Russian invasion of Georgia..

Tristam Green said:
Also, to correct Excim, I believe the proper term any self-respecting Briton would call us would be "damn bloody yanks". Is that accurate?
Click to expand...

Meh, I'm just sick of listening to Jeremey Clarkson refer to us as "fat american bastards). Which sucks, because I completely agree with Jeremy on pretty much anything he is relevant on. (Which is cars...)

Sharpe, I would be wrong to say I wasn't throwing a barb at you when I replied to your post, so instead I'll apologize for the knee-jerk reaction. It just hit a nerve that's been boiling in my blood for a while now.
 
Excim said:
Meh, I'm just sick of listening to Jeremey Clarkson refer to us as "fat american bastards). Which sucks, because I completely agree with Jeremy on pretty much anything he is relevant on. (Which is cars...)

Sharpe, I would be wrong to say I wasn't throwing a barb at you when I replied to your post, so instead I'll apologize for the knee-jerk reaction. It just hit a nerve that's been boiling in my blood for a while now.
Click to expand...

Yeah Clarkson's a fool. Trust me calling you "fat American bastards" is nothing to some of the things he comes out with. The humour in Clarkson is that you're laughing at him not with him. That and he's not being serious, he does it because he knows people will get angry or laugh that's all. His books are incredibly funny reads actually.
 
Matt, I think we're in agreement over the technical definition of realpolitik (lit. "Practical Politics"), we're just debating it's application to this particular scenario.

I don't ascribe to the limitation of the concept applying only to nation-states. On a purely technical level, any entity capable of wielding political power can practice it in a pragmatic, amoral fashion. That's a much wider playing field than just recognized nations, after all.

And while South Ossetia is advancing its own agenda through this latest conflict, that doesn't alter the fact that Russia has been funding and supporting their separatist movements for an extremely long time. It's considerably easier to drum up popular support for secession when you've got money behind you.
 
Sharpe said:
Yeah Clarkson's a fool. Trust me calling you "fat American bastards" is nothing to some of the things he comes out with. The humour in Clarkson is that you're laughing at him not with him. That and he's not being serious, he does it because he knows people will get angry or laugh that's all. His books are incredibly funny reads actually.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm actually a big fan. My girl and I have made it a weekly ritual to catch Top Gear every Monday night. (She thinks Hammond is hot...wtf?)

Thing of it is, when I spent 5 months in Germany (and subsequentially, Switzerland, Luxembourg, France, and Sweden) I very rarely heard anyone say anything not derogative about America or Americans. And that's not to say they weren't showering me with love and compassion so they must hate me... no, I actually had a guy from Lithuania spit on me while I was at a pub when he found out I was an American citizen. I've seen the anti-american side of Europe, and it is ugly. And sad. :rant:


Sorry for getting off topic.
 
Raesvelg said:
Matt, I think we're in agreement over the technical definition of realpolitik (lit. "Practical Politics"), we're just debating it's application to this particular scenario.

I don't ascribe to the limitation of the concept applying only to nation-states. On a purely technical level, any entity capable of wielding political power can practice it in a pragmatic, amoral fashion. That's a much wider playing field than just recognized nations, after all.

And while South Ossetia is advancing its own agenda through this latest conflict, that doesn't alter the fact that Russia has been funding and supporting their separatist movements for an extremely long time. It's considerably easier to drum up popular support for secession when you've got money behind you.
Click to expand...

In summation, people that say realpolitik, which is part of a larger school of thought of political realism, is back. Are wrong, because it never left as a framework at viewing the world. People in Washington still think this way. The problem with it is that it isn't sustainable in the end, and almost damns itself via self-fulfilling prophecy. Which is why the 20th century tried to offer many alternative frameworks. I agree with you that Russia is taking a realist standpoint, but in the long run it is not going to benefit them.

If you are going to use the term realpolitik you really can't escape its connotations and its history - which is state centric. There is neo-realism iirc which attempts to make amendments, but its hard to escape that the premises of realism and realpolitik served a particular purpose, at a particular time for particular entities and even breaking it down to a universal principle like you do (i.e. not unique to states) may not escape the faults of those premises. I have these critiques somewhere, if you want me to find them I will gladly find them, just not today, more likely tomorrow. Basically, universalizing power/practical politics as a method not bound to states is problematic because it was formulated with solely states in mind.

Yes, any secession has to have some sort of material benefit. Chances are it isn't solely because of Russian support. I'd have to dig deeper into the economic status and opportunity that compares South Ossetia or Abkhazia to Georgia to give more insight into this. Its very rare that ethnic tensions are much more than a way of building separatist/nationalist sentiment rather than the initial impetus. I.e. the TMR (place I mentioned earlier) receives a lot of support from Russia, but the fact that Moldova is so poor in comparison to the TMR makes it much easier for them to be a pseudo-state. Not to mention that pseudo-states in general because of their ambiguous nature can accrue many financial benefits for underground trade etc.

Lastly, the situation kind of proves my point about the failings of realist thinking which is more important than the simple fact that Russia is working from that framework, as is Georgia in this case, and both countries are at fault. Georgia seeing S. Ossetia as a separatist threat acts militarily to neutralize it, Russia responds and now the threat is greater than it was before - the situation escalates in order to play a matrix of utility for all countries involved where the framework actually creates a lesser utility value for one or two for the benefit of the other, which after an ongoing game will prove to show less and less utility compared to unilateral action that is heralded by realpolitiks critics.

Georgia did something stupid and they will pay for it. Russia's response wasn't completely unwarranted, but they are definitely not doing it in a way that is going to benefit them the most in the end.
 
Leaving machtpolitik out of it, there's technically nothing wrong with realpolitik, so long as it's taken with the long view in mind. The Marshall Plan again serves as a good example: A very practical response that seemed altruistic at the time, but offered significant advantages further down the road.

Realpolitik policy based around short-term gains is typically a disaster waiting to happen, since it simply opens the door for future difficulties. Russia's approach to the Georgian invasion is in part one such disaster. Had they limited their actions purely tto the Georgian troops in South Ossetia, the response would likely have been less negative. Despite their rhetoric on the world stage, Russia seems even more entrenched in the "Cold War" mentality than it accuses the West of being.

Pragmatism can provide a semblance of morality in the long term. One of the difficulties with short-sighted policies is that they forget that while the entity you are exploiting currently may be weak, that will not necessarily be the case forever, particularly if you fail to maintain a unified policy over time, something nearly impossible in a democracy.

Which, incidentally, is a selling point for democracy, but that's largely off topic.

Russia manipulated the existing situation in South Ossetia to its advantage. I think we can all agree on that. Georgia dropped the ball in handling the issue, but the question remains as to alternate approaches. Don't forget that the external "peacekeeping force" in South Ossetia was Russian, and that must have been extremely frustrating to the Georgian government.

I'm gonna have to continue this later, kind of scatterbrained right now and I'm finding it hard to phrase things properly. I blame Reya.
 
Raesvelg said:
Leaving machtpolitik out of it, there's technically nothing wrong with realpolitik, so long as it's taken with the long view in mind. The Marshall Plan again serves as a good example: A very practical response that seemed altruistic at the time, but offered significant advantages further down the road.

Realpolitik policy based around short-term gains is typically a disaster waiting to happen, since it simply opens the door for future difficulties. Russia's approach to the Georgian invasion is in part one such disaster. Had they limited their actions purely tto the Georgian troops in South Ossetia, the response would likely have been less negative. Despite their rhetoric on the world stage, Russia seems even more entrenched in the "Cold War" mentality than it accuses the West of being.

Pragmatism can provide a semblance of morality in the long term. One of the difficulties with short-sighted policies is that they forget that while the entity you are exploiting currently may be weak, that will not necessarily be the case forever, particularly if you fail to maintain a unified policy over time, something nearly impossible in a democracy.

Which, incidentally, is a selling point for democracy, but that's largely off topic.

Russia manipulated the existing situation in South Ossetia to its advantage. I think we can all agree on that. Georgia dropped the ball in handling the issue, but the question remains as to alternate approaches. Don't forget that the external "peacekeeping force" in South Ossetia was Russian, and that must have been extremely frustrating to the Georgian government.

I'm gonna have to continue this later, kind of scatterbrained right now and I'm finding it hard to phrase things properly. I blame Reya.
Click to expand...
:whipped:
 
How can Ted Turner stand by while Georgia is being ravaged? Greg Maddux and the Atlanta Braves should be on the front lines, ready to defend and steal Russia's bases at a moments notice.
 
Excim said:
Meh, I'm just sick of listening to Jeremey Clarkson refer to us as "fat american bastards). Which sucks, because I completely agree with Jeremy on pretty much anything he is relevant on. (Which is cars...)

Sharpe, I would be wrong to say I wasn't throwing a barb at you when I replied to your post, so instead I'll apologize for the knee-jerk reaction. It just hit a nerve that's been boiling in my blood for a while now.
Click to expand...

I hear you... The whole anti-(insert nation here) thing really annoys me. It annoys me most when its the "fat/dumb/redneck americans" simply because Im american. Something else that pisses me off: (not really on original topic)

58dec4c37622eb4bb99487d08f1b934f.jpg


this shit gets old and is very annoying
 
the whole anti-american sentiment is a load of BS on their part. not that the american government doesnt deserve it, but in case they havent read the news, the majority of americans are against the war and against the way the country is being run. what pisses me off the most is that when a tragedy happens, some of these countries are actually happy and singing and dancing because americans died. do they not realize that these are people just like them? dont they realize that for every person that died on 9/11, the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq is a father, son, brother, sister, mother, or friend?? how would they feel if it was them doing the dying? srry got off topic

this whole "russia invading georgia" is nothing but a front. russia is just tryin to absorb whatever territory it can within its reach i think.
 
Check out this article: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/14/beck.georgia/index.html


"This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush."

Supposedly, that is what was written on the bombs that were dropped over Georgia.

It's time to get our act together as a country. Do you think we can do it? I'm very doubtful.
 
I saw this on Digg today and thought it was rather interesting. I'll have to look into this.

2002:

 
Bustaballs said:
I saw this on Digg today and thought it was rather interesting. I'll have to look into this.

2002:

Click to expand...

It's really upsetting that he will not be the next President of the United States. Sadly not enough people hear him. I really do believe that the world is being conditioned to easily accept a one world government New World Order Solution, in regards to all of what's going on out there.

I'm skeptical about the American voting system, that the President is selected regardless of voting. In a time when the people seek out a better leader, we're served with a Woman and a Black man running for president, which does raise interests in the people, but blinds them from making the better choice, cause seriously, Ron Paul makes Obama and McCain look silly. Even though i don't think voters have any say, I believe Ron Paul is not a product of the true force that's stages what the world sees.

Ron Paul was right then, and he was right in during the presidential debate. If Ron's values were to come into play, that would have made the world a better place. On a personal note, if he turned out to be a staged act, that would break my heart, but not surprise me too much. I just wish Ron Paul would get to be President and show us a different world.

If the US wasn't already out there fighting, this invasion of Georgia probably wouldn't be happening right now.
 
Anttaru said:
If the US wasn't already out there fighting, this invasion of Georgia probably wouldn't be happening right now.
Click to expand...

Chances are that's not the case, and it would be still going on.

There are only two nations in the world, really, that the US wouldn't dare go to war against (yet): Russia and China.
 
Anttaru said:
It's really upsetting that he will not be the next President of the United States. Sadly not enough people hear him. I really do believe that the world is being conditioned to easily accept a one world government New World Order Solution, in regards to all of what's going on out there.

I'm skeptical about the American voting system, that the President is selected regardless of voting. In a time when the people seek out a better leader, we're served with a Woman and a Black man running for president, which does raise interests in the people, but blinds them from making the better choice, cause seriously, Ron Paul makes Obama and McCain look silly. Even though i don't think voters have any say, I believe Ron Paul is not a product of the true force that's stages what the world sees.

Ron Paul was right then, and he was right in during the presidential debate. If Ron's values were to come into play, that would have made the world a better place. On a personal note, if he turned out to be a staged act, that would break my heart, but not surprise me too much. I just wish Ron Paul would get to be President and show us a different world.

If the US wasn't already out there fighting, this invasion of Georgia probably wouldn't be happening right now.
Click to expand...

Personally, I think Ron Paul is well-spoken, but he ought to focus on political discourse rather then relying on the political machine. After the election people will forget about Ron Paul, or think of him as just another candidate who was going to run for president which isn't going to do much for his message. Especially if he continues to run in other elections without increasing his popularity tremendously in off years (see: Nader), people will just focus on him as some candidate with a minority vision rather than really take him seriously. Also, if you rely on a president to show you a new world, I'd double take, no president should have that much power and moreover most candidates I think should just strive for something better, not completely new.

So what if Ron Paul was right then, when the War in Iraq started I was only in high school, and I was like verbatim "This will lead to a power vacuum, civil strife, and increased terrorism inside of Iraq" because it was glaringly obvious to anyone with any sense. What was even funnier was I was watching Bill Mahrer and he used the same analogy that I would use in debates, months later one of my professors used the same one does this make me someone with privileged information who really ought to be in public office, hell no, I just keep tabs on these things. Moreover, its easily turned, Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start because possibly he saw thing much like Ron Paul sees things in Georgia - if this intuitiveness is enough to assume Ron Paul would make a better president, it would apply to Obama as well (this is supporters logic here, not mine).

The issues with Georgia and Russia, if any possible links at all, are small to the fact that we are at war and if anything peripheral, especially because Russia isn't pre-empting for the sake of combatting terrorism as much as what they see as invading a sovereign nation, while most the world community would view South Ossetia as lacking legitimacy in that sense. You'd be better to be making this type of case on Chechnya more than anywhere else as far as Russia is concerned.
 
To those that have paid attention to European politics since Kosovo, this isn't about US foreign policy. This is about two things:

1) Georgia attempting to join NATO and Russia feeling threatened because it's losing influence over the former Soviet-Bloc countries.

2) The oil pipeline that goes right through Georgia. Whomever controls the flow of Caspian Sea oil, controls a large chunk of Europe's financial prosperity.

Iraq or no Iraq, Bush or no Bush, Russia would have invaded. This is the same old Eastern Bloc Hegemony shit they've been pulling since the end of WWII. They got out of the game because they were broke and now they're back in it because they've got a little bit of money again.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top