who has recently spent 10 years in the U.S.

You would probably be surprised but if you open www.cn.cz, the server of the mainstream Czech Press Agency, 52% of the people in a poll in the left sidebar support the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia while only 45% disapprove it. The Czech government has to be on the EU side because it's our policy and it's determined by our membership in various institutions etc., not necessarily because they would think it's the right thing. The right-wing president Vaclav Klaus's opinions are very close to mine.

Similar conflicts are always tough and I would never pretend that one side is holy and the other side is "barbarian". I carefully look at both sides. In this case, it just seems that Russia brings more stability and peace than violence into this whole game (unlike Saakashvili) which is why I am closer to this side. Only naive, stupid people see the situation in a black-and-white way, especially if they think that the Russians are "barbarians" while the Georgians, who have 5 times lower GDP per capita and who were recently abolishing Abkhazian universities, among other things, are supposed not to be barbarians, right? Give me a break.

It's funny that in one paragraph you deny that Georgia attacked South Ossetia while in the following paragraph, you implicitly confirm it and clarify some details about it. Clearly, there's been a tension between Ossetians and Georgians at least since the early 1990s.

But Saakashvili was the first "official politician" who joined these battles and killed a much higher number of civilians than the casualties you mentioned - of order 1,000 dead Ossetians (whose memory makes your remarks about shoes or toilets truly pathetic). Once a politician joined the fight, it is natural that other politicians could have done the same thing, too. It was in the interest of Russia to send troops to define the peace according to their understanding and only mad people would have expected otherwise.

If I were allowed to hold several passports, I would surely accept the Russian one, too. Incidentally, learn how to spell the name of the current Russian president. He's called Medvedev, not Putin, and this mistake of yours only shows how narrow-minded mind yours is. This is not about Putin. It's about skillful leaders of the Russian Federation and virtually the whole population of the country that supports the current policies of Medvedev.

Armenia is a friendly country to Russia that is effectively in a military bloc with them, isn't it? Didn't you confuse it with Azerbaijan? I think that Russia effectively does control Armenia. And it is a good thing, too.

Finally, in 1968, the Soviet Union was just the largest, but not the only, country of the Warsaw Pact that attacked Czechoslovakia. There were 5 "fraternal helpers". In fact, e.g. Poland was overrepresented among the aggressors. It was an aggression of hardcore communist establishments against a pro-freedom socialist leadership of the 1968 Czechoslovakia. It was not an attack motivated by a nation's desire to control territories.

Since 1918, Czechoslovakia was always independent as a nation, except for the World War II, and the main culprits of the collapsing economy and other things were our, local communists, not the Soviet ones. You are mixing communism with nations in ways that reveal that you have no idea about the history of Europe.

Tom
28 August 2008 at 16:10

Abkhazia and South Ossetia should never be recognized. The case is totally different from Kosovo. Georgian citizens where expelled from Abkhazia where 80% of population consisted of Georgians. Same happened in South Ossetia. Conflicts should be resolved in civilized way in 21 century. First of all, all refugees should be returned to both regions and then let the population vote whether they want to live with Georgia or not. Moscow is afraid to return refugees, because a simple calculation will show everyone that 80% of Georgian population will vote for united Georgia and live within one country.

World should support Georgia. Russia's aggressive actions and its imperialistic goals will reach Western Europe pretty soon. Russia was begging US and Europe for money in 1991 after the collapse of USSR. But look at it now. Rich with oil and gas now it wants to recreate Soviet Union. Don't you think that Russia will not be satisfied only with Georgia and will expand its influence to dominate the world?

Fabio220
28 August 2008 at 17:49

It is very hard to believe that the war was about protection of civilian population and especially about the 7th August, because Russian leadership has been talking about a military operation in Georgia at least since last April.

Member of Russia's security council Yuri Baluyevsky threatened "military action to defend our interests near our borders," if Georgia and Ukraine joined NATO on April 11th

With the same note, Minister S. Lavrov in April told that "We will do anything not to allow Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO" (Ekho Moskvy, April 8)

And in june Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told journalists, "We told the Georgians that their desire to join NATO will not help solve the problems of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; it will lead to renewed bloodshed" (RIA-Novosti, June 6)

This development was commented by the South Ossetian representative Irina Gagloyeva with following. "War is coming, but everyone, including Russia, is turning a blind eye. Russian statements are not helping us" (Kommersant, August 5)

It is very to understand a perspective that the Russian interest was the protection of S.O. / Abkhazian population. Instead, if one goes back beyond the 7th August, the argument which repeats itself is that, if Georgia goes forward with its aspiration of NATO membership there will be repercussions.

"The West should agree that Russia seems to be a wise manager of these regions of the world that have belonged under its military umbrella for centuries."

-Lumidek

It is not Russia's, nor NATO's to decide, but a decision that belongs to the nations in question. An appaling comment, which reflects late 19th century imperialism rather than 21st century.

Moreover, to say that Russia has won this conflict is way too early, since the Russian stock market has been plunging 36% since May when it peaked, with two-thirds of the decline occurring before the war, also the foreign exhance reserves fell 16,5 billion during the week beginning August 8th.. Last time the outflow was that high ten years ago, during the Ruble crisis. I also wonder what will happen to the over 500million euros which EC & ERDF has budjeted for cross border cooperation between 2007 and 2013 among other development schemes which European tax payers are paying. The indirect effect of the conflict can turn the perseption of Russian benefits of the crisis upside down, because there will most likely be a responce in a form or another from the West.

michaelpetek
28 August 2008 at 18:21

You're not kidding, are you? Today the Shanghai Co-Operation Organisation, whose members include Russia, China and Kazakhstan, issued a statement begging to differ with Russia's Caucasian adventure.

Russia, fearful of being surrounded, is now surrounded in no uncertain terms by every one of its neighbours except Belarus, Azerbaijan, Mongolia and the polar bears.

So it looks as though the Russians will be timesharing the United Nations doghouse with the Serbs this autumn!

lumidek
28 August 2008 at 18:57

Dear Tom,

it's very funny how you justify that Ossetia and Abkhazia differ from Kosovo. The fact is that Kosovo was purely Serbian just 150 years ago and all the pumping of the Albanian immigration to this territory has been illegal, encouraged by various external parties such as Mussolini who wanted to weaken Serbia and the anti-fascist coalition.

Historically, Kosovo has nothing whatsoever to do with the Albanian culture. As every person in the Slavic space knows, "Kosovo" means "belonging to the blackbird" in the Slavic languages, including Czech.

On the other hand, Ossetia and Abkhazia are pretty much the regions where the corresponding nations have lived for centuries and they have no other home, unlike the Albanians.

Fabio wrote: "It is not Russia's, nor NATO's to decide, but a decision that belongs to the nations in question. An appaling comment, which reflects late 19th century imperialism rather than 21st century."

The military control over a territory depends on the historical and immediate balance of the military power in the relevant neighborhood of the territory under consideration - much like the wealth depends on the economy. These statements are pretty much truisms. It was the case in the 19th century, it was the case in the 15th century, it was the case in the 20th century, it is the case now and it will be the case until countries and nations cease to exist.

To believe otherwise - that a group of people can (or should) control important parts of the world without having any physical or military power - means to be an unrepairable utopia communist-like dreamer who is completely detached from reality. There doesn't exist a single example in the history of Europe and Asia where the power balance on a territory would be dictated by something completely different than the military strength of powers around. Territories "liberated" by NATO are no exception. The history of Europe - and partly Asia - is largely a history of nations fighting for territories and whoever thinks that something has permanently changed about this basic nature of the history is crazy.

For example, the Serbian province of Kosovo, currently "liberated" to be used by the Albanians, is a military protectorate of NATO. This "country" would be completely indefensible if its security were not sold to NATO and guaranteed by NATO. And incidentally, its economy would also lead to universal famine if the "country" were not fed by millions that are constantly flowing from the EU, replacing the organized crime that was flourishing previously. Kosovo is destined to be a permanently failing country living from subsidies. In the previous setup, it was pretty much a legitimate, positively contributing segment of the Yugoslav and Serbian economies. Is the change a real improvement?

Concerning the stock markets, all emerging stock markets fell by something like 25-35 percent in the last year, as all stock holders know very well. Linking these things to important political decisions of the Russian president is mostly propaganda.

Michaelpetek: you know that the U.N. is a complete joke, anyway, don't you? So many events have occurred despite the wishes of the U.N. that no politician who is actually thinking strategically - and not just cowardly about his image according to other cowards - takes the U.N. too seriously. Moreover, Russia is a permanent member of the security council who will veto every proposed anti-Russian resolution.

Putting Serbia into dog house is even more outrageous because it is a perfectly democratic and decent country right now, probably much more than most of the countries of the critics of Serbia. They haven't done anything bad at least for a decade, and the people who did problematic things a decade ago have been eliminated from the Serbian politics.

Fortunately, the assignment of nations into "dog houses" only matters in stupid discussion threads on the Internet and in press releases of ludicrously irrelevant politicians & talking heads, not in the real world.

Best wishes

Lubos Motl

michaelpetek
28 August 2008 at 19:26

Lubos, I only said that the Russians and the Serbs have a timeshare on the doghouse. I'm cautiously optimistic that the Serbs wil be out of there much, much sooner than the Russians, in which case the Russians can take the freehold.

So when it's their turn to leave it they can let it to someone else and take rent on it. Just as well, since the Russian economy would be the size of Tahiti's if it weren't for gas and oil.

lumidek
28 August 2008 at 19:56

Dear Michaelpetek,

it's funny, feel free to schedule the dog house in any way you want. After all, the Americans have lived there, too. It's not such a shame to live in a U.N. dog house for a while, especially if the U.N. have no cops who would be giving the occupants some badly tasting food.

Fortunately, there are no U.N. cops who matter because the whole world could become one large totalitarian country on one day, governed by the proponents of some new utopia. If the U.N. could actually control the world, it would become a new Third Reich or a new Soviet Union. The required unity of opinions would be as mandatory as it used to be; only the detailed colors could change a bit.

Best wishes

Lubos

Tim
28 August 2008 at 20:07

"The Russians deserve better than Vladimir Putin. " Oh I wouldn't agree to that. They definitely deserve what they have, and the Stalinist Mr Putin is their national leader par excellence. His leadership reflects the state of minds and the state of culture in the society on the whole. It's the same old Communist-style KGB state after all, isn't it?

Antigone
28 August 2008 at 20:22

"Abkhazian and Ossetian nations are unique nations that only live on their current territory for centuries which is why it historically belongs to them. "

Hello? Have you ever read a single book about Georgian history? These lands historically - and I can assure you, long before the existence of most of Europe - belonged to Georgian people.

"The West should agree that Russia seems to be a wise manager of these regions of the world that have belonged under its military umbrella for centuries."

Should I copy the said above or just condemn you for the humiliation of my people? Have you ever read anything about Georgia except the latest articles on the conflict? We (and many other Caucasian nations) were under Russian oppression for centuries. Doesn't your narrow mind imagine that everything that is happening in Caucasus last centuries is the Well-Staged Caucasian Genocide?

lumidek
28 August 2008 at 20:45

Dear Tim, I kind of agree that the Russians deserve a pretty good leader, such as Putin or Medvedev. They're impressive professionals who understand strategy and politics and most of the current Western leaders are ludicrous puppets in comparison.

Antigone, your comments are equally "imperialist" and "arrogant" with respect to the Abkhazian and Ossetian nations as the Russians' opinions are "imperialist" and "arrogant" from your perspective.

You may pretend that the Abkhazians and Ossetians have never quite owned any national territory and everything has always belonged to the Georgian nation. But in the very same way, at a longer distance scale, the Russians can say that the Georgians have never quite owned a territory and all of Georgia, if viewed as a military space, has always belonged to Russia.

There is no objective criterion that would decide which of these two perspectives is more truthful. But because Russia has just won the latest war about these questions, I guess that its opinion is more relevant than yours.

At any rate, your hypocrisy is revealing. In one paragraph you argue that the territory belonged to the Georgian nation. In another paragraph, you argue that the territory was under "Russian oppression". Sorry: It can't be both right.

Moreover, you are building on people's ignorance. If you were not, you would tell us openly that the newly independent republics were violently incorporated into the Georgian Soviet Republic by your famous countrymate, Iosif Dzhugashvili, also known as Stalin. On the other hand, Georgia has been Russia's security backyard not from the Soviet times but from the era of enlightened leaders of the Russian Empire.

michaelpetek
28 August 2008 at 20:59

One think I'll never forgive the Russians for is this.

They've had their tanks in Gori for a whole week, and not one of them could take the trouble to obliterate the statue of that old bastard Stalin.

Tim
28 August 2008 at 21:42

"the era of enlightened leaders of the Russian Empire." That makes me sick :-))) Could you please reread the history of Russia? See any Voltaires on the Russian throne? Besides I would never approve of a storng arm old Mustache Pete like Putin, and would never call him an "impressive professional who understands strategy and politics" with just Hamas currently on his side. If there is just any "professional understanding" at all it's the KGB understanding of what's going on. As for puppets, Mr Medvedev has brilliantly assumed that role, and the two dwarfy guys fancy they successfully deceive the international community, which is hopefully and in fact not so easly deceived.

Antigone
28 August 2008 at 22:18

Lumidek - You are not Czech.

Second - the values I am talking about (like peace, tolerance) are strange to you. We speak on different languages. No argument is needed to respond to your post - it's just as weak as your Putin and Medvedev.

One is for sure: Ossetians and Abkhazians are unique in one thing - destroying themselves with the help of the Russians, of course. They do not care keeping their culture.

Antigone
28 August 2008 at 22:23

What an argument - Stalin was Georgian. Stalin sent my grandfather to Siberia for 10 years. He was Georgian. He did so to many Georgians, as well as killed them. So what's the point you wanted to make? Ah. ok. The same "logic" as Putin's. "Rosiju umom ne ponjat"

Sophocles
28 August 2008 at 22:47

"The Russian protection of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, provoked by Saakashvili's incredibly ill-conceived provocation, is the beginning of Russian control over the Caucasus (and probably other regions) for the decades to come. And yes, they deserve it. "

You must be kidding!? Who attacked South Ossetia? Do you watch Russian news? Do you have any idea how many civilians, including Ossetians, have been killed, raped, kidnepped, tortured by bandits who control SO since 90's? Who attacked Abkhazia? 3,000 Russian troops entered Abkhazia without any reason and cleaned Upper Kodori Gorge from ethnic Georgians. Wake up! There is no 'protection' what so ever. Russian jets bombed Tskhinvali for 3 days, non-stop, killing civilians. It is an occupation and if not stopped here, Russia will come to Czech Republic again.

"Abkhazian and Ossetian nations are unique nations that only live on their current territory for centuries which is why it historically belongs to them. "

Bull shit. Read at least some books about the history of this region. BTW, there is a republic called 'North Ossetia' in Russian Federation, a historical territory of Ossetians. Even though no one tries to send Ossetians there. They leave perfectly well in Georgia (about 50,000 outside of SO).

"The West should agree that Russia seems to be a wise manager of these regions of the world that have belonged under its military umbrella for centuries."

By 'wise management' do you mean killing 200,000 Chechens, including 40,000 children at the end of 20th century? Do you need more statistics on how many Ossetians, Georgians, Ingushs, Dagestanis, Abkhazs, Kabardins were killed by Russians in recent centuries?

Go read some books 'student hero'. Simple hate of US politics is not enough to make judgments about the events you have no idea about.

giltedged
29 August 2008 at 03:29

What the Georgian invasion of Osettia and its aftermath revealed is that it is not wise to link oneself with America's greed if onee is in Asia , Europe or the Middle East (unless you're Israeli/Jewish but that's a different matter) because they might leave you just like that (Vietnam, Korea, Lebanon and probably Iraq) or they might not think you're important enough after pumping you up (Georgia).

America's wealth was founded to a high degree on cheap energy, captive markets and use of the dollar as a medium of exchange (ie printing of billions of dollars , selling them at dollar's value for little more than the cost of printing them.) These three factors have had a hit in these last years , increasing America's agression. Yet they (or rather a small tribal element within the US) still more or less control the world's media , but decreasingly so. This is why we get orchestrated untruthful remarks by politicians and also threats which can never be upheld eg David Miliband, the British minister , the mouse that roared.

The point is the Russians did precisely what the Americans and its poodles did in Kosovo, only swifter, cleaner in a fraction of the time the Americans took without resorting to depleted uranium and without bombing bridges, factories, schools, TV stations and the Chinese embassy.

The bench-mark principle originated by the Americans is that a country's borders are not sacrosant but that a localised minority can claim independence (if the Americans so wish)

It's a new but I'm sure exciting principle. Imagine Turkey without Kurdistan, a string of towns all the way from Birmingham to London with a Pakistani majority or say California, Texas and New Mexico in ten years or so.

As a Southern European I congratulate the Abkhaz and South Osettians on their independence. I also think that the Ukraine is two distinct nations and should go the Czechoslovakian way. In a way I am also glad that the Americans regard the Caucasian nations as less important than the Middle East and perhaps they realise that it is not sustainable to build a pipeline, carve a tortuous way through areas which should have been best left alone and militarise the whole area. As usual the Americans find it difficult to link up cause and effect.

writeon
29 August 2008 at 07:23

Most of the above posts are frighteningly partisan, chauvanistic and full of nationalist rhetoric, almost tribal in nature.

It's like listening to Orangemen and Republicans, or Jews and Arabs arguing about who has the historical and moral 'right' to live in and control the same, disputed piece of land. They just go round and round in circles hitting each other over the head with their 'arguments'.

What is nationalism anyway, nothing but tribalism on steroids.

Perhaps Napoleon was the first modern leader to understand the power of nationalist ideology and he channeled it into the creation of a vast, almost invicible army directed towards the creation of an empire. So from the beginning modern nationlaism was joined at the hip with imperialism and war, it's still pretty much the case today, and that's what makes militant nationalism so dangerous and destructive.

The Caucasus, like the Balkans, like the Palestine/Israel, is bursting with rival national/tribal mythologies and illusions. What characterises all these areas of conflict is that corrupt elites are fanning the flames of ethnic hatred and nationalism to gain and keep power for themselves, mostly so they can rob the people blind while they divert their attention somewhere else.

What's pathetic, depressing and tragic, is that the 'pawns' don't even realise they are being played, that their real 'enemy' is composed of the corrupt elite who are manipulating them in such a grotesque manner, steal from them, and eventually send them off to die in pointless conflicts, 'defending' the wealth, power and interests of the ruling elite.

Nationalism is the real opium of the people; it impares the vision, dulls the senses and clouds the mind.

lumidek
29 August 2008 at 07:28

Dear Tim,

you ask: "See any Voltaires on the Russian throne?" I answer: Of course that I do. The Russian Empire was founded by Peter the Great in 1721. Search for Peter the Great on Wikipedia or elsewhere. He was a great leader who modernized and westernized the empire significantly.

Among other things, he decided to build a huge gallery of arts. In 1764, Hermitage in St. Petersburg was finally started by Catherine the Great. The gallery remains a smaller Eastern competitor of the Louvre (I visited the Louvre this March, cool) and the whole Russian Empire was always a semi-successful attempt for an Eastern copy of the French kingdom.

Whoever doesn't realize that the Russian Empire was a very cultural and pro-Western setup is an uncultural barbarian. The only thing it missed was the intense industrialization. Unfortunately, it was up to the bolsheviks to build this sector of Russia after 1917. But very generally, I find all radical voices against the Russian Empire to be ill-informed because it was a nice empire.

And, Tim, it is pretty much irrelevant that Medvedev only has Hamas on his side. The goal in the chess game called politics is to win, by checkmate, not to have many pawns. You clearly show that you don't understand politics and strategy at all.

Antigone, I don't care a single bit whether you believe me I am Czech. Everyone can search for Lubos Motl on Google, find my blog and location, and see that I am lumidek (in the fast comments, for example). Your invention of conspiracy theories about the very nationality of your foes shows that you live outside reality and you are eager to lie to yourself, in order to sustain otherwise unsustainable beliefs.

Antigone, the point of emphasizing that Stalin was Georgian was to show that there is no direct link between the Russian nation and communism - all other nations that have had this system are pretty much "equally guilty" of spreading and preserving this ideology as the Russian nation. Many people in the West don't understand this fact and the current Georgian government abuses this ignorance, presenting Georgia as a victim and Russia as the culprit. But this has nothing to do with the reality of the history.

Sophocles: concerning your question, it was Saakashvili's troops who attacked South Ossetia on August 8th. This much was reported in all outlets. But I assure you that I watch Russian news, too, and they make much more sense than most "Western" media, when it comes to Russia, these days. Give me a break with a new Russian occupation of Czechia. I am just not afraid of these ludicrous conspiracy theories. We were independent even during the socialist times.

And even if Russia came here, it is an emergent modern capitalist nation, so I don't expect it would create any different system than the system that the EU is trying to "recreate", and in some ways, it could be better. Why would Russia do anything else? It wouldn't halp their interests in any way. I simply won't buy your irrational fear and irrational bigotry directed against particular nations, in this case Russia.

I am in no way a hater of U.S. politics. I am a huge admirer of the U.S., among other things for similar reasons that Russia just showed to be better at, at least in this context. What I despise are e.g. far-left people who fight against "imperialism" i.e. the very existence of large countries and their natural efforts to protect themselves. This is what every sane country that wants to survive has to do, with tools that are appropriate for its size, location, and abilities. The U.S. is doing it and Russia is clearly doing it, too. Whoever misunderstands these things is just stupid.

OK, Russia killed about 200,000 Chechens, many of them being simply terrorists, even though others were innocent, but Dzhugashvili, a Georgian individual, killed about 20,000,000 Russians. In your childish game with numbers, I won by a factor of 100. You're a loser, OK?

Many bad things have happened in the past. Some of them could have been avoided, others couldn't. Whoever can't think rationally just because he sees one particular sad event simply shouldn't try to talk about politics (and especially not about wars) because this discipline is clearly beyond his emotional and intellectual abilities.

Best wishes

Lubos

Gege
29 August 2008 at 08:12

Hi

Who thinks that any empire is any good for the conquered people, well ... those people are called imperialists and world doesn't usually like them.

I don't want to talk about politics, I'm not politician. Any one give me one example where Russians "helped" the country or were they were "peace keepers" and that country is prosperous today. So far I can't find one.

Regarding the Russians stealing toilets, I saw it in no comments in Euro News, have they invented it.? Don’t think so.

What is happening on the ground is an invasion of barbarians in Georgia, it is not a chess game. That’s your problem people, until it hits you personally it looks like a chess game. The way Russia is going today, we might become figures in their chess game quite soon. Than you will realize it is not a game at all, but it will be late. More or less same happened early 20 Century.

alexander
29 August 2008 at 08:30

Lubos you are absolutely correct. I will check out your blog.

Sophocles and Antigone, may I suggest that you do a little reading yourself, because your facts are skewed. If you want to have an intelligent opinion you should refrain from proselytizing one sided views especially when you don't really know much about the subject, and instead try looking at both points of view and making up your own mind instead of letting other people think for you. (Especially the history part)

In my opinion, and it's just an opinion, Nato, whose purpose is to contain Russia, is quite useless in this task. Any war with Russia today will end up disastrous for not only Nato nations and Russia, but for the whole planet. Everyone knows this, and as long as we have responsible governors who rule with reason, not emotions, then everything will be OK, tetthering on the brink of an armageddon, and all the people in all the nations will polarize and become easier for their governments to manage.

In my opinion, the cold war is definitely reigniting, the West relies on a democratic puppet in the nations where it deems strategically important, Russia does the same. So as long as the West continues to exclude Russia, and persists in edging closer to it's borders and it's sphere of influence, then we can expect more Georgias and Kosovos, God knows there are many ambitious ethnic groups that want independence.

However the larger Nato becomes, the harder it will be to contain. Little despots like Saakashvilli, if allowed into Nato, will pick a fight that will get everyone into trouble, and Nato needs to be extremely careful who they let in. What they really need to do is let Russia join nato.

Alex

USA

alexander
29 August 2008 at 08:45

Lubos, I just saw your site and your wiki page, and I am impressed. You sounded very intelligent and knowledgeable on this forum, and now I understand why. Refreshing to see intelligent people with an open mind.

Don't let these jokers rile you.

Alex

USA

Fabio220
29 August 2008 at 10:01

Lumidek,

I think you fail to notice that essentially NATO expancion was not a result of NATO military force, in traditional sence, but it was part of the appeal for it along with the Western economical power. i.e. That NATO countries did not use military force to make e.g. Baltics NATO countries, but the mechanism of the expancion was mutual concent between the "already members" and the Baltic states.

To get back to Georgia, if there would have been a mutual concent on expanding the atlantic treaty to cover Georgia in Budapest, the expancion would have been concent of the two parties. And not a result of military power in a Berlin Conference fashion. And becuase Georgia doesnt want Russia to "manage" them Russia has no moral or legal right to do so.

The part you failed to see in regards to the falling stock market was that the third of the fall happened in a short period of time after the Russian actions. Mayby the great strategy will unfold later because so far Russia hasnt gained much support, benefits or prestige for their action.

lumidek
29 August 2008 at 11:53

Dear Gege, I don't say that every empire is always good for the people who live in it.

I say that an empire has as good chances to be good for the people in it as a small country ;-) and more importantly, in this particular case, the Abkhazians and Ossetians clearly prefer the protective hand of the Russian Federation over the direct influence of the Georgian government. Ask them.

Concerning the word "imperialism", we probably grew up in different conditions. When I was a basic school kid, during socialism, we were taught that imperialism was an advanced stage of capitalism - the current one, following the "free competition capitalism". So being an imperialist means to be for the current phase of capitalism, and I surely am, whether or not the world (who the hell he or she is that he or she has so unified and oversimplified opinions?) likes me or not.

Even if "imperialism" refers to "empires", I don't know why you think that the "world" dislikes empires. For example, 99.9% of the population of Russia likes their empire and they are not unhappy about my opinions either.

Both the Czechs and Russians have been figures in various chess games and they have often interacted, much like Russia and Georgia have interacted.

Sometimes the interaction led to good results and sometimes it led to bad results. Sometimes we did good or bad things to them, sometimes it was the other way around. Thinking that both the sign and the direction of the influences has been uniform throughout the history means to be a blinded one-sided fanatic. And this classification doesn't change even if he is excited about stealing the toilets (which I don't find a particular interesting or important topic here).

Thanks, Alexander, I am happy that someone like you is here and writes very good English! ;-)

Dear Fabio, most of our Central and Eastern European nations, including mine and myself, were supporting our membership in NATO. But you are incorrectly assuming that the question of our NATO membership is something that has nothing to do with Russia. Our switch from the Warsaw Pact to NATO clearly meant to destroy our previous commitments of military co-operation with Russia and to reduce the overall security of Russia (and all of its people).

This thing was possible, regardless of the Russian opinions and interests, in the late 1990s, because Russia felt unusually weak at that moment, after the collapse of communism. But under normal circumstances, such a change of a military arrangement (a cancellation of military relationships) would require two sides to agree about it. Russia no longer feels that weak and proposed changes to the security situation that involve Russia, such as Ukraine's or Georgia's membership in NATO, naturally require Russia's agreement because such changes have to have two sides, not just one.

Because of the commitments, historical pacts, conventions, and traditions, it is simply not true that the military space overlapping with Ukraine and Georgia "purely" belongs to the citizens of these two countries and Russia has nothing to say about it. For good geometrical reasons, it is a space that has been important for Russia, too, and Russia has created various arrangements to feel safe in the vicinity of its neighbors. It has become a "partial owner" of a layer of these post-Soviet countries.

Changing these "ownership rights" and contracts is something that shouldn't occur without Russia's agreement. Because Russia is likely to disagree with the new NATO members etc., you shouldn't be shocked that Russia will view this modification to the security situation in the region as a partial or complete declaration of war. The only way for you to make my argument vanish completely is to say that the Russian nation has no rights, especially no rights to feel secure.

I will disagree with that because such an opinion is nothing else than bias, a form of nationalism, racism, or xenophobia.

Best regards

Lubos

moderngypsy55@gmail.com
29 August 2008 at 12:05

michaelpetek :

"They've had their tanks in Gori for a whole week, and not one of them could take the trouble to obliterate the statue of that old bastard Stalin"

I understand that Saakashvili is proud that he shares Stalin's birthday.

And, I hear that Stalin's house is a bit of tourist attraction in Tblisi. Knocking the old b's statue could deprive some people from making a honest living !

michaelpetek
29 August 2008 at 12:21

Moderngypsy55, I share Eva Braun's birthday. So what?

Anyway, Saakashvili is a good friend of President Yuschenko even though Stalin killed a third of Y's family, including his grandfather, in the 1933.

Simon Sebag Montefiore has recently written that Saakashvili's grandparents hid Stalin from the Tsarist secret police, and that Putin's grandfather was Stalin's chef.

moderngypsy55@gmail.com
29 August 2008 at 12:43

michaelpetek:

"Simon Sebag Montefiore has recently written that Saakashvili's grandparents hid Stalin from the Tsarist secret police, and that Putin's grandfather was Stalin's chef."

Nice connections!

re Stalin's birthday - apparently Saakashvilli is proud of this common link, I am curious why!

Gege
29 August 2008 at 13:07

Hi

Russia feels that their security is threatened, well …On one hand they used to say they were (or wanted to be) democratic wanted to be and part of Europe, on the other hand they are afraid of the same Europe. Don't you think that Georgians would like also to be independent? They also would love to have robust security.

Regarding Abkhazians and Ossetians: There are always people that want something different than majority of the population. If Russian army will come in and kick the majority out, obviously once minority will become majority. That is what happened in Abkhazia , and is still going on in Ossetia. Abkhazia used to have 500,000 inhabitants. How many are there now? 50,000 -60,000 may be bit more. If they would let all displaced people back, definitely including Georgians, it is not very clear where those regions would want to be with Russia or Georgia .

Unfortunately whilst "peace loving" Russian army is stationed in those places we shouldn’t even bother talking about returning displaced people, or having any type of justice.

Also look at those places, Abkhazia as well as Ossetia are very poor. If Russia spent half of the money, they lost directly or indirectly, over this war in Caucasus. I mean spent on help, not putting the money in pockets of corrupt bureaucrats. I believe they would have had much better relations with all the neighbors. Unfortunately this is not the way Russia acts. They would rather destroy others and get destroyed in the process.

lumidek
29 August 2008 at 13:51

Dear Gege,

Europe and Asia are geographic concepts and their boundary goes along Ural, e.g. near Yekaterinburg, my town's twin city. ;-) If someone says that he or doesn't want to be a part of Europe, it's a physically meaningless emotional proclamation, not a sentence with a content.

Russia is partly a part of Europe and partly it is not a part of Europe, because it's in Asia, and this will continue to be the reality regardless of changes in Russian politics. Brussels certainly doesn't own the trademark "Europe" and it doesn't have the right to redefine it. And whether or not Brussels or Moscow behave in one way or another changes nothing about the squared kilometers that each country has in Europe.

More importantly, one doesn't need a PhD to see that Russia may feel threatened when one reads hysterical anti-Russian and "anti-imperialist" articles and discussion threads such as this one and when one imagines that similar Russian haters are at several places around the Russian Federation and many of them have weapons and look for allies.

I am ready to believe that Georgians would "like" to be independent and to some extent, they have been independent for quite some time. On the other hand, there are also aspects in which they are not quite independent because of their geographic location: Georgia is neither in the vacuum nor in Manhattan; it is on the Caucasus near the Russian borders. The location determines various facts about "independence" whether someone likes it or not. It's called reality.

Would they love robust security? They may simply join the friendly & military bloc with Russia to have essentially identical security as the rest of Russia's military space. Would they love an even better security?

Sorry, once again, it is physically impossible. Any other arrangement will be viewed as a threat (or betrayal) in Russia and it will decrease, not increase, the security of Georgia. Even if Georgia joined NATO, it wouldn't be about real security. It would be more about the possibility to revenge to Russia whenever Georgia manipulates itself into new troubles by aggressive behavior in the future.

I completely agree that majorities and minorities depend on the way how the territories are divided and who is allowed to be there at a given moment. For example, the Albanian illegal imigrants have filled much of Kosovo, irrationally becoming a "majority" on this Serbian territory. That's why there is never any God-given, canonical way to decide how the boundaries should be divided and who should control individual territories.

That's why people and nations sometimes argue with each other and sometimes it unfortunately ends in wars which often decide what is the final arrangement. That's what happened in Ossetia and Abkhazia, too. At some moment, Saakashvili decided to begin a war. But whoever starts a war is not guaranteed to decide when it ends and what the result will be. And Saakashvili was not given this option, either.

So Russia has won, the Ossetians and Abkhazians were finally given the freedom from the Georgians, and Georgia itself is now partly controlled by Russia. That's the arrangement to calm down the situation and bring more peace to the region that is dictated, much like in other cases, by the winners.

Ossetia and maybe Abkhazia have a lower GDP per capita than Georgia but Georgia also has a much lower GDP per capita than Russia, so I am not sure what's your point here. Under the Russian control, their economy might strengthen significantly.

Best wishes

Lubos

Antigone
29 August 2008 at 15:25

What an independent nation:

Georgia conflict: South Ossetia seeks to merge with Russia

Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia has signalled that it will formally seek to merge with Russia.

By David Blair, Diplomatic Editor

Last Updated: 2:52PM BST 29 Aug 2008

Mr Kokoity, holder of a Russian passport, is leader of the region's separatists, who use roubles, hold Russian passports and dream of rejoining Russia Photo: REUTERS

This move would amount to Russia’s annexation of an area of another state and the redrawing of the map of a corner of Europe.

South Ossetia, with a largely Russian population of only 70,000, has no viable future as an independent state and observers believe that its only realistic option is to join its giant neighbour.

President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia discussed this option with his South Ossetian counterpart, Eduard Kokoity, earlier this week during a meeting in Moscow.

Znaur Gassiyev, the Speaker of South Ossetia’s parliament, said the enclave would formally join Russia "in several years" or possibly earlier. This had been "firmly stated by both leaders” during their meeting in Moscow.

Tarzan Kokoiti, the deputy Speaker, predicted: “We will live in one united Russian state.”

While the Kremlin has recognised South Ossetia as an “independent” country, Russia effectively controls the tiny enclave, which has no viable economy and depends largely on smuggling.

If the area merges with Russia, this would be a formal acknowledgement of reality.

At the close of this month’s war with Georgia, Russian troops were in full control of South Ossetia and the other breakaway region, Abkhazia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/264...

Antigone
29 August 2008 at 15:30

And Lumidek

Answer: Where should we send our 500 000 refugees from those regions? in abkhazia 70% of Population was Georgian and as talking of Ossetians - we have more Ossetians all across Georgia than in so called " South Ossetia" (by the way, it's historical name is Samachablo and the term South Ossetia is artificially invented).

Everybody can have their arguments but if somebody would ask you to give your land out would you accept it?

I cannot even count friends coming from Abkhazia - ethnically Georgians that lost their relatives, property, everything there. So be a bit polite when talking about these issues when you know nothing.

michaelpetek
29 August 2008 at 15:48

Antigone, I prefer the term 'Shida Kartli'.

'Samachablo' is gratuitously offensive to Ossetians.

moderngypsy55@gmail.com
29 August 2008 at 16:43

lumidek: "Georgia also has a much lower GDP per capita than Russia, so I am not sure what's your point here. Under the Russian control, their economy might strengthen significantly"

I feel that Saakashvilli started this illadvised and diabolical misadventure. And, I am in favour of self-determination and providing the future the people of South Ossetia and Abkhzia have wanted and continue to want.

But I cannot agree with your comment quoted above. I think if this ever to happen, I will be on the first to condemn it.

lumidek
29 August 2008 at 18:30

Dear Antigone, I think (and always thought) that it is natural for the two parts of Ossetia to unify, and it doesn't seem reasonable to assume right now that it could naturally happen inside the Georgian state. ;-)

But both North Ossetia and South Ossetia have been "Ossetias" for quite some time. It is not about some recent illegal immigrants, unlike Kosovo. Abkhazia, on the other hand, wants to be more independent. You could have seen that the Ossetians had a lot of Russian flags in their celebrations, next to their flags. The Abkhazians didn't - partly because they were not recently attacked by Georgia and helped by Russia.

Antigone, your numbers (500,000 Georgians in Ossetia) are complete bogus. In South Ossetia, there are 70,000 people in total and 99% of them voted for the independence in the referendum, with a 95% turnout. In Abkhazia, there are about 200,000 people. According to the 2003 census, 21.3% were Georgian. That's 40,000, not 500,000, and most of them will probably stay there.

I would prefer not to give "my land" to anyone. As you should know, we have a lot of experience with it, from 1938 Sudetenland controversies. In the border regions of Czechia (that historically belonged to the Czech Kingdom all the time), most people were German and heavily pro-Hitler in the 1930s. Eventually, our allies (France, UK) signed the Munich Treaty (with Hitler and Mussolini) stating that this land was annexed by Germany.

It was a huge blow to Czechoslovakia, ending the "First Republic". But everyone understood that military resistance would have been useless. Only hopes of Stalin helping us could change that but he was too far at that time. Note that we simply understood that we couldn't have fought - even though our military was much much better than the Georgian army today. And we certainly didn't invade the Sudetenland ourselves. In this analogy, Saakashvili is simply closer to Hitler than to Beneš, the president of Czechoslovakia.

Best, Lubos

alexander
29 August 2008 at 19:20

To all of you who blame the Russians for instigating the Georgian war, please explain the precarious timing of the NATO Naval armada doing "routine preplanned exercises" in the black sea.

Also, the fact that Saakashvilli orchestrated early elections in January, securing his post for the foreseeable future. Do you think he would have had chance in November 08, when the elections were actually scheduled.

And finally what about his August 7th speech, a typical Stalinesque maneuver to put your enemies off balance just before you slaughter them. Here is a Georgian source for those who were unaware. http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=18934&search=natural%...

Several hours after the end of this speech, Saakashvilli commenced the bombardment of Tskhinvali and 10 smaller towns on the border.

writeon
29 August 2008 at 19:33

I don't think there's any such thing as 'Putinism', so the basic premise of this dreary article is highly questionable. It's trite too. It's like we have to dream up some non-existant 'ism' or 'ist' whenever some or some group refuses to 'bow' to Western leadership, and heaven forbid, have the audacity to actually put the interests of their own nation first. And if they really standup for themselves and defy us, then we dub them - 'this season's Hitler'.

If one attempts to look at the relationship between Russia and the West - which really means the Americans- objectively and without the 'ideological lobotomy' which most Western politicians and journalists have willingly subjected themselves to, a very different picture emerges.

The accendent US rightwing, has for at least a quarter of century misunderstood and misjudged Russia. Those Americans with knowledge and understanding have been systematically sidelined and ignored, in favour of the neo-cons and their perverse view of the world, and us one knows the neo-cons specialize in getting virtually everything wrong almost all of the time.

For twenty years the Americans have more or less ignored the Russians, not listened, and regarded them as irrelevant and weak, a country heading for total collapse and disintegration, and the West has done all it could to speed up this process.

This process of malign neglect has always been regarded with something close to despair by more moderate circles in the West. It was very short-sighted and what if Russia didn't collapse, didn't one risk creating a climate of hostility towards the West that might prove highly problematic?

When one reads articles like the one above, one is close to disbelief, how do these people get their jobs?

This 'propaganda' is so wrong it's embarassing to read.

Russia is not facing total social collapse anymore, the seemingly inexorable downward spiral has been stopped and reversed, the state and the economy is stronger than it's been for decades. If you don't believe me go to Moscow and take a look around. I've been their several times in the last few years and Moscow looks anything but a city in decline.

Russia is a country with a vast economic potential, and it's oil and gas reserves are subtantial and it has huge quantities of other vital raw materials. Potentially Russia can become one of the economic giants of the twenty-first century, along with China, India and Brazil. The great pendulum of history is swinging away from the Western world towards these new great powers. The world is changing rapidly and the West doesn't like it. The revolutionary potential of Capitalism is raising some nations and allowing others to decline.

Now, the United States, doesn't want to see Russia as a reviving great power with a strong economy, because this means the Russians will begin to use their oil and gas, and other raw materials, increasingly for themselves; the idea was that a weakened and subserviant Russia would become a source of cheap labour and cheap raw materials, not a potential rival once more. More importantly, this time Russia will not primarily be a rival militarily or ideologically, but first and foremost, a rival economic power tipping the balance even further away from the West.

Rivalizing and competing Capitalist great powers are, seen from a historical perspective, highly unstable entities, and unfortunately they seem to have strong tendency to go to war with one another sooner or later. The United States, as the world's leading Capitalist power, has had it too easy for too long. It's ruled the West without opposition since the end of World War Two, now this are different. New, rival, Capitalist powers are emerging, witness the Beijing Olympics, and challenging the American Empire for world leadership. They are no prepared to adopt client state status like the rest of the West and are intent on, at the very least, parity with the United States and respect for their ligitimate interests.

The really big question is how will the United States react to this rapidly changing new world order, considering their national security strategy compels them to confront any potential rival to American global leadership. Now, that's what an article in The Times should sound like!

Bhatti
29 August 2008 at 20:02

Western commentators keep spouting the line that attacking other nations is not how to behave in the 21st century. How do they keep a straight face, where were these commentators when the leader of the West attacked Afghanistan then Iraq, why do we not hear anything from these commentators when the US admits to spending millions funding terrorism in Iran or admits to US Special Forces operating in Iran. No talk of the Sovereignty of nations then.

The whole point of the article seems to be that if you are on the side of the US, attacking, threatening, stealing the resources of other nations is perfectly acceptable, but if you are not a vassal state of the US then you must obey the US’s interpretation of International law.

writeon
29 August 2008 at 21:12

Bhatti,

It's because 'we' in the West, believe we own the world, it's all our property, basically to do what we like with, and it's been that way for over four centuries.

We wrote the 'rules' for international relations, we enforce them, we decide who is 'right' or 'wrong', who is 'good' or 'bad'. A nation or people is 'good' and 'right' if they with us, and not against us. Those who are with us become client or vassal states, and pay 'tribute' to us. Thos who do not are literally considered to be 'outlaws' and can be hunted down, dead or alive, if they are foolish enough to stand in the way of our 'interests'.

We are the law. We decide which nations are sovereign and which ones are failed states and subject to 'humanitarian war'. State that need our 'help'. We created and drew the borders of most of the world's countries, therefore only we are allowed to redraw them, carve out new countries, or destroy old ones, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Yogoslavia, Palestine, just to name four modern examples.

The core strategy of Western imperialism has been, and still is, divide and conquer, keep rival states; poor, weak, small and subserviant.

We keep a staight face because we never really look in the mirror to seek how crooked we are, and if we are forced to, we blame the mirror for distorting our image! Hypocracy and double-standards our at the core of our culture and history. Also we have very short memories in relation to our imperial crimes, we are always moving forward, discarding the old, embracing the new, grasping opportunities to exploit new areas, consolidate our power and position as global maters and earn more money, money, our one and only God.

Rossa
29 August 2008 at 21:27

what a load of old fashioned Russian bashing I thought I was reading the Daily Mail ,Boyes will be petitioning the pope next to have Bush canonized, No wonder Boyes writes for The Times enough said.

Harish Vidya
29 August 2008 at 23:41

ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS MR BOYES! MR PUTIN IS A FAILURE ?. PERHAPS HE SURELY IS ONE SINCE HE HAS FAILED TO REDUCE GEORGIA INTO A MASS CARNAGE LIKE THE ANGLO-AMERICAN DUPLICITY HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO IN IRAQ.

lumidek
30 August 2008 at 06:17

Dear ModernGypsy,

the new republics, especially South Ossetia, would probably agree to be incorporated into the Russian space, in one way or another, at least to strengthen their security.

For small enough nations, the "independence" is pretty much a vacuous word because the country has to rely on others in various aspects of life, especially the defense. It is no victory for a small country to have "independent defense" because it pretty much means "almost no defense".

And on the other hand, the military access is the only thing that Russia really wants. So if the new republics became federal subjects of the Russian Federation, it wouldn't really change their lives (or culture) dramatically. And I guess that many of them would agree with it. It would make the situation much more stable.

Best

Lubos

Lucky Barker
31 August 2008 at 13:44

"N-TV", Germany television channel

n-tv.de: you have an explanation why the president of Georgia has given the order to attack South Ossetia?

Eppler : It that, on what at me is not present the answer. In effect that this man, abnormally has made. But, I believe that those 180 American advisers in Georgia should know it. Without their permission in general nothing could be made. In this respect I am afraid that about war plans knew in Washington. Then I ask myself that there, in what heads, should occur.

n-tv.de: And to whom this war brings benefit? I do not see any motive.

Eppler : Probably, it brings benefit to McCain in pre-election struggle

....

n-tv.de: whether There is no at you a sensation, what the federal government is on this way? The first reaction of the chancellor to Medvedev's statement has been formulated sharply enough?

Eppler : I think that here madam Merkel plays not too good role. Its statement that Georgia even after an attack to South Ossetia has the right to enter into the NATO, only aggravates a situation. Personally I can tell only that I would not like, that the life of my grandson depended on Saakashvili's mood.

n-tv.de: you consider, what Saakashvilis or Georgia would be NATO threat?

Eppler : Georgia, in that kind in which it now - if seriously concerns article 5 of the North Atlantic contract - would be threat for a life of people in all countries of the NATO.

the former minister of economic cooperation of Germany Erhard Eppler entering into the government of the patriarch of social democracy of Villi Brandt, recognised moral authority of a German policy.

moderngypsy55@gmail.com
31 August 2008 at 13:59

lumidek: I have little respect for that megalomanic in Georgia (Saakashvili) and his diabolical plans, Also, I am - subject to criteria being met, a supporter of self detemination. But integration with Russia can easily be interpreted as a Russian engineered plan for expansion. The World has reason to be worried about Russia's true intentions

moderngypsy55@gmail.com
31 August 2008 at 14:22

An excerpt from a WSJ article (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122006041734285393.html?mod=...) reads : "The Columbia diploma hangs on Mr. Saakashvili's office wall today. Next to it are biographies of Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Stalin and Ataturk -- a role model --".

Well everyone here reveres Stalin :) but what is less well known is Attaturk's passive (?) encouragement of the massacre of Armenians - minority in Turkey who were ruthlessly expelled. Nice role models to display prominently!

msk
31 August 2008 at 15:03

To the author, reader Gege and alike. Guys you should know that not only every Russian supports Putin but every Russian has a heartburn while only hearing about UK or USA, more over every Russian would like to see the time when Russia will do the same with UK and USA what it did to Georgia. That is to show your place to you and others.

By the way you planting in the minds of readers a wrong idea - Soviet Union collapsed not due to economical pressure of Reagan/Thatcher policy the only reason was that Soviet Union was feeding with oil and gas without payment for it such mother f****rs like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Georgia and alike for generations. Now when UK and US see their opponent is building up muscules they shout that this is due to high oil prices - wrong again this due to all the oil income is getting into Russia now and is not spread between East European mother f***rs. That disturbs you much and you start stinking with false statements that for sure what Russia earns is not properly spent. Be sure properly spent so that idiots do not see any more rusted war ships but rather see newly built military hardware.

As you dreaming of oil prices to come down you should know that every Russian is dreaming of Russia pay more military attention in the style you saw in Georgia to two abnormal countries - UK and USA. Looks like Russians have more chances with their expectations then you do.

Michael Brytan
31 August 2008 at 20:30

The Russian Oligarchs send their children to schools in NATO countries, they buy their summer vacation homes in NATO countries, they vacation in NATO countries, they invest most of their money in NATO countries, they hide their money in NATO countries, and they love fashion, music, and culture from NATO countries. Shut-down the Oligarchs. Stop issuing their children visas to attend schools in the West, freeze all their money in bank accounts, and make it hard for any of them to get visas to travel to the west. Russia must exit not only Georgia, but the territories it occupies, stop the genocide in Chechnya, and recognize the Ukrainian genocide of 1932 0 1933 (Holodomor). Until such time that Putin understands the horrors of the Soviet Union and his stupidity in trying to recreate this penal colony, the world will not be a safe place.

stan
01 September 2008 at 05:03

for Michael Brytan - and don't forget to stop (immidiately) to use Russian oil and gas, drink Russian vodka and eat Russian caviar! it will be horrible blow... Please, make it and let us have all these money back - we shall use them here or may be in ... Cuba or Venesuela may be.

Seriosly - stop demonizing the whole nation, don't use over simple and primitive generalisations and try to look critically for your own political steps during last 15 years, may be you understand something.

Last - for all Antigonas - all history analogies are senseless - we can find any example - positive and negative in every country history and so what when?

You say bla -I say bla-bla, is it helps? Where are not angelsstates and demonstate in the world - where are people with interests and better or worse leaders. Right now West (yes, West not Russia) come to the red line . Bielive or not we her3e in Russia have enough of all these white master teachings and double standards. Stan.

PetrT
01 September 2008 at 12:38

Lumidek's preposterous views about Russia being a "wise manager of these regions of the world that have belonged under its military umbrella for centuries" only show his total ignorance about Russia's imperialist and exapansionist policy in these regions which consitedof massive russification, movements of populations and ethnic cleansing.

Oh, the irony of supposedly right-wing Klaus becoming one of the most prominent Putin’s “useful idiots“ and apologists exactly 40 years since Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia in August 68 only shows what a bad joke and embarrasment for the country he’s becoming.

And to claim that KGB thug as Putin and his puppet Medvedev are „pretty good leaders“ is just absurd.

They steer Russia towards the old Soviet ways, fanning the flames of the traditional Russian inferiority complex and the country is becoming threat for all those countries unfortunate enough to be in what they consider “near abroad“.

alexander
01 September 2008 at 19:14

PetrT

What Imperialistic Expansionist Policy are you referring to, please cite examples or stop posting nonsense. NATO, has demonstrated such policies despite guarantees to Gorbachev that it will not do so.

What massive Russification, movement of population and ethnic cleansing? Please cite examples.

Regarding Czhecholovakia, are you even able to read Czech, or are you making up your opinions.

Regarding Putins and Medvedev's leadership, how should you classify a good leader, well lets compare the Putin's the Bushes.

1981 vs 2008

US National Debt when Bush Sr. (Cia Thug) and Reagan (Alzheimer thug) took office was 987 billion dollars, today it's 9.7 Trillion dollars. (Thats more than the GDP of China, India, Russia, Brazil and France combined)

2001 vs 2008

US national debt when Bush Jr took office

5.6 trillion vs 9.7 trillion today

Note it took America over 200 years to reach our first trillion.

Now compare Russia, debt in 2000, over 50 billion in debt vs 2008, surplus of 700 billion

Economy i Russia is displaying the 2nd highest growth rate in the world, the country's cash reserves are the 2nd highest in the world (nearly 700 billion), they were negative 8 years ago.

Economically comparing the US (cia thugs) and Russian (kgb thugs) leadership effectiveness, anyone can see that the Russians are a lot better off with their leaders than the USA.

Militarily

US spends 1 trillion on defense if you count the newly formed department of homeland security, and the interest on our military portion of the debt.

Russian spends 32.9 billion (based on this mornings WSJ)

Lets compare the effectiveness. US is stuck in Afganistan and Iraq with no real victory in sight, no political benefits to the USA, only detriment based on strained relations with the rest of the world, especially the middle east, and at an annual economic drain of 150 billion for Iraq and 33 billion for Afghanistan, total 188 Billion Dollars, that's greater than the combined GDP of the 80 poorest nations, and that's without a single stinger like missile weapon sold by Russia to these countries to interfere with the (American imperialistic aggression) in these countries.

Russia cleaned up and decimated US trained and armed military in Georgia in 72 hours, and accomplished a clear military and political target for a few Rubles.

So who is a better leader based on military effectiveness.

How about on a social level.

US Economy and inflation is degrading the purchasing power of the US citizens throughout the world. When Bush took office, the euro was worth $1.47 dollars, the dollars value declined by more than 100%, the salaries have not increased, the housing values have plummeted and the country is on the verge of a recession. Alternatively, with a very few exceptions, the US is not feeling any of the gains that it should have considering the weakening of it's currency, mostly due to the VAT that is applied by most of our (Trading Partners) on our exports.

In Russia, Putin inherited a country with a triple digit inflation rate, salaries were not being paid to it's workers, pensions were not paid to it's elderly. All of Russian wealth was being siphoned to the west by these oligarchs who enjoy living and vacationing in Nato countries.

Today, the climate is changing, people are moving back to Russia, the capital is flowing back into the nation, the workers see a steady annual increase in their salaries and their standards of living, the housing values have never been stronger, and Russia is presently one of Europes most important markets, and best of all the impacts of western economic troubles do not affect the russian markets negatively, in fact will help because the WEST and NATO will shift more their capital investmants to Russia and the other BRIC nations at the first sign of an economic downturn.

Finally, let's talk about domestic popularity. Putin left with a 80+% approval rating, how do we like our Bush, less than 23% of Americans approve of him today.

So on a social level, Putin and Mededev's leadership is proving a great deal superior to the West. And all those who agree with this article, should look at the economic, social and other available data before making your conclusions.

Alex

USA

writeon
03 September 2008 at 07:57

These kind of articles aren't printed to inform or 'entertain', but merely to irritate and rile people, under the device that any attention is better than no attention. What a waste of space!

David George
24 November 2008 at 14:53

To Lumidek

main point is that so calledd South Ossetia has always benn a heartland of Georgia. It is historical Georgian land. Georgia has a right to maintain it's territorial integrity and not to be a sattelite of corrupt and undemocratic Russia ad to strive towards Europe.