Posted on 08/21/2008 2:24:04 AM PDT by HAL9000
Yes, except that this statement was made before the Soviet Union collapsed -- and we have never allowed ourselves to be that vulnerable since then. If anything, we've gone the other direction completely, treating Russia as though the Cold War was still on at a time when we had no cause to (especially back in the 1990's), because Russia had neither had the means nor the intent of being a threat to us or to Europe during that period.
That isn’t a bottom line that’s equivocation. The bottom line is Georgia is a sovereign independent democracy and an ally that our President promised to support. An ally in the WOT with the third largest contingent of combat troops committed to Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have a large map of the world mounted on my office wall, and I do fairly well on the geography quizzes.
The mistake we make with adding countries to NATO is that we are increasing our risk and could undermine the credibility of NATO if we fail to act. Georgia was part of Russia. It is not the same as France, Germany, Poland, or Turkey.
I agree that it increases the risk. Is it worth the risk to admit Georgia and Ukraine? In my opinion, yes. Moscow is a growing threat to the world again. This is not the time to act cowardly about confronting the threat. But it doesn't mean that we'll start nuking each other.
We defeated the Soviet Union with Stinger missiles and a good economy. No nuclear weapons were needed. We can defeat Russia with conventional means again, if it becomes necessary.
I miss Boris Yeltsin. Things were better when he was in charge. Russia needs another Yeltsin.
I also don't see that America has "gone the other direction." I'm sorry but that's just about offensive to suggest that America in any way has become an imperialistic conquering empire. We've been carrying the load and juggling all the proxy wars and threats to western civilization that Russia and China have intentionally fomented for decades.
Georgia is far more ancient than Poland.
"On 8 August 2008, Georgia became a victim of a direct large-scale military aggression by Russia. The Georgian airspace was invaded several times since the early morning. The Russian jets bombed Kareli and Gori towns, as well as Shavshvebi, Variani, Tsedisi villages. Practically, within 20 minutes, the territory between Ksuisi and Khelchua villages was bombed. The Russian jets were flying over Tskhinvali, Marneuli and Gudauri for rather enough time. Majority of the abovementioned populated regions are located beyond the conflict zone."
We or the Georgians? That remains to be seen. Perhaps we are all better off having been awakened to the true nature of Russia today. Perhaps NATO will step up admission for Georgia now. Perhaps Ukraine will be able sooner to prepare for whatever may be in their future. Perhaps we are better off because Poland signed the deal with us, many say because of Russia's invasion of Georgia. There are signs that foreign investors are both leaving Russia in droves and supporting Georgia.
So how well do you think NATO can project conventional forces into Georgia? It was tough enough just to do it in Kosovo and Bosnia.
I agree that it increases the risk. Is it worth the risk to admit Georgia and Ukraine? In my opinion, yes.
We will agree to disagree. The risk is far greater than the reward. It feeds into Russian paranoia and is counterproductive.
This is not the time to act cowardly about confronting the threat. But it doesn't mean that we'll start nuking each other.
I prefer the word prudently vice cowardly. We don't have the conventional force to confront Russia militarily in Georgia or the Ukraine. We are much better off using other means to defeat their ambitions.
We defeated the Soviet Union with Stinger missiles and a good economy.
LOL. It took almost 50 years of the Cold War to defeat the Soviet Union and communism. Korea, Vietnam, the Cuban-missile crisis, Berlin airlift, Greneda, etc. were all part of it along with our assisting either overtly or covertly the Eastern Europeans and Afghans. We expended a huge amount of resources to provide a security umbrella for Europe and Japan. Many lives were lost. To dismiss all of this and attribute the defeat of the Soviet Union to stinger missiles and a good economy ignores history and the facts. The defeat of the Soviet Union started with the "Long Telegram" and ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall.
No nuclear weapons were needed
What planet are you living on/ If you don't think that the thousands of nuclear weapons in our arsenal had no effect on the fall of the Soviet Union, you have no understanding of deterrence and the containment policy.
We can defeat Russia with conventional means again, if it becomes necessary.
It depends on what you mean by defeat. And certainly the downfall of the Soviet Union was not caused by just "conventional means."
It wasn't so difficult with Serbia. It was strictly an air war.
I'm no military strategist, so at the risk of being labeled an armchair general, here's what I'd do: The first thing I'd hit in South Ossetia is the south end of the Roki tunnel, with a few cruise missiles. That would cut off Russia's overland supply routes into the province. I'd equip the Georgians with MANPADs to knock out the air bridges, and I'd hit the Ossetian airstrips and Russian arms depots. Repeat as necessary. We can accomplish a lot with very few boots-on-the-ground, and make life miserable for the Russian invaders.
We are much better off using other means to defeat their ambitions.
We should not take the military option off the table, but we can start with other means and see if they are effective. Often, they are. I generally prefer to use diplomacy first. If that fails, go to sanctions. If that fails, increase the sanctions. By then, Russia is feeling some pain. If they still refuse to withdraw, military force is the last resort.
What planet are you living on/ If you don't think that the thousands of nuclear weapons in our arsenal had no effect on the fall of the Soviet Union, you have no understanding of deterrence and the containment policy.
I believe I have a fairly good understanding of threats and deterrents. If you check the archives here, you'll find that I was alone in posting warnings about bin Laden and the Taliban on the morning of 9/11 before the attacks occurred. Where were you?
Serbia isn't Russia. It doesn't have either the conventional arms capability or a nuclear arsenal. It took 78 days of bombing. We still had to occupy Kosovo and have been there for about 10 years.
I'm no military strategist, so at the risk of being labeled an armchair general, here's what I'd do: The first thing I'd hit in South Ossetia is the south end of the Roki tunnel, with a few cruise missiles. That would cut off Russia's overland supply routes into the province. I'd equip the Georgians with MANPADs to knock out the air bridges, and I'd hit the Ossetian airstrips and Russian arms depots. Repeat as necessary. We can accomplish a lot with very few boots-on-the-ground, and make life miserable for the Russian invaders.
I am no military strategist either but I did spend 8 years as a naval officer, including a year in Vietnam and another 8 months off of the coast. I will just say that I agree with you that you are just an armchair general who doesn't understand how difficult what you propose is to execute. We are having major problems coping with the Taliban in Afghanistan and the infiltration of its borders by AQ. Iraq has been no picnic. What you propose doing on the doorstep of Russia, which has a sizeable number of sympathizers and supporters within South Ossetia will require a massive amount of troops and a logistical nightmare to support.
I believe I have a fairly good understanding of threats and deterrents. If you check the archives here, you'll find that I was alone in posting warnings about bin Laden and the Taliban on the morning of 9/11 before the attacks occurred. Where were you?
I was well aware of the threat that Bin Laden presented since he issued his 1996 fatwa declaring war against us. After the bombing of our embassies in East Africa, AQ represented a personal threat to my safety. I am well aware the threat Islamic fundamentalism poses having been in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution and the rise of Khomeini.
August 8th is after Saakashvili launched his attack. Saakashvili was warned not to attack South Ossetia. Russia was poised to strike. When Saakashvili unleashed his assault on a civilian area (Tskhinvali) Russia responded.
As harsh as Russia's response has been, how would you like it if Russia had responded as NATO did in Yugoslavia, by bombing Tbilisi? Or if Russia launched a GRAD missile attack on Tbilisi, like Saakashvili did on Tskhinvali.?
I appreciate Georgia's support in the WOT, but I'm not about to give them a blank check when their leader is so stupid!
As bad as things were, they are much worse now!
Very well said!
Something else to chew on...
The U.S. ambassador to Moscow, in a rare U.S. comment endorsing Russia's initial moves in Georgia, described the Kremlin's first military response as legitimate after Russian troops came under attack."Now we see Russian forces, which responded to attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, legitimately, we see those forces now having advanced on to the soil of Georgia; Georgian territorial integrity is in question here"“We did not want to see a recourse to violence and force and we made that very, very clear”
“The fact that we were trying to convince the Georgian side not to take this step is clear evidence that we did not want all this to happen"
“We have seen the destruction of civilian infrastructure, as well as calls by some Russian politicians to change the democratically-elected government of Georgia. Some question the territorial integrity of Georgia. That is why we believe that Russia has gone too far
You know, Tiger, I really don't know for sure. I do suspect that we have an image of Russia that is far more "organized and inscrutable" than they actually are. My guess is that they are just politically feeling their way around in the dark like the rest of us.
"I for one have never thought they had changed and have always thought we had good cause to distrust them."
They did go through major changes, between the days of the Soviet Union, Yeltsin and Putin.
When the Soviet Union collapsed and Yeltsin took power, we sent in advisers to help them restructure their economy and those advisers were idiots. The results of that "economic restructuring" in Russia were ordinary Russians selling their personal belongings on the street in order to feed themselves, and the rise of both the Russian Mafia and the oligarchs. Meanwhile, Russia was no longer treated as "a power" at all, and was routinely humiliated in places like Kosovo. Russians learned quickly that to be subservient to the US meant continual humiliation. Hence the rise of Putin -- a strong leader. Like him or hate him, Putin is for Russia, first, foremost and always. Is Putin "our friend"? Hell, no!
As for "trusting Russia" -- hey, I don't "trust" Germany, France, England and many days, I don't even "trust" our government. So why should I trust Russia? No country should ever completely rely on another. You set mutually agreed upon rules, red lines and you don't cross them. That's how you tell whether can "trust them", not by trying to imply intentions or consulting crystal balls.
"I also don't see that America has "gone the other direction." I'm sorry but that's just about offensive to suggest that America in any way has become an imperialistic conquering empire."
By "gone the other way", I was referring to treating Russia as the enemy at a time when they neither had the means nor a leadership (Yeltsin) who had any intention of attacking us or our interests. Russia was completely hamstrung back then. They couldn't have fought their way out of a paper bag, and they knew it.
"I'm sorry but that's just about offensive to suggest that America in any way has become an imperialistic conquering empire. We've been carrying the load and juggling all the proxy wars and threats to western civilization that Russia and China have intentionally fomented for decades."
You are putting words in my mouth here, Tiger. I never said that.
Quite the opposite, I think Americans are about the only people on this earth who are willing to fight for ideals when there is nothing in it for them. America took great pride in fighting "a humanitarian war" in the Balkans where we got absolutely nothing out of it, except unknowingly planting the seeds that would result in 9/11 and later the Fort Dix Six. We have nearly bankrupted ourselves fighting in Iraq, and have gotten nothing out of that either, not even cheaper oil. We Americans fight for selfless ideals and are absolutely sure that this is our God appointed duty.
On the other hand, this blind loyalty to "ideals" also makes us Americans vulnerable to being manipulated if we are not careful, and most Americans aren't careful. The vast majority of Americans do not debate rationally like you and are, they just allow themselves to get moved by rhetoric and emotionality. They follow what "their guy" (take your pick) says, regardless of whether or not it makes sense -- and they don't educate themselves enough on the issues to know whether or not it makes sense. And this "blind faith" approach has not made us stronger as a country, it has made us weaker.
We SHOULD be asking questions before we go marching off to war somewhere far from our shores. We SHOULD be asking for facts and not just rely on old prejudices for information. We SHOULD be weighing the consequences of our actions ahead of time, because that's what adults do. We SHOULD be looking in the mirror and asking ourselves if this is the right thing to do and if there is any other way. That isn't "being a liberal". That's being an adult.
While I KNOW that the American people are not "imperialists", I will admit that Kosovo has made me a complete skeptic about our State Department and the people that our government plays footsies with. I don't trust the intentions of globalists as far as I can throw them and I know that they have far too much influence on our country's foreign policy. These globalists ARE "imperialists", because in case you haven't noticed, the money that was spent getting us to this level of national debt, had to go "somewhere". In whose pockets did it go? Who has gotten rich off us going broke? Who has gotten rich off the spoils of our wars, because we certainly haven't. And what positions of power are those who benefited from our increasing national debt in, now? I want to know before they lead us by the nose into the next adventure that we can't afford, but that benefits their company's "global position".
This confrontation with Russia may be as simple as it sounds, and may be based on competing ideals. But I want to know that for sure and not just get led by the nose into another globalist adventure that gets the globalists richer, and makes America poorer and more vulnerable -- let alone risks starting WWIII.
I wish the State Dept. had its own territory so we could send in a column of tanks and do some "peace keeping" on them.
I'll second that! Have a nice weekend!
Launching a cruise missile action on the Roki tunnel would not be easy, but I am highly confident of our capabilities if it becomes necessary to do that.
I am well aware the threat Islamic fundamentalism poses having been in Tehran during the Iranian Revolution and the rise of Khomeini.
I was nearby when all that and some other stuff occurred. The heads were rolling in my area.
SEE MY POST 68
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.