← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hilaire Belloc
Thread ID: 9100 | Posts: 6 | Started: 2003-08-17
2003-08-17 03:55 | User Profile
** [url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3157063.stm]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3157063.stm[/url]
[u]All eyes on Georgia's future[/u]
**Old adversaries the US and Russia are locking horns once more, keen for a stake in the political future of Georgia. **
Old adversaries the US and Russia are locking horns once more, keen for a stake in the political future of Georgia.
It has been a febrile summer in Georgia - full of electricity and rumours.
A sense of foreboding hangs over the capital, Tbilisi, thick and heavy like the clouds that have rolled south off the Caucasus mountains.
The heavens have opened in great torrential downpours and hillsides that by now should be parched a burnt-out shade of brown are lush and green.
The US has a commitment to keeping a stability in Georgia
Nobody has known a summer like it.
The auguries are not good. The politics have matched the meteorological chaos.
Georgia finds itself on the cusp of potentially momentous change.
Parliamentary elections are due in November and battle has been waged - with a vengeance.
The stakes this year are high - because the outcome may have a critical bearing on who succeeds President Eduard Shevardnadze when he steps down in 2005.
And it is not just the Georgians who are watching.
Wedged between Russia to the north and Turkey and Iran to the south, the southern Caucasus has always been a battleground of empires, faiths and ideologies.
Tiny and distant
The old rituals are being played out again. The world's only global superpower has locked horns with a Russia weakened and confused but still the biggest player in the region.
But why should Washington be interested in tiny distant Georgia?
The answer is oil, geo-politics and the changed world after 9/11.
The United States has invested huge political and financial capital in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, a vast project that will take Caspian Sea oil from Azerbaijan, via Georgia to the Turkish Mediterranean coast.
The project provides the US with a massive alternative source of energy in the event of instability in the Middle East.
Put simply, it wants to ensure that its investment is protected.
That means a commitment to stability and democracy in Georgia that goes beyond occasional words of support.
So when the Georgians asked for US help against Chechen and al-Qaeda forces operating in Georgia's lawless Pankisi Gorge, Washington was quick to oblige.
The Stars and Stripes have arrived.
What began as a trickle is now a steady flow.
I no longer do a double-take when I see a group of shaven-skulled marines strolling with studied nonchalance through the streets of Tbilisi.
They are always in threes, though, never alone.
It is strange though to watch these lantern-jawed soldiers stroll down streets where only years ago the Soviet Union paraded its missiles and screamed "Urraah!" to the glory of the October Revolution.
I remember those days well because I was here then as a student.
A rare phenomenon I was too - Moscow did not encourage the appearance of foreigners in the far-flung reaches of its teetering empire.
Good reasons
On one sublimely surreal occasion, I was walking with two girls when they were hauled off the street by KGB goons and given a grilling - what did they think they were doing in public with a foreigner?
Now in the air-conditioned luxury of a Marriott hotel, I watch a group of off-duty US soldiers sip iced cokes and flirt with a Georgian waitress.
She is barely old enough to remember the Soviet Union and the chances are she does not speak a word of Russian.
The second language of choice now is English.
The stakes are high in the forthcoming elections
Georgia has good reason to be well-disposed to Uncle Sam.
Washington has propped up its fragile independence to the tune of one billion dollars plus.
That makes Georgians the second biggest per capita recipients of US aid after the Israelis.
It also gives Washington an increasing stake - and say - in the political future of the country.
The US ambassador is described by many here as minister extraordinary to President Shevardnadze's government.
Moscow has watched these goings on in its backyard with a mixture of disbelief and horror.
When Washington first unveiled its plans to train three battalions of the Georgian army up to NATO standards, there was uproar in Russia.
This summer has made things worse.
Rage
First, a US spy plane cruised along the Georgian-Russian border, then Nato sent one of its ultra-sophisticated Awac patrol planes on a goodwill visit to Tbilisi.
The Kremlin was apoplectic with rage.
And that is why it too is watching Georgia's elections with close interest.
It is assumed by all that Moscow will try to manipulate the elections.
In the back-stabbing world that passes for Georgian politics, accusations of treachery fly thick and fast.
And this summer Russia has made some timely reminders of its power.
The gas giant, Gazprom, has acquired a virtual monopoly over the supply and distribution of Georgian gas, and the Russian energy company, UES, has just bought a controlling stake in the electricity system.
It is Russia now - or Russian companies - who will determine the price of gas and electricity in Georgia.
And those are important considerations in an election year. **
I believe John Steibeck in his "A Russian Journal" talks about an conversation with a young Pioneer about what would happen if Russia got involved with Mexican internal affairs and decided to send troops to mexico. Steinbeck replied in such a situation the US would probally declare war, to which the pioneer replied that the US has troops stationed in Turkey and yet Russia(err USSR) hasn't declared war.
My how little changes!
2003-08-18 00:48 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Aug 17 2003, 18:27 * ** To be quite frank: The Soviet Union of Stalin seems to be a paradise compared to the USA of today.
It would interest me what Russians think should be done about this situation? **
I would agree too Leland. At least Stalin was somewhat of a Slavophile, even if he did oppurtunistically use Russian traditions and patriotism to further his own gain. Trotsky was the typical Russia-hater and cared nothing for Russia or its people.
"Better to wear the helmet of a Red Army soldier than to live on a diet of hamburgers in Brooklyn." Alain de Benoist 1982
2003-08-18 10:31 | User Profile
While I do not presume to speak for my racial cousins (my motherââ¬â¢s family traces its roots to Russia), I do have a few comments.
Obviously, so long as US and Russia maintain cordial relations, or at least pretend to, US will get some of its oil via Georgia and there is no point in Russia refusing the influx of capital into its own industries and into Georgia itself. Business is business after all, and this particular set up is better than most because in the long term the advantage belongs to Russia. Their end of the bargain amounts to granting easement while the US grows dependant on their resources and safe passage.
The only downside here is that American cultural imperialism that normally accompanies the dollar will make the Georgians more receptive to US influence. Russiaââ¬â¢s capacity to influence the region will suffer correspondingly. But this, I think, is something that is inevitable and can be seen wherever the US practices its brand of Capitalism. The American ways, when not exported via force, are quite seductive, no matter the sophistication of the receptive population. Russia would not be able to compete for the hearts and minds of the Georgians even without the dollar disadvantage -- troubled neighbourly history in a region always makes the newcomer seem more attractive.
Fortunately, from the Russian standpoint, it does not matter that Georgians will soon develop a fetish for all things American. Proximity guarantees that if things get sour, Russia, so long as she remains strong and does not neglect to maintain at least some her nuclear arsenal in working order, can roll up the region at will and deny the Americans access.
I believe that this precise scenario will be played out in many current destinations for ââ¬Åoutsourcing.ââ¬Â It will happen when some combination of decrease in American consumption, increase in the consumption of the manufacturing populations, increased confidence and military strength of those regions, and massive American defaulting of foreign loans takes place. Very plainly, when the natives supplant Americans as the chief consumers of the products they themselves produce, the former third world countries will either nationalize the American plants (the Soviet method following the Revolution) or divvy them up among their industrialists. Why return profits and pay royalties when you donââ¬â¢t have to?
I can just imagine the [fill in foreigner] response to a Westernerââ¬â¢s claim of ownership based on a piece of paper. ââ¬ÅYou say you have a deed, white man, thatââ¬â¢s fascinating, is at least of the soft tissue variety so you may find some use for it?ââ¬Â The white man will want to meditate on the appropriate response since (as is likely) the confiscating nation will be a member of the nuclear club.
Bottom line, looking after the industrial home front is infinitely more important than keeping score of oversees possessions. You own something when you have physical possession of it. Remote control is temporary.
2003-08-18 16:41 | User Profile
So in other words Sisyfos, let the American come in and Russia should let them destroy their own interests in the region? This is a typical Russian strategy, especially when out-matched, basically to use your enemies' strength to your advantage and use it against them eventually. This is what happened during the Mongol domination of Russia, basically Moscow became so powerful because it kissed the Mongols' asses so much. Yet by gaining all this power and prestige, Moscow soon bcame the major base for the fight against the Mongols.
I believe one political analyst actually said that Russia might be wanting to seek closer relations with NATO and the US just so they can gain better knowlegde of their true capabilites and thus use that knowledge to their own advantage.
I do agree that if Russia is to have any influence either regionally or internationally, it must have a strong internal base. Even Solzhenitsyn argues this in his "On the Russian question at the end of the 20th century". Solzhenitsyn argues that Russia's constant involvement abroad in many ways imperiled development back home and only seeked to weaken, not strengthen Russia.
Leeland does have a point that Russia should provoke a border conflict. I do believe Georgia isn't doing :dung: to try to stop the inflow of Chechen guerrillas into their territory, and Putin has threatened potential military action if Georgia refuses to act.
However, I would advise caution on this approach, because we don't know the full resolve of NATO. Although it would be funny if NATO was actually stucked in a situation like in the movie "Sum of all Fears", where NATO sends peacekeepers to Chechnya only to find out that the only way they can prevent a massive Russian counter-offensive is with tactical nuclear weapons. So now the West is causing a potential nuclear war over land that was never their concern.
Also there's the potential that Russia would be dragged into a similar situation in Iraq, a popular terrorist-guerrilla war against a hated foreigner. With a similar situation in Chechnya, I don't think it would benifet Russia to have to fight another similar war.
I believe Russia should assert itself in the region, but I caution against taking a too aggressive stance or a weak stance. Try to maintain a balance if possible. If war is the only effective option, then so be it!
2003-08-18 21:19 | User Profile
** The American presence in Georgia has nothing to do with economic interests. It's all about geo-strategy. Anyone can see how the ring around Russia is being drawn. Expanding of NATO far into the east (Baltics, Ukraine). Troops in Georgia and other Kaukasus-Republics (bases in the "War against Terror" yeah, sure!) as well as in Afghanistan and Turkey.**
Yes I've noticed that too. I agree that geo-strategy is primarily the reason, economics is just "icing on the cake" as we say in America.
A good essay to read is "America: Imperial Ambitions Rekindled" by Anatolii Utkin. He talks about America's ambitions to dominate the world and how by doing so will force Russia to assert herself in the world, and that America is highly underestimating Russia's real and potential geo-political strength.
www.eastview.com offers good journals on Russian economic/diplomatic/military issues often with articles and essasies written by Russia's greatest experts in the fields. I think you find it interesting Leeland.
**The excuse that the are training the georgian soldiers is simply laughable. Georgia does not have the high tech weapons or the money to obtain them, which the US-Military uses. As for the soldiers, the americans would be the last I would want to be trained by. They are just a bunch of whiney pussies and start to cry because the sun is to hot or their rations dont taste good. (Just look at Iraq). **
I couldn't agree more Leeland! The American military has the policy of trying to fight wars with smart weaponry alone, so called "post-heroic warfare". Yet even many American military analysts say that this often just leads to half-ass measures in combat. Even David Hackworth talked about how the Serbs outfoxed NATO during the 1999 bombings.
The US is also trying to develop a "smart uniform" that will do everything, even keep the suit at a comfortable temperature for the soldier. Russians just do it the old fashion way, they train in the snow with as minimal clothing so as to get their soldiers used to the cold.
But again, if I had to advise Putin on this, my advice would be a cautious but aggressive approach to this situation. Perhaps Americans need to listen to the advice of Otto von Bismarck
** "Russia is never as strong nor as weak as she appears."**
2003-08-21 07:32 | User Profile
*Originally posted by Leland Gaunt@Aug 18 2003, 11:11 * ** As for the soldiers, the americans would be the last I would want to be trained by. They are just a bunch of whiney pussies and start to cry because the sun is to hot or their rations dont taste good. (Just look at Iraq). The Russians have the toughest soldiers one can imagine. I doubt that the Americans could ever get over defeats like Russia did in 1941 without running off and quiting. Russians lost almost 4 times more soldiers in Stalingrad then the USA in the entire war, and they didn't quit. 58.000 in Vietnam and they are still crying about it.
**
Good point. I get really sick of hearing from people in this country "America has the most powerful army that the world has ever seen". Bullshit. Russians may be impoverished, but they are hard as nails. Every generation of Russian men sees combat, and they are very brutal and tough. In contrast, Amerikwa staffs the ranks of her army with teenaged girls.
As I said in another thread, is it really any wonder why President Klinton stated emphatically, in 1999, that NO GROUND TROOPS would be deployed against the Chetniks under any circumstances? The Serbs would have handed the US Army her multicultural ass.