International Politics Thread

[ralphwiggum 6]

Why do you support autonomy of SO when you don't support it for Afghanistan?

I don't.

I support Russia as the regional power and safeguard of stability in theatre.

And this is exactly why Russians are not welcome. They want to rebuild the empire that they once had, and don't give much considerations for others. Georgia wanted no part of it(in other words don't want to be Russia's slave) and now Russia is bullying Georgia through SO.

[Baff1 0]

As far as I'm concerned Russia needs to act like a bully.

Power respects power.

A power vacuum is not something the Russians can afford with both NATO and the EU actively engaged in a policy of expansion.

I'm glad myself and the Russians feel the same way about Georgia.

I doubt the Russians living so close and being as historically involved with Georgia feel anything like as blasé about it as I do.

I'm sure it's rather a more complex relationship for them. Eitherway they are the most trustworthy force in the region and I hope they are willing to stay on top of it.

If you are a student of Afghan history you may enjoy Churchill's memoires and also The Great Game by Peter Hopkirk.

[Baff1 0]

Why do you support autonomy of SO when you don't support it for Afghanistan?

I don't.

I support Russia as the regional power and safeguard of stability in theatre.

And this is exactly why Russians are not welcome. They want to rebuild the empire that they once had, and don't give much considerations for others. Georgia wanted no part of it(in other words don't want to be Russia's slave) and now Russia is bullying Georgia through SO.

Tough.

I feel the same way about being a member of the EU.

So what?

Ossetia feels the same way about Georgia as Georgia feels about Russia. Someone has to lose. That's life.

There is no moral high ground here.

Although if I was the kind of person to go looking for one, the artillery bombardment of civilian population centres would be where I began my search.

[ralphwiggum 6]

As far as I'm concerned Russia needs to act like a bully.

Power respects power.

A power vacuum is not something the Russians can afford with both NATO and the EU actively engaged in a policy of expansion.

I'm glad myself and the Russians feel the same way about Georgia.

I doubt the Russians living so close and being as historically involved with Georgia feel anything like as blasee about it as I do.

I'm sure it's rather a more complex relationship for them. Eitherway they are the most trustworthy force in the region and I hope they are willing to stay on top of it.

Basically you admitted that Russia should be allowed to do whatever it wants to do. Bravo. you just confirmed a lot of people's argument. Perhaps Russia can be a bully, but it needs to stop whining like a baby when smaller regions that were once part of Soviet Union gets its independence. If power respects power, when Chinese over run Russians, don't fret over it. When chechens run Russians off, when mongols run russian off, it's all the same.

Quote[/b] ]Ossetia feels the same way about Georgia as Georgia feels about Russia. Someone has to lose. That's life.

There is no moral high ground here.

So whoever has the power can do whatever he wants, right?

Quote[/b] ]Although if I was the kind of person to go looking for one, the artillery bombardment of civilian population centres would be where I began my search.

Chechenya?

[Spokesperson 0]

RalphWiggum is a known talker. When he has no facts or knowledge about something he just keeps on talking rubbish.

Afghanistan, when things were pretty ok, was socialist. Women went to school, were doctors and pilots. Talibans didn't like this and started a civil war. Then USSR went there to help, and CIA started to train bin Ladin & Co. After 10 years, the USSR retreated. Today in Afghanistan US plays around there, the difference is that there are a lot fewer troops there. But the violence is escalating. It hasn't been this bad since the invasion 2001.

Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians (100k), Romanians (400k), Czechs (30k) died while fighting for nazism in the USSR. Hungary and Romania were never invaded by any nazi forces, they joined the axis voluntarily. Even today there are many nazis in Hungary for instance. Many riots in recent years. This kind of people went from street to street and shot suspected socialists during the revolt.

Chechnya never wanted to be a separate republic. Some religious extemists wanted this. In SO. 80% of the population are Russian Citizens. They had a vote where a majority supported independence.

[ralphwiggum 6]

RalphWiggum is a known talker. When he has no facts or knowledge about something he just keeps on talking rubbish.

Afghanistan, when things were pretty ok, was socialist. Women went to school, were doctors and pilots. Talibans didn't like this and started a civil war. Then USSR went there to help, and CIA started to train bin Ladin & Co. After 10 years, the USSR retreated. Today in Afghanistan US plays around there, the difference is that there are a lot fewer troops there. But the violence is escalating. It hasn't been this bad since the invasion 2001.

Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians (100k), Romanians (400k), Czechs (30k) died while fighting for nazism in the USSR. Hungary and Romania were never invaded by any nazi forces, they joined the axis voluntarily. Even today there are many nazis in Hungary for instance. Many riots in recent years. This kind of people went from street to street and shot suspected socialists during the revolt.

Chechnya never wanted to be a separate republic. Some religious extemists wanted this. In SO. 80% of the population are Russian Citizens. They had a vote where a majority supported independence.

Ok, I've had enough of your talking. Last time I asked you to provide source for some other argument which you conveniently ignored.

[Baff1 0]

Yes, a it's a fact of life.

If you have the power you can do it.

What's important to me is that the balance of power is maintained.

I don't want a new world order, I'm kind of attached to the current one.

As far as I'm concerned Russia can do whatever it likes in that part of the world. I can't think of anyone capable of stopping them.

And frankly I can't think of anyone else I'd prefer to see wielding that power.

I'm certainly no sympathiser with the Chechen's. They have proved themselves to be enemies of my nation.

I don't see either the Mongols or the Chinese to be any particular threat to Russia, the Chinese have their own seperatists to deal with and show no intrest in expanding into Russia's backyard.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Yes, a it's a fact of life.

If you have the power you can do it.

Good. don't come back to this forum.

Quote[/b] ]What's important to me is that the balance of power is maintained.

And Russia being No.1 is not exactly a balance of power.

Quote[/b] ]As far as I'm concerned Russia can do whatever it likes in that part of the world. I can't think of anyone capable of stopping them.

And frankly I can't think of anyone else I'd prefer to see wielding that power.

I'm certainly no sympathiser with the Chechen's. They have proved themselves to be enemies of my nation.

Idon't see either the Mongols or the Chinese to be any particular threat to Russia, the Chinese have their own seperatists to deal with and show no intrest in expanding into Russia's backyard.

China and Russia had enough arguing between each other, and although current situation is no worse, in the past there were time when they wanted to punch and kill each other. Who knows what will happen in future. Maybe China wants to be No. 1, which they have to fight Russia to get to.

[chris330 0]

I don't wish to engage in the political discussions in this thread (I'm not skilled enough in political analysis to do so) but just a bit O/T a question to those in the know and/or those near to the area, how much could this potentially escalate to and how likely is it to reach that potential?

I've heard there's talk of a potential West vs. East showdown here and that's always something likely to make people nervous whilst hostilities continue.

[Baff1 0]

Russia isn't number 1, America is no.1.

I think China is more intrested in Pacific expansion currently.

While I don't see them fighting either Russia or America, I feel that if America was to withdraw from the pacific the Chinese fleet would almost instantly replace theirs in the harbours of Taiwan.

[Baff1 0]

I don't wish to engage in the political discussions in this thread (I'm not skilled enough in political analysis to do so) but just a bit O/T a question to those in the know and/or those near to the area, how much could this potentially escalate to and how likely is it to reach that potential?

I've heard there's talk of a potential West vs. East showdown here and that's always something likely to make people nervous whilst hostilities continue.

Can't see it myself.

The Russian's have already deployed 10 years ago.

It might put the knockers on Georgia's NATO application, but that's about as far as it can go.

The U.S., if it had the will could deploy to Georgia I suppose, but there isn't room for another army in Ossetia.

In the end, Georgia just isn't worth it to the west. Everything to lose and nothing to gain.

We've already got a war on two fronts. We're too busy.

This is Russia's tea party. They are on their own.

[ralphwiggum 6]

Russia isn't number 1, America is no.1.

So Russia wants to be #1 while China wants to be #1. Sooner or later, Russia and China has to fight each other.

Quote[/b] ]I think China is more intrested in Pacific expansion currently.

While I don't see them fighting either Russia or America, I feel that if America was to withdraw from the pacific the Chinese fleet would almost instantly replace theirs in the harbours of Taiwan.

And when east is done, time for west.

[chris330 0]

Can't see it myself.

The Russian's have already deployed 10 years ago.

It might put the knockers on Georgia's NATO application, but that's about as far as it can go.

The U.S., if it had the will could deploy to Georgia I suppose, but there isn't room for another army in Ossetia.

In the end, Georgia just isn't worth it to the west. Everything to lose and nothing to gain.

We've already got a war on two fronts. We're too busy.

This is Russia's tea party. They are on their own.

I see so unless some major unexpected event occured this will simply fade into side news. I assume there is no nuclear implication on the part of Georgia's assets so there's nothing to worry about there. Is this basically just a spat that's got out of hand? No particular resources or anything at stake here?

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]What's important to me is that the balance of power is maintained.

Why?

Just curious.

[Baff1 0]

Can't see it myself.

The Russian's have already deployed 10 years ago.

It might put the knockers on Georgia's NATO application, but that's about as far as it can go.

The U.S., if it had the will could deploy to Georgia I suppose, but there isn't room for another army in Ossetia.

In the end, Georgia just isn't worth it to the west. Everything to lose and nothing to gain.

We've already got a war on two fronts. We're too busy.

This is Russia's tea party. They are on their own.

I see so unless some major unexpected event occured this will simply fade into side news. I assume there is no nuclear implication on the part of Georgia's assets so there's nothing to worry about there. Is this basically just a spat that's got out of hand? No particular resources or anything at stake here?

They have sent in what looks to be a single armoured battalion in support of their existing peace keeping deployment.

Not even remotely what they have at their diposal.

If they had wanted to they could have steamrolled the whole country by now.

[Colossus 2]

As far as I understud it, Georgia and South Ossetia were in peace-talks before this conflict. However, due to escalating violence (on a local level) these talks failed. Seems to me that Georgia had enough of this and started planning an attack. Of course this doesn't get any better with the PM of Georgia promissing to retake lost Georgian territorium before he got elected.

On the other hand you have Russia giving most of the people in S. Ossetia russian passports. Meaning in their eyes that Georgia is attacking russian citizens.

It's very blured what actually happend and IS happening. It's too early to say because it's so recent, and that you got sources here and there telling 20 different stories on how it happend (and what is happening).

I don't see the reason to carry this pointless argument, west vs. east, until we know more.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]What's important to me is that the balance of power is maintained.

Why?

Just curious.

I'm living well and there has been no world wars in my life time.

No one bombs my cities.

Millions of my people aren't dying.

No starvation. No rationing. No draft.

I can make money on foriegn markets and through tourism.

I drive a big car, live in a big house. Go anywhere I like on holiday, and eat ice cream anytime I want.

I regularly buy imported goods.

My friends in foreign places aren't people I'm wishing to kill.

My wide arsed chair is very comfortable.

Oh, and I don't have the plague and my body hasn't been turned to ash.

[jakerod 254]

Can't see it myself.

The Russian's have already deployed 10 years ago.

It might put the knockers on Georgia's NATO application, but that's about as far as it can go.

The U.S., if it had the will could deploy to Georgia I suppose, but there isn't room for another army in Ossetia.

In the end, Georgia just isn't worth it to the west. Everything to lose and nothing to gain.

We've already got a war on two fronts. We're too busy.

This is Russia's tea party. They are on their own.

I see so unless some major unexpected event occured this will simply fade into side news. I assume there is no nuclear implication on the part of Georgia's assets so there's nothing to worry about there. Is this basically just a spat that's got out of hand? No particular resources or anything at stake here?

They have sent in what looks to be a single armoured battalion in support of their existing peace keeping deployment.

Not even remotely what they have at their diposal.

If they had wanted to they could have steamrolled the whole country by now.

I think that "About 150 Russian armored vehicles have entered South Ossetia[...]" (CNN.com) is a bit more than 1 armored battalion. I would say closer to a Brigade or at least two battalions since (4 tanks= 1 platoon) (3 Platoons (12 tanks) = 1 company) (3 Companies (36 tanks) = 1 battalion) plus support vehicles but I can't imagine there being 36 tanks and 100 support vehicles.

Im not taking sides on this one yet. I am not even 50% sure what is going on right now. Either way I don't think this was the right course of action. I could see hitting artillery batteries and airfields that were hitting civilian populations but not hitting places within cities.

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]I'm living well and there has been no world wars in my life time.

No one bombs my cities.

Millions of my people aren't dying.

No starvation. No rationing. No draft.

I can make money on foriegn markets and through tourism.

I drive a big car, live in a big house. Go anywhere I like on holiday, and eat ice cream anytime I want.

I regularly buy imported goods.

My friends in foreign places aren't people I'm wishing to kill.

My wide arsed chair is very comfortable.

Oh, and I don't have the plague and my body hasn't been turned to ash.

A balance of power does not necessarily mean that there will be peace. Unbalanced power does not mean that there will be war.

In the late 1800's and early 1900's there was a balance of power and we all know what happened next. Men of all ages and social class were slogging it out in muddy trenches, desert, jungle and sea.

[Baff1 0]

WW1 occoured when the Germans sought to achieve a new world order.

Unbalanced power = war. A power vacuum.

France was not their military equal. There was no balance.

Balanced power is as good a guarentee of peace as you get.

[Baff1 0]

Can't see it myself.

The Russian's have already deployed 10 years ago.

It might put the knockers on Georgia's NATO application, but that's about as far as it can go.

The U.S., if it had the will could deploy to Georgia I suppose, but there isn't room for another army in Ossetia.

In the end, Georgia just isn't worth it to the west. Everything to lose and nothing to gain.

We've already got a war on two fronts. We're too busy.

This is Russia's tea party. They are on their own.

I see so unless some major unexpected event occured this will simply fade into side news. I assume there is no nuclear implication on the part of Georgia's assets so there's nothing to worry about there. Is this basically just a spat that's got out of hand? No particular resources or anything at stake here?

They have sent in what looks to be a single armoured battalion in support of their existing peace keeping deployment.

Not even remotely what they have at their diposal.

If they had wanted to they could have steamrolled the whole country by now.

I think that "About 150 Russian armored vehicles have entered South Ossetia[...]" (CNN.com) is a bit more than 1 armored battalion. I would say closer to a Brigade or at least two battalions since (4 tanks= 1 platoon) (3 Platoons (12 tanks) = 1 company) (3 Companies (36 tanks) = 1 battalion) plus support vehicles but I can't imagine there being 36 tanks and 100 support vehicles.

Im not taking sides on this one yet. I am not even 50% sure what is going on right now. Either way I don't think this was the right course of action. I could see hitting artillery batteries and airfields that were hitting civilian populations but not hitting places within cities.

How about 2 battalions.

A tank battalion and a motorized rifle battalion plus support and recon elements!

Am I getting warmer?

I'm told I should be looking for a Guards Tank Army with aircraft, Spetznatz and airmobile forces if they mean business.

[-Snafu- 77]

WW1 occoured when the Germans sought to achieve a new world order.

Unbalanced power = war. A power vacuum.

France was not their military equal. There was no balance.

Balanced power is as good a guarentee of peace as you get.

"The most significant of these was in the relationship between the Great Powers, where a balance of power had been created that had resulted in instability. Perhaps surprisingly, a balance of power need not produce stability, any more than an imbalance of power need produce war."

Source: World War I by H.P. Willmott

[Baff1 0]

If that's what you believe.

I personally believe it started much like WW2.

A chain reaction of alliances that propelled one nation after another to declare war after events conspired to provoke one nation to attack another.

Here's a little diagram I just found.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/causes.htm

And this is the lesson learnt.

Don't get into too many alliances.

Hence why the U.K. must withdraw from NATO rather then enter into alliances with Georgia or the Ukraine.

[scubaman3D 0]

Just as an observation, I think the mentality and the practice of international affairs has changed radically since WWI - and even a great deal since WWII.

I mean we were essentially still in the age of imperialism leading up to WWI.

We've come a long way baby - for better or for worse

[-Snafu- 77]

Quote[/b] ]If that's what you believe.

I personally believe it started much like WW2.

A chain reaction of alliances that propelled one nation after another to declare war after events conspired to provoke one nation to attack another.

Here's a little diagram I just found.

http://www.historyonthenet.com/WW1/causes.htm

And this is the lesson learnt.

Don't get into too many alliances.

Hence why the U.K. must withdraw from NATO rather then enter into alliances with Georgia or the Ukraine.

Yes I do believe that. After all the author is a Military Historian who taught at RMA Sandhurst and now works freelance with some universities as well as the Norwegian Air force Academy at Trondheim.

Of course why listen to a man who studies these things for a living? Might as well believe what you want when you have not even looked that in depth into the subject. Easier to do that than admit to being wrong.

Quote[/b] ]A chain reaction of alliances that propelled one nation after another to declare war.

Those alliances were made to create that balance of power and in the words of Edmund Blackadder, "It was ballocks."

@ scubaman3D

It's about the notion that Baff1 holds about a balance of power leading to peace. I am simply pointing that this is not always the case.