View Full Version : Why Georgia must join NATO
TheStorm
08-10-2007, 02:01 AM
Under the umbrella
Aug 9th 2007
From Economist.com
Why Georgia must join NATO
IT IS a fair bet that if Georgia were in NATO the missile that hit the village of Tsitelubani on the evening of August 6th would never have been fired.
The Russian view seems to be that on this and other occasions the Georgians have been inventing tales about bombing, or even bombing themselves, in order to attract western sympathy. Georgia says that two Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft entered its airspace from Russia, fired a Raduga Kh-58 air-to-surface missile (which failed to explode) and left.
Russia insists that nothing of the kind happened. It is of course theoretically possible that Georgia is engaged in an elaborate bluff involving secret planes, faked debris, forged radar logs and diplomatic histrionics.
But it is startlingly unlikely. After all, it would be hard to conceal such a ploy from the many American and other foreign military advisers based there. If Georgia is to have a chance of persuading unenthusiastic NATO members like Germany that the club needs to take in still more members, it needs to radiate responsibility, not pull stunts. The former, not the latter, is just what President Mikhail Saakashvili and his government have been doing.
Furthermore, if the attacks were faked to whip up outside support for Georgia, they have failed miserably. In March, a mysterious raid by nightflying attack helicopters rocketed public buildings in villages in the Kodori Gorge, a region of the breakaway region of Abkhazia where Georgia has reestablished its rule. The western response was almost inaudible.
Investigating that bombing—in which, luckily, nobody was killed—was shunted off to the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), which monitors the Russian “peacekeeping” efforts in Abkhazia. UNOMIG's bureaucrats shuffled paper for three months and then produced a feebly inconclusive report.
Wherever the latest, seemingly abortive, attack was actually aimed, it has also produced alarmingly little Western support. That may be because it is August, and most decision-makers are on their holidays. But if the result is to show for a second time that Georgia is rather isolated, that will send a useful signal to the Kremlin about any future planned adventures in the region.
*******
It may also be that Russia wants to derail Georgia’s new and successful approach towards reintegrating the smaller breakaway region of South Ossetia. A pro-Georgian parallel government has been unnerving the Kremlin-backed administration there.
Whatever the aim, it comes at a high price: mysterious air raids just across the border from the Olympic site of Sochi hardly fit the image of stability and dependability that Russia is trying to promote. As with many other events in the Caucasus, the real explanation may lie in the Kremlin's internal power struggles, not in geopolitics or diplomacy.
The underlying lesson though is that Georgia should be in NATO sooner rather than later. Even the most paranoid Russian would presumably admit that once in the alliance, Georgia would have little need to bomb itself. NATO expansion calms things down: that is the lesson of the Baltic states, which joined—in the teeth of Russian objections—in 2004. None of Russia’s warnings about the effect of NATO expansion into the “former Soviet Union” have proved true. The Baltic region is more stable now, not less, as a result (and things would be still better if Finland and Sweden joined too).
If Georgia were in NATO, it would also be less likely that Russia would want to bomb it. It is one thing to try to intimidate a neighbour in a security grey-zone. It is another to jostle someone sheltered by (and contributing to) the Western security umbrella, however stretched and faded its canopy may be.
Source (http://economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9615537).
If Georgia were in NATO, it would also be less likely that Russia would want to bomb it.
Yeah and if every country in the whole world was in NATO there would be no war anymore... NOT.
Georgia in NATO would further antagonise Russia and would likely push them away from trust and cooperation. Georgia might benefit a lot from membership within NATO but I doubt NATO would gain much at all.
None of Russia’s warnings about the effect of NATO expansion into the “former Soviet Union” have proved true. The Baltic region is more stable now, not less, as a result (and things would be still better if Finland and Sweden joined too).
Perhaps Georgia's entry will be one push too much and may give the hardliners in Russia the leverage they need to gain and hold power long enough to reverse Russias policy of cooperation with the west.
They might change their minds about the breakaway regions in Georgia and demand they are allowed referendums to leave Georgia and join Russia or become independant for example.
Funny how NATO expects compromise and cooperation in Iraq and Afghanistan but gives nothing back... 20 years ago Iraq and Afghanistan would have been flooded with modern weapons that could really hurt the NATO forces there now.
If you want to turn back the clock be very careful...
lightfire
08-10-2007, 03:25 AM
General conclussions and examples of Baltic states are ok, only the russian conspiracy theorists and paranoics of all kinds, who claim, that Georgia bombed itself will have yet another reason to say so - Georgia bombed itself, because it would show a greater need to join NATO sooner p-)
Georgia in NATO would further antagonise Russia and would likely push them away from trust and cooperation.
In other words, Georgia just would not have to do only in the way Russia wants them to do..That's, by Russia,is always concidered as unfriendlly, destructive, uncooperational..
NO. It is likelly, Georgia would folow it's way, and Russia would have to get over it, and in the end they might have decent relations, knowing, that they cannot cross the line.
Georgia might benefit a lot from membership within NATO but I doubt NATO would gain much at all.
Commitments. Georgia is willing to do that, and IS doing. That's exactlly what NATO urgentlly needs, so it would gain also. Georgia would get not only security umbrella, but also ecconomic benefits of it (of security, that atracts more investments)
Laworkerbee
08-10-2007, 12:02 PM
If Georgia were in NATO, it would also be less likely that Russia would want to bomb it. It is one thing to try to intimidate a neighbour in a security grey-zone. It is another to jostle someone sheltered by (and contributing to) the Western security umbrella, however stretched and faded its canopy may be.
Or if Russia bombs Georgia, NATO as an organization would collapse since I really doubt the Dutch, Italians, or Americans really want to bleed for Georgia; a country well with in the Russian sphere of influence.
Or if Russia bombs Georgia, NATO as an organization would collapse since I really doubt the Dutch, Italians, or Americans really want to bleed for Georgia
Doesn't sound fair to me, since Georgia sent 2K men to Iraq...
; a country well with in the Russian sphere of influence.
I thought that age of empires was over.
daily666
08-10-2007, 12:13 PM
Or if Russia bombs Georgia, NATO as an organization would collapse since I really doubt the Dutch, Italians, or Americans really want to bleed for Georgia; a country well with in the Russian sphere of influence.
Sadly QFT.
Just wondering if it applies for Poland or Czech Rep. After the WWII just started the French also didn't want to die for Gdansk. We all remember how it ended.
Laworkerbee
08-10-2007, 12:21 PM
I thought that age of empires was over.
This has nothing to do with empire, it is all about Western meddling which is nothing more than velvet imperialism.
Poland is a completely different story
I wonder what the Abkhasians and Ossetians think about all this?
Oh, and as for Geprgia bombing itself... I wouldn't be too surprised. They've goofed up similarly before.
Oggin
08-10-2007, 06:48 PM
Under the umbrella
Aug 9th 2007
From Economist.com
Why Georgia must join NATO
IT IS a fair bet that if Georgia were in NATO the missile that hit the village of Tsitelubani on the evening of August 6th would never have been fired.
The Russian view seems to be that on this and other occasions the Georgians have been inventing tales about bombing, or even bombing themselves, in order to attract western sympathy. Georgia says that two Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft entered its airspace from Russia, fired a Raduga Kh-58 air-to-surface missile (which failed to explode) and left.
Russia insists that nothing of the kind happened. It is of course theoretically possible that Georgia is engaged in an elaborate bluff involving secret planes, faked debris, forged radar logs and diplomatic histrionics.
But it is startlingly unlikely. After all, it would be hard to conceal such a ploy from the many American and other foreign military advisers based there. If Georgia is to have a chance of persuading unenthusiastic NATO members like Germany that the club needs to take in still more members, it needs to radiate responsibility, not pull stunts. The former, not the latter, is just what President Mikhail Saakashvili and his government have been doing.
Furthermore, if the attacks were faked to whip up outside support for Georgia, they have failed miserably. In March, a mysterious raid by nightflying attack helicopters rocketed public buildings in villages in the Kodori Gorge, a region of the breakaway region of Abkhazia where Georgia has reestablished its rule. The western response was almost inaudible.
Investigating that bombing—in which, luckily, nobody was killed—was shunted off to the United Nations Observer Mission in Georgia (UNOMIG), which monitors the Russian “peacekeeping” efforts in Abkhazia. UNOMIG's bureaucrats shuffled paper for three months and then produced a feebly inconclusive report.
Wherever the latest, seemingly abortive, attack was actually aimed, it has also produced alarmingly little Western support. That may be because it is August, and most decision-makers are on their holidays. But if the result is to show for a second time that Georgia is rather isolated, that will send a useful signal to the Kremlin about any future planned adventures in the region.
*******
It may also be that Russia wants to derail Georgia’s new and successful approach towards reintegrating the smaller breakaway region of South Ossetia. A pro-Georgian parallel government has been unnerving the Kremlin-backed administration there.
Whatever the aim, it comes at a high price: mysterious air raids just across the border from the Olympic site of Sochi hardly fit the image of stability and dependability that Russia is trying to promote. As with many other events in the Caucasus, the real explanation may lie in the Kremlin's internal power struggles, not in geopolitics or diplomacy.
The underlying lesson though is that Georgia should be in NATO sooner rather than later. Even the most paranoid Russian would presumably admit that once in the alliance, Georgia would have little need to bomb itself. NATO expansion calms things down: that is the lesson of the Baltic states, which joined—in the teeth of Russian objections—in 2004. None of Russia’s warnings about the effect of NATO expansion into the “former Soviet Union” have proved true. The Baltic region is more stable now, not less, as a result (and things would be still better if Finland and Sweden joined too).
If Georgia were in NATO, it would also be less likely that Russia would want to bomb it. It is one thing to try to intimidate a neighbour in a security grey-zone. It is another to jostle someone sheltered by (and contributing to) the Western security umbrella, however stretched and faded its canopy may be.
Source (http://economist.com/daily/columns/europeview/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9615537).
It is to my understanding that Georgia are trying to mess about with people who could smash them in a micro second. If they have any sense they will stop this bluffing that Russia has bombed them, before they actually blanket the honking place.
In other words, Georgia just would not have to do only in the way Russia wants them to do..That's, by Russia,is always concidered as unfriendlly, destructive, uncooperational..
NO. It is likelly, Georgia would folow it's way, and Russia would have to get over it, and in the end they might have decent relations, knowing, that they cannot cross the line.
It was little countries demanding larger countries defend them that created WWI. Vast alliances didn't prevent war in that case, they made it much worse.
Coming from a little country myself I know what it is like to be bullied by larger countries. France blew up a civilian boat in the harbour of our largest city back in the 1980s. They then threatened us to hand over those murderers we caught, or they would block our exports to the EU. No one leaped to our defence. We were part of ANZUS, we were part of the Commonwealth. No body lifted a finger, not because we were in the wrong but because good relations with France for most countries was more valuable to them than better relations with New Zealand.
We have troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. We also had them in Vietnam. Didn't really earn us anything tangible politically.
Give a little country the idea that it can treat a big country as an equal just because it has signed a few bits of paper and sent some soldiers to Iraq is a dangerous thing.
Doesn't sound fair to me, since Georgia sent 2K men to Iraq...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA.... WTF has FAIR got to do with anything?
WWIII hasn't happened because of cool heads on one side or the other or both. Bear bombers that fly in international airspace NOT being shot down by AMRAAMs is a good example of cool heads. WWIII could still happen and the results now will not be too much different from what they would be at the height of the cold war when there were more weapons pointed everywhere...
lightfire
08-10-2007, 09:32 PM
Or if Russia bombs Georgia, NATO as an organization would collapse since I really doubt the Dutch, Italians, or Americans really want to bleed for Georgia; a country well with in the Russian sphere of influence.
Thats a far overestimation of NATO capabilities and resolve, esspecially thinking of present and most probably - near future Russian behaviour in international politics, or particulary with the West.
First, it's not WWII, it's NATo, and it has article No.5.
Secondlly, there would be no immediate need for ALL NATO countries to deploy actual troops for the defence of Georgia. I remember words from danish captain - "during the Cold war, some sceptics claimed, that doubtlfully such countries like Spain, Italy or Greece would come to our help, if we were under sudden attack from the SU forces, but I was and I am sure, that these thoughts were just pussy talks.."
Third, any attack towards Georgia as a member of NATO would not go unnoticed and without reaction-there are other means to influence, not only military, whatever oilmoneymakers might arrogantlly say.
Fourth, the membership in NATO would already be a deterring factor, only vabank russian generals and politics would want to risk, and for what, may I ask, for Georgia? To risk war with NATO?
It is to my understanding that Georgia are trying to mess about with people who could smash them in a micro second. If they have any sense they will stop this bluffing that Russia has bombed them, before they actually blanket the honking place.
In micro second, riiiight... ever heard of such place as Chechnya? Quite a long micro second for that one.
What is "messsing about with...those" - defending its national interests,borders and sovereignity? They shouldn't mess about, perhaps, and givethemselves up, to becpome a part of RF ASAP, right? As for bluffing - the investigation is going on, and these arrogant claims of bluff does sound like investigation should really continue to the end.
It was little countries demanding larger countries defend them that created WWI.
You realy think that the major reason of WWI are the small bithchy countries?wow..
Lets get things straight - bullying by the bigger countries is one thing, but acting hostile and expecting, that a bullied small country will simply comply... It's XXI century already, and I am sure you know this. The very thing small countries can do in such cases is to remain calm, speak argumented language, appeal to others and most importantlly - keep their dignity.
Friendofall
08-10-2007, 10:27 PM
The west will sell the Georgians out to the Russians just like they sold out the Poles and everyone else east of Germany and Italy.
Flamming_Python
08-11-2007, 06:38 AM
In micro second, riiiight... ever heard of such place as Chechnya? Quite a long micro second for that one.
Chechnya was an occupation, and a long one as you put it. If Russia needed to destroy Chechnya it would be the same story as if America needed to destroy Iraq.
In any case Russia doesn't need to enter Georgian territory at all. It's the Georgians who want to quell seperatism on their territory, and in order to do that they will have to go onto the offensive.
You realy think that the major reason of WWI are the small bithchy countries?
Of course you are right... Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US decided they had too many soldiers so they organised a war to kill large numbers of them with machineguns and artillery. It had nothing to do with some idiot shooting someone in protest at the austro hungarian empire...
The very thing small countries can do in such cases is to remain calm, speak argumented language, appeal to others and most importantlly - keep their dignity.
Yeah, NZ did that when France blew up a civilian boat in our largest cities harbour... we kept our dignity and no one listened. After threats of banning our exports to the EU from France we pretty much didn't have a leg to stand on and we caved in and handed over the two terrorists... France promised they would serve out their time on Hau Atoll. After about a year and a half of a ten year sentence the guy went home with a sore tummy and never returned to complete his sentence. A couple of months later the female terrorist got pregnant and went home to france too. We complained but France simply ignored everyone on the issue... and we are allies... we sent lots of NZ soldiers to die in French fields and the fields of Europe.
lightfire
08-11-2007, 08:42 AM
Chechnya was an occupation, and a long one as you put it. If Russia needed to destroy Chechnya it would be the same story as if America needed to destroy Iraq.
.
As far as I remember, the best exapmle to back this statement was elimination of Chechen Air Force. Lines of L-39 standing toogether on the airfield were wiped out in matter of minutes, the whole AF.
However, they needed to defeat chechen land forces first, to occupy the country, and as the statement (not by you ) was made about wiping out in micro second, the example of Chechnya shows, that it still was a hard campaign, even with overwelming force in AF, heavy armour and troops.
In any case Russia doesn't need to enter Georgian territory at all. It's the Georgians who want to quell seperatism on their territory, and in order to do that they will have to go onto the offensive
again, the statement was made, and I commented it, that wiping out in microsecond it's a bit overestimation of russian capabilities. Yes, russians could do a major damage with air forces and tactical missiles, but again, as I said before, we are talking here about such action after Georgia joined NATO. And then any russian attack would do more harm to Russia, than use.
Of course you are right... Britain, France, Germany, Russia and the US decided they had too many soldiers so they organised a war to kill large numbers of them with machineguns and artillery. It had nothing to do with some idiot shooting someone in protest at the austro hungarian empire...
defending small countries were pretexts, not reasons. In this way, we might blame some polish provocateurs, who attacked german porder posts and started WWII...
Serbia for Russia, Lower countries for Britain and France - there are some particular interests, but the major clash was because other reasons - arms race, hostile alliances, enourmous apetite of empires, assurence in themselves in hope to defeat the enemy rapiddly with huge overwhelming force.
Yeah, NZ did that when France blew up a civilian boat in our largest cities harbour... we kept our dignity and no one listened. After threats of banning our exports to the EU from France we pretty much didn't have a leg to stand on and we caved in and handed over the two terrorists... France promised they would serve out their time on Hau Atoll. After about a year and a half of a ten year sentence the guy went home with a sore tummy and never returned to complete his sentence. A couple of months later the female terrorist got pregnant and went home to france too. We complained but France simply ignored everyone on the issue... and we are allies... we sent lots of NZ soldiers to die in French fields and the fields of Europe.
It's an example off cource, but not for every case. And France did not invade NZ afterall, though I imagine the preasure. There were different times, nowdays France is even less important, and NZ becoming more important than it was before,if you'd like (not to say,that NZ is more important than France though). Yet whatever actions may be - to remain calm and keep dignity is still very important, no matter what other would do or say.
Flamming_Python
08-11-2007, 10:41 AM
again, the statement was made, and I commented it, that wiping out in microsecond it's a bit overestimation of russian capabilities. Yes, russians could do a major damage with air forces and tactical missiles, but again, as I said before, we are talking here about such action after Georgia joined NATO. And then any russian attack would do more harm to Russia, than use.
OK so microsecond is a little bit of overestimation. SS-19 ICBM's would take at least a few minutes to reach their targets p-)
Jokes aside, you keep talking about Georgia as if Russia has to go in and occupy it like it did with Chechnya. Should such a scenario happen, Russia will have no end of problems, which could of course eventually culminate in defeat and withdrawal, much in the same way as America is now withdrawing from Iraq.
However none of that is neccessery. Russia wants to keep the status-quo in the region, that is to say seperating the 2 sides from each other, while not recognizing the independence of the break-away republics. Russia does this so that it has a card to play against Georgia and prevents the country from joining NATO. If Saakashvilli is succedded by a more reasonable Pragmatist (most likely through domestic efforts rather than installation of a Russian puppet leader), Russia may also agree to help re-integrate the republics politically into Georgia and help establish a power-sharing agreement between the 2 sides, provided that plans to join the NATO and probably the EU are dropped, and that Russian businesses (rather than Western businesses) get first rights to a large chunk of Georgia's privatisations, as well as guarantees to further integrate Abkhazia and S.Ossetia into the Russian North Causcaus Economy (Russian Southern Federal District). Life is tough, but such is life. Blame Capitalism p-)
As for the military side of things, like I said Russia wants to keep the status-quo for now. It is Georgia which has to take the initiative if it desires to retake control over its seperatist regions. In order to that it must conduct an overwhelming offensive backed by huge mechanised forces (in an area with v.poor infastructure) along with air support (facing S-400's which Russia is going to deploy there soon) in order to break through the Seperatist defences and their army, the Russian peacekeepers, and any re-inforcements the Russians would care to send to the region, not to mention latter occupying the area and quelling massive unrest while at the same guarding against Russian counter-offensives from Land, Sea and Air. And you won't, not for one "microsecond", convince me that this is possible for little old Georgia against a huge nuclear power, NATO or not (and of course no country can enter NATO with seperatist problems in the first place).
Igor01
08-11-2007, 11:37 AM
All those who think that Georgia's leadership are conducting their own independent policies need to check who pays the bills there. While the US still has interest in using these pawns in their geopolitical games with Russia, Georgia will remain on its NATO-integration course. Remove the funding and the political support and Georgia will have to face the sobering reality of being a failed state with a host of economic, ethnic and other problems it is absolutely unable to resolve.
So all this talk about Georgia should this and that is just wasting the mp.net bandwidth, they will do exactly as they are told for as long as they are told so.
lightfire
08-11-2007, 02:08 PM
Jokes aside, you keep talking about Georgia as if Russia has to go in and occupy it like it did with Chechnya.
No, not necesarrily. My point was more that any attack on Georgia as NATO member would hardlly be possible. Any. if we talk about Georgia at present terms, as non NATO member, then yes, much is possible.
However none of that is neccessery. Russia wants to keep the status-quo in the region, that is to say seperating the 2 sides from each other, while not recognizing the independence of the break-away republics. Russia does this so that it has a card to play against Georgia and prevents the country from joining NATO.
And I am sure Georgia understands this, that's why they would like to find a peacefull solution. Yes, hawkish possition by Sakashvili and others is visible, no less,than by separatists btw, but I am sure, where's state and personal power is at stake, noone would like to risk a major war, unless they are sure, others wouldn't intervene.
If Saakashvilli is succedded by a more reasonable Pragmatist (most likely through domestic efforts rather than installation of a Russian puppet leader), Russia may also agree to help re-integrate the republics politically into Georgia and help establish a power-sharing agreement between the 2 sides, provided that plans to join the NATO and probably the EU are dropped, and that Russian businesses (rather than Western businesses) get first rights to a large chunk of Georgia's privatisations, as well as guarantees to further integrate Abkhazia and S.Ossetia into the Russian North Causcaus Economy (Russian Southern Federal District). Life is tough, but such is life. Blame Capitalism p-)
the Succession of Sakashvili is possible, but pragmatist does not mean, he would give such discounts that are near compliances, as you've described. Pragmatic georgian cource is integration into the west with close inevitable ties with Russia. Ties do not mean complete favour to russian policies and buisness, simply and purelly ecconomic beneficial ones. Yes, it's quite hard to imagine this now, since "the one after Putin might be even more harder, and Putin after the one after Putin might be a even worse for relationsp-)"
As for military resolution of the conflict I could say this:
Couple weeks ago, I've been in the conference in Lithuania, concerning frozen conflicts. Naturally ones of the major most disputed topics (with the help of alcohol discussions sometimes ending late during the night or very early in the morning) were conflicts of Abkhazia-Georgia-South Osetia. There had been representatives from all sides - from Georgian,including officials, from Abkhazia and South Osetia (officials from youth org, if I am not mistaken). Debates were hot, esspecially from South Osetian side (" nas rezhut, nas ubevajet, obstrelivajet gruzinskaja strona.."), and mixed work groups had to present some solutions. Abkhazian and South Osetian sides weren't willing to go even on compromises - only complete independence and that's it. What's funny, at least for Abkhazian side, they were willing for independence from everyone, Russia included. that means, they could remain their russian pasports, but be independent from Russia as well. The main goal - integration or at least close relations with the EU, good relations with Georgia and Russia. I dunno what the de facto Abkhazian government thinks about that, are they willing to hug the Big Brother after all, but noone was even concidering compromises offered by georgian side - wide autonomy.
The only compromise reached - more time is needed. More time, to cool down hostilities, tences, and then some can talk more reasonablly.
I would wonder how Russia would react to this, though I don't think this would please her. If it wants status qou, then peacfull regulation of abkhazian-georgian-south osetian conflicts, that would end simplly in autonomies or even, if Georgia allows-independence would just be the bad news for Russia, as integration to Euroatlantic structures of cooled down Georgia would be inevitable.
All those who think that Georgia's leadership are conducting their own independent policies need to check who pays the bills there. While the US still has interest in using these pawns in their geopolitical games with Russia, Georgia will remain on its NATO-integration course. Remove the funding and the political support and Georgia will have to face the sobering reality of being a failed state with a host of economic, ethnic and other problems it is absolutely unable to resolve.
hmmm.. what could one say to this BS. Oh, I know!
GWB is an allien conspirator, eager to fight another infamous allien - Kim Jong Ill , and and the evil jews are behind it, they were surelly behind 9/11, they paid to the TV companies to create the illusion of planes hitting the towers..
without those evil conspirators who pay everyone except us the world would be a nice and peacfull place..
Flamming_Python
08-11-2007, 04:56 PM
the Succession of Sakashvili is possible, but pragmatist does not mean, he would give such discounts that are near compliances, as you've described. Pragmatic georgian cource is integration into the west with close inevitable ties with Russia. Ties do not mean complete favour to russian policies and buisness, simply and purelly ecconomic beneficial ones. Yes, it's quite hard to imagine this now, since "the one after Putin might be even more harder, and Putin after the one after Putin might be a even worse for relationsp-)"
Why would that be the pragmatic option? I would imagine the pragmatic option would be to integrate with Russia and the CIS (both of which have very fast growing economies), as their products and brands are already well known and used to be well established on those markets. What could Georgia offer the EU? Su-25's? Wine & bottled water (enough of that already in EU)? Fruits? The only benefit that Georgia will recieve from the EU, is allowing its Gasterbaiters to move and work in Poland, Romania or Lithuania rather than Russia. Big difference that is p-)
Georgia could of course become a tourist destination, but it hardly needs to join the EU for that, and more than likely, most of the tourists would be Russians anyway. There is the Sochi 2014 Olympics that could bring tremendous benefit to Georgia, give the region international publicity and put the whole place on the tourist and traveller map, so to speak. But of course it would need good relations with Russia. The fact is that Georgia is right next to Russia, and as such it will always have more trade with Russia than anyone else, probably accounting for the majority of its trade overall. It will always have more use for Russian language, and Russian structures, than it would for Western structures that have a saturated market stocked with high-quality goods that Georgia is not capable of producing yet.
As for military resolution of the conflict I could say this:
Couple weeks ago, I've been in the conference in Lithuania, concerning frozen conflicts. Naturally ones of the major most disputed topics (with the help of alcohol discussions sometimes ending late during the night or very early in the morning) were conflicts of Abkhazia-Georgia-South Osetia. There had been representatives from all sides - from Georgian,including officials, from Abkhazia and South Osetia (officials from youth org, if I am not mistaken). Debates were hot, esspecially from South Osetian side (" nas rezhut, nas ubevajet, obstrelivajet gruzinskaja strona.."), and mixed work groups had to present some solutions. Abkhazian and South Osetian sides weren't willing to go even on compromises - only complete independence and that's it. What's funny, at least for Abkhazian side, they were willing for independence from everyone, Russia included. that means, they could remain their russian pasports, but be independent from Russia as well. The main goal - integration or at least close relations with the EU, good relations with Georgia and Russia. I dunno what the de facto Abkhazian government thinks about that, are they willing to hug the Big Brother after all, but noone was even concidering compromises offered by georgian side - wide autonomy.
The only compromise reached - more time is needed. More time, to cool down hostilities, tences, and then some can talk more reasonablly.
Yeah I would imagine the bad blood has got to peak amounts by now, the situation has been smelling like Kosovo for a long time with neither side willing to make compromises, and seperatists pushing for nothing less than independence.
I think that it would be possible to integrate the republics back into Georgia, just not the Georgia as it is now. More like a new federative republic or something along those lines would have to be established, possibly even more loose that autonomy. You also have to understand Lightfire, that the S.Ossetians and Abkhazians most likely despise the current leadership of Georgia and don't trust Saakashvilli one bit. Probably the S.Ossetians can be persuaded only to join if it means the new Georgia will accept a good deal of Russian influence, which the Ossetians may see as guaranteeing security more than Saakashvilli's promises of a quick war and a quick entry to NATO. But largely, the S.Ossetians are very set on joining Russia and their N.Ossetian kin.
As for the Abkhazians, the de-facto government has maintained its position that it would like full independence, although it would certainly sooner be a part of Russia, than Georgia. Russia doesn't have much of a problem either way. For the Russian Federation, it is economic control rather than political lines on a map that matter more (as it is for America, EU, China, etc...), so long as Abkhazia doesn't decide it would like to join NATO as well, I don't forsee there being any problems with Abkhazian independence for Russia at least. As for Abkhazian entry into a new type of Georgia, I have no idea, although certainly plenty of Georgians were displaced from Abkhazia during the war, so they should have a say as well.
I would wonder how Russia would react to this, though I don't think this would please her. If it wants status qou, then peacfull regulation of abkhazian-georgian-south osetian conflicts, that would end simplly in autonomies or even, if Georgia allows-independence would just be the bad news for Russia, as integration to Euroatlantic structures of cooled down Georgia would be inevitable.
Hence why Russia is neither breaking the republics away by force, or giving them to Georgia. It is playing a game of wait and see while focussing on building up its economic might in the region, and delaying Georgia's entry to NATO as much as possible.
MichaelF
08-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Georgia already joined the Confederacy.
See how well that worked out?
It should stay in the Union.
lightfire
08-11-2007, 06:26 PM
Why would that be the pragmatic option? I would imagine the pragmatic option would be to integrate with Russia and the CIS (both of which have very fast growing economies),
Growing bubbles of soap more likelly. I don't want to go depper in russian ecconomics (oil, gas), or even to half dead CIS. Yet I do not believe Georgia would folow their way. No way to run away from neighbours, but pragmatism lies in good relations (trade, buisness, tourism) not in ecconomic attachments. As I said before, Sakashvili is not forever, but the ability to taste western way, if everything goes well, or at least moderatlly well, the course is set, and it's not towards Russia. Unfortunatelly the folowing country, in the oppinion of many, does not want to accept that.
What could Georgia offer the EU? Su-25's? Wine & bottled water (enough of that already in EU)? Fruits? The only benefit that Georgia will recieve from the EU, is allowing its Gasterbaiters to move and work in Poland, Romania or Lithuania rather than Russia. Big difference that is
when speaking of now, then stronger these your questions and answers are. But, to reach EU standarts is quite a long way, during which much could be done and changed.
"What can they offer?" - the same question was asked by many, when speaking of Ireland in the seventies. Look at her now. The problem with the wine and water is not at it's general quality, but the making/production quality. That could be radically changed. And wine always finds its place in the marker, in this case it could be due to it's new status, price etc. Europe already has everything, but every country still delivers smth, many - the same products, esspecially, since production of some is supported with the help of EU.
Georgia could of course become a tourist destination, but it hardly needs to join the EU for that
of cource, tourism isin't the purpose to join the EU, noone said that :) but joining EU would help tourism, my country's example proves this. And..
and more than likely, most of the tourists would be Russians anyway.
..that does not contradict to the member status. Yes, visas are more expencive, but that's EU - Russia matter. Tourists still come.
There is the Sochi 2014 Olympics that could bring tremendous benefit to Georgia, give the region international publicity and put the whole place on the tourist and traveller map, so to speak.
Ah, and that's another good reason, why neither side needs conflict here.
1)The fact is that Georgia is right next to Russia, and as such it will always have more trade with Russia than anyone else, probably accounting for the majority of its trade overall.... 2) It will always have more use for Russian language, and Russian structures, than it would for Western structures ...that have a saturated market stocked 3) with high-quality goods that Georgia is not capable of producing yet.
1) Not necesarrily, but a major part, yes. Would EU/NATO contradict to this?
2) That's what they (russians) said about us. It's happening the other way. Russian language is an advantage, yes, but the major as some would overestimate. Besides Younger generation is already starting to forget russian language. Russian structures? You mean "chrushchiovkas", I doubt they are better than modern western structures ussually made without "chaltura" principals.
3) The crucial word here is "YET", period.
You also have to understand Lightfire, that the S.Ossetians and Abkhazians most likely despise the current leadership of Georgia and don't trust Saakashvilli one bit.
Neither georgians trust, what they concider separatist regimes, that want to break their country. Leadership change on BOTH sides might help.
As for the Abkhazians, the de-facto government has maintained its position that it would like full independence, although it would certainly sooner be a part of Russia, than Georgia.
Well, what I've heard was the wish of FULL independence, no wish to join Russia as well. I asked for instance an abkhazian, what would he do, if Russia would try to take Abkhazia by force, grounding that all citizens are russian pasport holders (or any other pretext) he took the gun and fight, as he would have done the same fighting georgians.
Digimon
08-11-2007, 07:44 PM
What’s with this constant “Russia’s sphere of influence”, or “Georgia no longer doing what Russia wants it to do”? What is this influence and what exactly does Russia want Georgia to do? What does it want from Ukraine, Moldova, Belorussia, or the Baltic states? How is Georgia any less free now, from what Russia wants it to do, then it would be under NATO? What are these demands that Georgia just cannot shake off, which, nevertheless merit it the image of a "freedom fighter" rather than a state bent on maintaining its own micro-empire, and what are the concrete instantiations of them?
The whole concept of the “sphere of influence” seems to be a theoretical construct that lacks concrete substance and is used only to justify the attribution of aggression to Russia, and to explain why it is supposed to do all of these absurd things. It might have been true of the Soviet Union, but the current popularity of this concept is explained by the need to maintain the rise of national identity within the new Europe through the nurturing of this myth... Or so it seems...
Flamming_Python
08-11-2007, 09:35 PM
Growing bubbles of soap more likelly. I don't want to go depper in russian ecconomics (oil, gas), or even to half dead CIS. Yet I do not believe Georgia would folow their way. No way to run away from neighbours, but pragmatism lies in good relations (trade, buisness, tourism) not in ecconomic attachments. As I said before, Sakashvili is not forever, but the ability to taste western way, if everything goes well, or at least moderatlly well, the course is set, and it's not towards Russia. Unfortunatelly the folowing country, in the oppinion of many, does not want to accept that.
I agree the CIS is half-dead. Actually it's nearly dead full stop. But that doesn't mean that something won't rise to replace it as the economies of the region continue to rise. Due to the fact that Georgian products already occupied a niche there, they will have a much easier time getting into the market again, rather than into a very saturated EU market, for which it would take a large amount of time and investment before initial profits can even be made.
Well you may not want to go into Russian economics, but I do believe this conversation warrants it. GDP rose by 8.2% and Industrial Production rose 10.9% in June, year-on-year. Which means that GDP growth has been accelerating since the average 7.8% growth recorded for the first half of 2007, and the roughly 6% growth recorded for the year of 2006. Optimistic forecasts put Russia on course for becoming the largest economy in Europe by 2020, and in the top 5 of the world quite a while before that. Optimistic forecast sure, and the EU will of course continue to eclipse the Russian and former Soviet economies, but your "oil/gas" reference has been outdated for about a year now since the Economy started to be driven by private consumption (import growth is about 50% for the last half a year), although much of the import growth is accounted for by industrial machinery, modernisation of soviet-era industries, etc...
But yes, Russia has oil & gas, as well as every other resource and element under the sun, in abundant quantities. Which is why the country has the potential for so much economic influence. All this stuff, is after all, Russia's to give and take as she see's fit.
when speaking of now, then stronger these your questions and answers are. But, to reach EU standarts is quite a long way, during which much could be done and changed.
"What can they offer?" - the same question was asked by many, when speaking of Ireland in the seventies. Look at her now. The problem with the wine and water is not at it's general quality, but the making/production quality. That could be radically changed. And wine always finds its place in the marker, in this case it could be due to it's new status, price etc. Europe already has everything, but every country still delivers smth, many - the same products, esspecially, since production of some is supported with the help of EU.
True Georgia will undoubtedly benefit from joining the EU. But I wouldn't say it would be so much different from intergrating with their neighbours, the country can achieve a high GDP growth regardless. Europe is hardly unique in this regard.
of cource, tourism isin't the purpose to join the EU, noone said that :) but joining EU would help tourism, my country's example proves this. And..
Stability helps develop tourism. And a good climate of course. Georgia was one of the top tourist spots in the USSR.
1) Not necesarrily, but a major part, yes. Would EU/NATO contradict to this?
2) That's what they (russians) said about us. It's happening the other way. Russian language is an advantage, yes, but the major as some would overestimate. Besides Younger generation is already starting to forget russian language. Russian structures? You mean "chrushchiovkas", I doubt they are better than modern western structures ussually made without "chaltura" principals.
3) The crucial word here is "YET", period.
1. What's the point of joining EU then? Better to enter into a partnership with your largest trade partner. Trade partnerships tend to be mutually exclusive, or at least i'd imagine the EU will be (which is increasingly more about politics in addition to just trade)
2. Russian structures are corrupt and choke full of buerocrats. But corruption is not something specifically Russian, neither are buerocrats (contrary to popular belief). It's just something that happens in poor countries. As the economy of Russia rises, corruption will start to shift away from the petty things to the larger private handshakes, corporate puppeting of political leaders, etc... as is already happening in both Russia and the West. Russia is trying to Westernise it's structures to quite a degree now, especially in things like business practise, corporate governence, etc... Doesn't mean it's going to become part of the West, it's just the smart thing to do, as Western structures are far superior and better developed for the model of economic development that Russia has chosen.
3. What's to stop Georgia producing high-quality goods for Russian markets? Most likely they will have to, Russians can afford to and are buying European wines by the bucket loads. Modernisation of industry comes from investment, irrespective of whether that investment is Russian, European, Chinese, Indian, or whatever else. Difference is, that Georgian wines and products, even as they are now, will still have a substantial market in Russia and its neighbours, even before such industries are modernised.
Oh yes, and about you. You are well aware that Russian economy has been in the gutter for the past 15 years, yes? I'm pretty sure that as the economy revives, the majority of your trade will also shift over to Russia, and the former Soviet countries. Russian language will become more important too p-) Take it as a good or a bad thing, just don't have a heartattack when it happens.
Neither georgians trust, what they concider separatist regimes, that want to break their country. Leadership change on BOTH sides might help.
The only thing we agree upon :)
Well, what I've heard was the wish of FULL independence, no wish to join Russia as well. I asked for instance an abkhazian, what would he do, if Russia would try to take Abkhazia by force, grounding that all citizens are russian pasport holders (or any other pretext) he took the gun and fight, as he would have done the same fighting georgians.
Well I haven't spoken to any Abkhazians, so I wouldn't know, but i'll take your word for it (I only heard what the government says). But I can't escape the feeling that by correcting me on that tiny detail, you are trying to prove something? If Russia wanted to annex some places, it could have done so by now. Probably could have rebuilt half the USSR as well if it agreed to give Belarus, Azerbaijan and Central Asia their benefits and cheap natural resources back as well.
Difool
08-12-2007, 02:09 AM
Yeah, perhaps we should put all countries except Russia, China and the terrorist states into the NATO. Under command of an american general as we all know.
Russia shot a missle at georgia? What would Russia's interest be? A conflict with Georgia and western europe on their side?
It seems as if everything is used by the much to uniform western press to discredit Russia (Litvinenko, Politkovskaya, etc.).
And now a missle attack on georgia? Does one really think Russia would do something like that?
The European Union AND Russia could widely benefit from a closer relationship. But that's disturbing the trans-atlantic fraction in the EU and even more the US. So that's what should be talked about.
lightfire
08-12-2007, 05:44 AM
I agree the CIS is half-dead. Actually it's nearly dead full stop. But that doesn't mean that something won't rise to replace it as the economies of the region continue to rise. .
the shift, as far as I know, goes to Euro-Asia cooperation, since relations with europe worsens, despite united councils, summits. But Russian - Chinese cooperation won't be long as well, since chinese very soon will try to take the leading role. I don't know Georgias view on it, but seting up the course to the West it would be quite hard to reorientate. Not to say, that there will be no trade, since EUs partner China and the whole bunch of Asian countries will be becoming more and more important, but I would see Georgia as part of some ecconomiclly united reagion of Black Sea countries, inside the EU, rather then the East.
Due to the fact that Georgian products already occupied a niche there, they will have a much easier time getting into the market again, rather than into a very saturated EU market, for which it would take a large amount of time and investment before initial profits can even be made.
Georgian products indeed had their niche there, but if russian claim they weren't quality enough (remember the import ban), means not neceserraly the general shift in export routes, but together with other alternatives, higher the quality standarts. With that, even if it takes time (it is happening now, already, the ban is in place. To replace the government,only because russians are pissed of by georgian wine quality - hardlly that could ever happen), noone except the political reasons should have anything again exports to few directions. If georgians could be inovative, they will surelly find their place in other markets and will find a way to trade again with Russia.
Well you may not want to go into Russian economics, but I do believe this conversation warrants it. GDP rose by 8.2% and Industrial Production rose 10.9% in June, year-on-year. Which means that GDP growth has been accelerating since the average 7.8% growth recorded for the first half of 2007, and the roughly 6% growth recorded for the year of 2006. Optimistic forecasts put Russia on course for becoming the largest economy in Europe by 2020, and in the top 5 of the world quite a while before that. Optimistic forecast sure, and the EU will of course continue to eclipse the Russian and former Soviet economies, but your "oil/gas" reference has been outdated for about a year now since the Economy started to be driven by private consumption (import growth is about 50% for the last half a year), although much of the import growth is accounted for by industrial machinery, modernisation of soviet-era industries, etc...
And still, I am sure you couldn't deny, that the ecconomic rise is generaly based on oil/gas dividends. Private consumption is only better, than it used to be, due to some tax, administrational reforms, but not as good as it could be. Soviet legacy has left its marks. The centralisation of power still relies on loyal ones, and corruption is there. Sure I agree, it's neither russian invention, nor perhaps biggest in the world along with beurocraccy. But the numbers are vast, it's nearlly officially legal, if you are the right person.
But what's worst, is the political climate and political future. The miss of ol'good soviet times, velikaja derhava, chauvinist crap, radicalisation etc is not new to russian policy making. Yet it always hurted Russia. Behaviour in international level, esspecially in the neighbourhood countries is alread being met with signs of distrusfulness. Rise of radicals can spookmany out. Due to the worsening political climate foreign investments shall decrease leaving East more, than West. Perhaps it would be nothing, if China wouldn't be leading to take the leading role and dictatete its own rules. The demographical situation is still bad, though the impression is , that the government doesn't really care about that at all. As for industrial modernisation - it goes in steps of a turtle. Much will still collapse, due to the age and incapability to produce enough or at all. Imported machinery... well yes, in late XIX century a lot was imported as well, but generally it all led to nothing anyway.
But yes, Russia has oil & gas, as well as every other resource and element under the sun, in abundant quantities. Which is why the country has the potential for so much economic influence. All this stuff, is after all, Russia's to give and take as she see's fit.
I am not saying, that the alternative to oild and gas is nigh, but surelly in the next decade this questiong will have to be solved for a start at least.
True Georgia will undoubtedly benefit from joining the EU. But I wouldn't say it would be so much different from intergrating with their neighbours, the country can achieve a high GDP growth regardless. Europe is hardly unique in this regard.
Though integrating into at the present time, quite hostile in many ways and not so productive system doesn't seem an option. Not unique, but atractive now.
Stability helps develop tourism. And a good climate of course. Georgia was one of the top tourist spots in the USSR.
yes, examples could be Slovenia, Croatia - in a war torn region, tourism is quite fluorishing.
1. What's the point of joining EU then?
Political reasons (escape from russian influence, moving apart from hostile neighbour), perspective of better ecconomic stability, benefits.
Oh yes, and about you. You are well aware that Russian economy has been in the gutter for the past 15 years, yes? I'm pretty sure that as the economy revives, the majority of your trade will also shift over to Russia, and the former Soviet countries. Russian language will become more important too p-) Take it as a good or a bad thing, just don't have a heartattack when it happens.
a large part of ecconomics is tied with russian buisnes. Trade (transit), oil/gas, food products etc. That does not inflict being in the EU and trading with them also. As for russian language, it's not becoming more and more important, it's just beneficial as useful, that's it. Perhaps time will come, when we will have to speak with you,as in here, on mp.net - in english.
Russia shot a missle at georgia? What would Russia's interest be?
If you do not know the answer to your question, that doesn't mean there is no answer.
shadowsrider
08-12-2007, 06:00 AM
Is Turkey going to defend Georgia if it is in NATO and in case of war?
IMHO decision of joining to NATO or UE is decision of Georgia and NATO/UE not Russia. So Russia should shut up and do not pray into other countries's affairs. Georgia is not a part of Russia anymore. Time to accept that.
Flamming_Python
08-12-2007, 11:45 AM
the shift, as far as I know, goes to Euro-Asia cooperation, since relations with europe worsens, despite united councils, summits. But Russian - Chinese cooperation won't be long as well, since chinese very soon will try to take the leading role. I don't know Georgias view on it, but seting up the course to the West it would be quite hard to reorientate. Not to say, that there will be no trade, since EUs partner China and the whole bunch of Asian countries will be becoming more and more important, but I would see Georgia as part of some ecconomiclly united reagion of Black Sea countries, inside the EU, rather then the East.
China will no more take the leading role in Russia-China relations than the EU will in Russia-EU relations. China and the EU are dependent on Russia's resources, and Russia is dependent on their custom.
Euro-Asia co-operation? Guess which country is in the middle of the 2 and has the shortest trade routes (Trans-Siberian, Artic Sea Route) between the 2 continents?
Georgia could indeed benefit from Black Sea co-operation, it's something I haven't thought of. But Russia and to a lesser extent Turkey & Ukraine are likely to be the dominant economic powers in that region. The former 2 aren't in the EU and are unlikely to be in the future, and the latter's EU entry is far from certain, especially if it involves joining NATO.
Georgian products indeed had their niche there, but if russian claim they weren't quality enough (remember the import ban), means not neceserraly the general shift in export routes, but together with other alternatives, higher the quality standarts. With that, even if it takes time (it is happening now, already, the ban is in place. To replace the government,only because russians are pissed of by georgian wine quality - hardlly that could ever happen), noone except the political reasons should have anything again exports to few directions. If georgians could be inovative, they will surelly find their place in other markets and will find a way to trade again with Russia.
Georgian products indeed do have problems and are low-quality. However that fact would have been ignored if Georgia enjoyed closer relations with Russia, so yes I agree that the ban was political. However Russia is not looking to destroy Georgia's economy, rather just put pressure on it. Remember after all, that a humongous part of Georgia's GDP right now comes from Georgian migrants sending money home from Russia, about a quater of their population is working in Russia now.
And still, I am sure you couldn't deny, that the ecconomic rise is generaly based on oil/gas dividends. Private consumption is only better, than it used to be, due to some tax, administrational reforms, but not as good as it could be. Soviet legacy has left its marks. The centralisation of power still relies on loyal ones, and corruption is there. Sure I agree, it's neither russian invention, nor perhaps biggest in the world along with beurocraccy. But the numbers are vast, it's nearlly officially legal, if you are the right person.
So far the Economic Rise has been based on oil/gas dividends, they are after all Russia's most profitable export. However, my point is that now all of this is rapidly changing, not only oil/gas but other natural resources in Russia whose world market value has doubled/tripled over the past decade are also beggining to assume a secoundry role as the economy diversifies and switches from a Natural-Resource/Industrial to a High-Tech/Innovative economy model.
But what's worst, is the political climate and political future. The miss of ol'good soviet times, velikaja derhava, chauvinist crap, radicalisation etc is not new to russian policy making. Yet it always hurted Russia. Behaviour in international level, esspecially in the neighbourhood countries is alread being met with signs of distrusfulness. Rise of radicals can spookmany out. Due to the worsening political climate foreign investments shall decrease leaving East more, than West. Perhaps it would be nothing, if China wouldn't be leading to take the leading role and dictatete its own rules. The demographical situation is still bad, though the impression is , that the government doesn't really care about that at all. As for industrial modernisation - it goes in steps of a turtle. Much will still collapse, due to the age and incapability to produce enough or at all. Imported machinery... well yes, in late XIX century a lot was imported as well, but generally it all led to nothing anyway.
Rise of foreign investment, has been what, +300% this year over last year? Despite the "worsening political climate". I suggest you read the financial news.
Why does the government not care about the demographical situation if Putin and his government haven't highlighted it a billion times on TV, formed cash benefits for every extra child born, and pump money into the National Project of Healthcare (which is unfortunetly still plagued by corruption, though not as much as before)?
Imported Machinery, yes. Huge amounts of Agricultural, Industrial, etc... Machinery has been imported over the last year (mainly from countries like Germany), pushing up Russian Gross Imports by 50%. The result? June Year-On-Year growth in Industrial Production; 10.9%. Largely accounted for by the Manufacturing Sector which grew 15.6% y-o-y in June. Show me another Industrialised country with such growth. Putin recently ordered establishment of a United Russian Machine Production Company, in order to make Russian Machinery competitive with its Western counterparts. Long way to go though...
Effect on Agriculture due to intial modernisation, Russian grain harvest is so far 35.1 million tonnes this year, up 7.2 million tonnes since last year. Only about 29% of arable land in Russia is being farmed, and this percentage is likely to decrease as global warming makes more and more areas of Russia suitable. A lot of potential for modernisation and growth here.
As for the Poltics and Radicals... Completely agree, Economy is getting better very quickly in Russia, but Social and Political aspect leaves a lot to be desired.
I am not saying, that the alternative to oild and gas is nigh, but surelly in the next decade this questiong will have to be solved for a start at least.
Well whatever the alternative is, Russia would probably have plenty more of it than anyone else anyway. Back when Timber was important, Russia had the most Timber. Then Coal. Now Oil and Gas. Future, who knows?
Political reasons (escape from russian influence, moving apart from hostile neighbour), perspective of better ecconomic stability, benefits.
Exactly, Political reasons. Economical reasons, I can certainly see for Poland, Serbia, etc... But no way for Georgia.
a large part of ecconomics is tied with russian buisnes. Trade (transit), oil/gas, food products etc. That does not inflict being in the EU and trading with them also. As for russian language, it's not becoming more and more important, it's just beneficial as useful, that's it. Perhaps time will come, when we will have to speak with you,as in here, on mp.net - in english.
Wait and see my friend. Wait and see. Believe me I'm not a Russian Language Nationalist or anything silly like that. It's just that Russia will naturally have the most economic influence in that region in the future. It's too much of a huge economy for your own country to miss out on.
IMHO decision of joining to NATO or UE is decision of Georgia and NATO/UE not Russia. So Russia should shut up and do not pray into other countries's affairs. Georgia is not a part of Russia anymore. Time to accept that.
America shouldn't mess around in Iraq. France should leave the Ivory Coast Alone. Poland should keep its nose out of Ukraine. Iran shouldn't try to undermine Iraq. Romania shouldn't interfere in Moldova. China should refrain from interfering with Taiwan. Kazakhstan should leave Kyrgyzstan alone. NATO should have kept itself out of Yugoslavia.
Need I go on?
Digimon
08-12-2007, 02:43 PM
China will no more take ... Need I go on?
I like your post, Flamming_Python.
ZhukovG
08-12-2007, 08:55 PM
you are right Igor, I think Soros is the one that pays the bills there, so they need smth in return a NATO base there, the goverment now doesnt represent the people, is like the Poland goverment...
the only reason NATO want Georgia as a member is for the cointainment they want to create against Russia,
Horizon
08-12-2007, 09:00 PM
It's an example off cource, but not for every case. And France did not invade NZ afterall, though I imagine the preasure. There were different times, nowdays France is even less important, and NZ becoming more important than it was before,if you'd like (not to say,that NZ is more important than France though). Yet whatever actions may be - to remain calm and keep dignity is still very important, no matter what other would do or say.
Give you a favor and check Wikipedia on Operation Satanic, our "agents" did not attend to take life, as it was not the goal, but it happened anyway...
What you call civilian boat was Greenpeace project to enter illegally a French highly sensitive military zone of nuclear importance.When you makes such projects, you can't pretend to do peace activities, it is more related to spying under an umbrella...
Xaito
08-12-2007, 09:05 PM
Stopped reading the article right after the part where it said that a missile was "fired" on georgia :roll:
I think more interesting then the question of whether Georgia would benefit from a NATO membership is if we NATO countries want Georgia as part of us?
I sure don't.
Nothing to gain but more trouble.
4X4Driver
08-13-2007, 06:33 AM
Is Turkey going to defend Georgia if it is in NATO and in case of war?
If Erdogan happens to be the PM when that happens, probably will...because he's a Georgian descent. :)
Turks and Georgians have already good relations.
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/6096/61932qo0.jpg
Flamming_Python
08-13-2007, 08:22 AM
I like your post, Flamming_Python.
Why thankyou :)
0rphie
08-13-2007, 03:14 PM
Is Turkey going to defend Georgia if it is in NATO and in case of war?
They once did, in 1785-1995, almost wiping out gergeans :)
If russians would not helped them out none may survive
America shouldn't mess around in Iraq. France should leave the Ivory Coast Alone. Poland should keep its nose out of Ukraine. Iran shouldn't try to undermine Iraq. Romania shouldn't interfere in Moldova. China should refrain from interfering with Taiwan. Kazakhstan should leave Kyrgyzstan alone. NATO should have kept itself out of Yugoslavia.
Need I go on?
I agree. But one thing. Don't put Ukraine here. There was a mess with faked ellections and our intention was to make real ellections, not some falsified one. In Poland people were supporting fair elections not Yushchenko.
Flamming_Python
08-13-2007, 06:13 PM
I agree. But one thing. Don't put Ukraine here. There was a mess with faked ellections and our intention was to make real ellections, not some falsified one. In Poland people were supporting fair elections not Yushchenko.
Whatever the cause, no matter just or not, the fact is that one country interfered into the sovereign proccesses of another. Russia did the same with Ukraine, to a greater extent than Poland.
People in Poland may have been supporting fair elections, I agree undoubtadly. But would the Polish government have made a big deal out of it if they expected Yanukovich to win in a fair election? Open your eyes man, Yushchenko was supported from the start by Poland, while Russia prefered Yanokovich.
Polish goverment is a piece of ****!
It should be purely Georgia's choice as to whether joining NATO or not, but I think that if it does, it will isolate itself in the region. Main and practicaly the only trading partner for Georgia is Russia. Russia is fully capable of surviving without georgian products, but not sure if Georgia is... Look at the map, Georgia's location is useless with the exception of military purpose. EU trade?? Look at the map again, there are no traderoutes going there or even being possible there for obvious reasons. So, being armed to teeth and member of NATO, but poor and hungry... Not sure EU would want such a member in. It's like taking Mongolia in...
cinoeye
08-14-2007, 12:38 PM
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/images/u/ufe_nato-ge.jpg
Flamming_Python
08-14-2007, 12:58 PM
Polish goverment is a piece of ****!
Nothing to do with government. It's in Polands national interests to ensure Russia doesn't gain influence in Ukraine, whatever the government, just as it is in Russia's national interests to ensure NATO doesn't establish a foothold in Ukraine.
Relax mate, this is just the world works. I'm sure that the people of Poland and Russia would prefer that none of this crap occurs anywhere in the world, but as long as others are doing it, everyone has to do it or they'll fall behind, right?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.