Comments on: Kaplan on Russian Aggression in Georgia

By: GeorgiaINFO

GeorgiaINFO — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 07:21:53 +0000

GEORGIAN TERRITORIES
BOMBED BY RUSSIAN JETS
(PHOTOS)

http://www.georgia.inf.ge/

By: fabius.maximus.cunctator

fabius.maximus.cunctator — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 21:31:15 +0000

Chirol,

The article seemed quite interesting at first but how can one trust the judgement of a man who cannot get even the moste basic fatcs right ?
“…Germany, which, even under a conservative government, as this crisis reveals, is becoming more a neutral power than a Western nation”
Miserable twaddle I must say. The present German govt is a highly unhappy and divided coalition consisting of the mainstream conservative “Union” of CDU and CSU and the socialist Social Democrats (SPD). Germany has not had a conservative government since 1998.
Anyone with basic literacy in English and internet access cd have checked that out. Is Mr. Kaplan the great sage too lazy , too ignorant or too intent on European bashing to get the basic facts right ? And how is a reader who cannot check up on the facts about Georgia with comparable ease to trust the other facts let alone the great sage`s deductions?
Well, I guess I will not waste more time on that one.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:28:05 +0000

Augustinus: Note that Azerbaijan is
a) Antagonistic to Iran (ethnic conflict).
b) Friendly with Turkey (a NATO member and one of the more secularized of the Muslim countries).
c) A partner in the BTC pipeline, thus having an interest in who controls it. and
d) A small country wedged between two larger countries.

They may be amenable to participation in such an alliance as you described.

By: Elambend

Elambend — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 01:22:46 +0000

Armenia, Azerbaijan; they no like each other. Armenia has a real affinity for Russia as a protector and Russia will always be closer.

By: Augustinus von Moltke

Augustinus von Moltke — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:19:30 +0000

One will note that Georgia and Armenia, combined, provide and airspace corridor to a potentially interesting region. Both are Christian nations, which would not be inherently predisposed to hostility towards the US and Western values. Azerbaijan, furthermore, has both a sovietized and Turkish sense of religion, and a long-standing animosity towards Russia. Splitting off these nations from the CIS, and from Russian influence in the Caucasus could be a feat that Russia accomplishes for the West, so long as the West illustrates that it could provide support (and perhaps development).

The Ukrainian ports of the Crimea, with a bit of Western persuasion, and perhaps a further revelation of the Russian hand, could find themselves inaccessible to Russia’s Black Sea fleet (I personally witnesses a US docking in Sevastopol a short while ago). Perhaps Russia is attempting to annex more coast and more port access. I wonder if the Georgian coast is somehow preferrable to Novorossisk or Russian territorial coast.

Is the reliability of Russian military hardware beyond doubt? Unclear is whether US and EU interests are served by Russia proximity to the main non-Russian gas pipeline. Russia is a hostage-taker, not a diplomat, and I hope this event will promote a more skeptical policy towards Russia by Germany and France.

The irony of this piece is that it describes Georgia, a Russian hostage for 75 years, in terms which could aptly describe Russia (absent, of course, the description of democracy around the capital). Coordinated and effective aggression is not proof of good governance, as both the Russian mafia-state and perhaps the Iraq skirmish may indicate.

Drawing the Caucasus into the Western sphere is more than simply diplomatic pretense. Germany did not rebuild itself after the war, but well-organized financing did. I know of no such plan for the Caucasus.

By: ElamBend

ElamBend — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:24:08 +0000

Curzon,
It’s very important, and not surprising, that those particular leaders are giving support to Georgia, particularly by going there. They need to recognize this a decision point on how they’re going to invest in defense, though.
Also, so far it seems as if Russia did treat the BTC pipeline as a redline to be avoided (despite early reports that they bombed it).

By: feeblemind

feeblemind — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 04:05:52 +0000

It appears that Georgia, as a partner in the coalition of the bribed, errr make that ‘willing’, mistook an IOU from the US for a blank check. Memo to the State Dept.: Just because you CAN forge an alliance with a country does not mean you SHOULD. QUESTIONS: Would Russia have attacked Georgia had they been a NATO member? Will Russia use the Georgia template on a NATO member in the future? My thoughts from high in the peanut gallery.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:17:03 +0000

The counterpoint to this is, of course, that countries are “waking up” to Russia’s might, and the dismissals of its potential to invade neighboring nations now rings hollow. And while Kaplan rightly notes Germany’s weak response, the leaders of Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia are all visiting Georgia right now in a show of solidarity.

By: Curzon

Curzon — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:12:57 +0000

“The truth is, Russia has called the Westâ��s bluff on Georgia and won… Vladimir Putin saw through all these pretenses. He saw that the United States, bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan, and still hoping for Russian support in imposing sanctions on Iran, was all alone and, furthermore, ambivalent in this crisis. He saw that Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili, despite his nationalistic bravado, was a weak democratic leader with weak armed forces. And he saw on the map that Georgia was engulfed by Russia, with the West far away. This is not the Balkans, which have the good fortune of bordering Central Europe, and are therefore ultimately prone to robust NATO involvement. This is the Caucasus, whose neighbors are Russia, Iran, the poorest part of Turkey, and the Caspian Sea.”

Forget the fuss over the preemption doctrine we were hearing in 2003. This event may be the biggest geopolitical event of the 2000s.

By: ElamBend

ElamBend — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:06:29 +0000

This is just a further lowering of the curtains upon Europe’s power on the world stage. It is not necessarily permanent, but for the foreseeable future Europe is waning.
I hope I am wrong and this is a wake up call, but when even Poland is spending 2% [maybe less] on defense, I’m not optimistic.