Isnt it the other way around? The persistent denial of EU membership and constant reminder of belonging to Asia were there for a long time.Gerard wrote:Turkey's abandonment of the West
Geopolitical thread
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Putin's message to the world.
(That Russia will defend the rights of its citizens abroad anywhere and that the days of NATO expansion in Europe are over)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tance.html
(That Russia will defend the rights of its citizens abroad anywhere and that the days of NATO expansion in Europe are over)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... tance.html
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Oil "Pipedream".
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 91499.html
Battle for Oil: EU’s hope to bypass Russian energy may be a pipe dream
By Claire Soares
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Beleaguered president: Gambler who risked his country and links with
Georgia may have no natural resources to speak of, yet it has become a key player for Europe, due to 155 miles of pipeline that snake across its territory.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is the only practical route for carrying Caspian oil to Western markets that avoids Russia – a treasured asset for the a European Union trying to reduce energy dependence on Moscow.
The BTC, which connects Baku in Azerbaijan, via the Georgian capital Tbilisi with Ceyhan, a port on the south-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, was once billed as the "pipeline of peace". Now it finds itself on the fringes of war zone as Russian and Georgia face off.
"The whole conflict is not being waged over the pipeline. The reasons are definitely geopolitical," explained Natalia Leshchenko, a Russia analyst at Global Insight. "However, the Russians know the pipeline is important to Georgia and may try to damage it. They have the capability to do so."
As fighting raged over the weekend, Georgian officials said Russian fighter jets had targeted the pipeline, but missed. "This shows that Russia has not just targeted Georgian economic outlets but international economic outlets," said Economic Development Minister Ekaterina Sharashidze, tying her nation's fate firmly to that of the West. There was no independent confirmation of the raids although BP, with a 30 per cent stake in the project, were unaware of explosions.
The security of the pipeline was already in the spotlight after an attack on a Turkish section by Kurdish separatists last week, and the Russian/Georgian conflict will not ease those concerns. The pipeline runs 35 miles from the South Ossetian border.
The European Union is keen to wean itself off Russia, which supplies a quarter of its oil and half its natural gas, and is targeting central Asia, one of the world's few untapped oil provinces.
The BTC pipeline, which cost $4bn to build, is the heart of that effort. It was bitterly opposed by Moscow, which feared an easing of its energy stranglehold and a dilution of influence in the region.
The pipeline, which featured in the James Bond film The World is Not Enough, can pump around a million barrels a day. Lesser amounts of crude flow through Baku-Supsa line. Gas also transits Georgia through the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, which provides over 6.5 billion cubic meters a year. But it is not so much quantity as comfort.
"For Europeans, an alternative supply route is psychological reassurance. It's having a route that does not go through Russia," said Ms Leshchenko. "But the other countries the pipeline passes through may ultimately prove more unreliable."
There are plans afoot for another gas EU route, the Nabucco pipeline, which is meant to transport non-Russian gas and pass through territory independent of Moscow. Until recently Georgia was the ideal candidate.
"But if Georgia is no longer a safe passageway, then all of these schemes for diminished dependency on Russia go up in smoke," says Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 91499.html
Battle for Oil: EU’s hope to bypass Russian energy may be a pipe dream
By Claire Soares
Tuesday, 12 August 2008
Beleaguered president: Gambler who risked his country and links with
Georgia may have no natural resources to speak of, yet it has become a key player for Europe, due to 155 miles of pipeline that snake across its territory.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline is the only practical route for carrying Caspian oil to Western markets that avoids Russia – a treasured asset for the a European Union trying to reduce energy dependence on Moscow.
The BTC, which connects Baku in Azerbaijan, via the Georgian capital Tbilisi with Ceyhan, a port on the south-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, was once billed as the "pipeline of peace". Now it finds itself on the fringes of war zone as Russian and Georgia face off.
"The whole conflict is not being waged over the pipeline. The reasons are definitely geopolitical," explained Natalia Leshchenko, a Russia analyst at Global Insight. "However, the Russians know the pipeline is important to Georgia and may try to damage it. They have the capability to do so."
As fighting raged over the weekend, Georgian officials said Russian fighter jets had targeted the pipeline, but missed. "This shows that Russia has not just targeted Georgian economic outlets but international economic outlets," said Economic Development Minister Ekaterina Sharashidze, tying her nation's fate firmly to that of the West. There was no independent confirmation of the raids although BP, with a 30 per cent stake in the project, were unaware of explosions.
The security of the pipeline was already in the spotlight after an attack on a Turkish section by Kurdish separatists last week, and the Russian/Georgian conflict will not ease those concerns. The pipeline runs 35 miles from the South Ossetian border.
The European Union is keen to wean itself off Russia, which supplies a quarter of its oil and half its natural gas, and is targeting central Asia, one of the world's few untapped oil provinces.
The BTC pipeline, which cost $4bn to build, is the heart of that effort. It was bitterly opposed by Moscow, which feared an easing of its energy stranglehold and a dilution of influence in the region.
The pipeline, which featured in the James Bond film The World is Not Enough, can pump around a million barrels a day. Lesser amounts of crude flow through Baku-Supsa line. Gas also transits Georgia through the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum pipeline, which provides over 6.5 billion cubic meters a year. But it is not so much quantity as comfort.
"For Europeans, an alternative supply route is psychological reassurance. It's having a route that does not go through Russia," said Ms Leshchenko. "But the other countries the pipeline passes through may ultimately prove more unreliable."
There are plans afoot for another gas EU route, the Nabucco pipeline, which is meant to transport non-Russian gas and pass through territory independent of Moscow. Until recently Georgia was the ideal candidate.
"But if Georgia is no longer a safe passageway, then all of these schemes for diminished dependency on Russia go up in smoke," says Michael Klare, author of Rising Powers, Shrinking Planet: The New Geopolitics of Energy.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Putin for US president - more than ever
By intervening in Georgia, Russia has demonstrated that the great powers of the world have nothing to fight about. Russia has wiped the floor with a putative US ally, and apart from a bad case of cream pie on the face, America has lost nothing. The United States and the European community will do nothing to help Georgia, and nothing of substance to penalize the Russian Federation.
It is humiliating for the US to watch the Russians thrash a prospective ally, but not harmful, for Georgia never should have been an ally in the first place
The lack of consequences of Russia's incursion is a noteworthy fact, for never before in the history of the world has the world's economic and military power resided in countries whose fundamental interests do not conflict in any important way. The US enthused over Georgia's ambitions to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and encouraged Saakashvili to overplay his hand. Once it became clear that Russia would not tolerate a NATO member on its southern border, however, Washington had nothing to say about the matter, because no fundamental American interests were at stake.
If it had not been for America's insistence on installing a gang of trigger-happy pimps and drug-pushers in Kosovo, Russia might have responded less ferociously to the flea bites on its southern border.
America remains so committed to the myth of moderate Islam that it is prepared to invent it. Kosovo, like the Turkey of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, supposedly embodies a moderate, Sufi-derived brand of Islam that will foster an American partnership with the Muslim world. The US intelligence community knows perfectly well that the networks that traffic prostitutes through Albania into Italy and the rest of Europe also move narcotics, weapons and terrorists from Kuala Lumpur in Malaysia to Grozny in Chechnya to Tirana in Albania and Pristina in Kosovo.
So real deal is Iran ....... interesting times ahead.....The number of flashpoints for violence in the world has grown in inverse proportion to their importance. The world is full of undead tribes with delusions of grandeur, and soon-to-be-extinct peoples who rather would go out with a bang than a whimper. The supra-ethnic states of the world have a common interest in containing the mischief that might be made by the losers. China, which has an annoying terrorist problem in its Westernmost province, has plenty of reason to help suppress Muslim separatists.
Unfortunately, modern weapons technology makes it possible for a spoiler state to inflict a disproportionate amount of damage. China recognized this when it cooperated with the United States to defuse the North Korean nuclear problem. The most visible prospective spoiler in the pack remains Iran. If America wants to recover from its humiliation in the Caucasus, it might, for example, conduct an air raid against Iran's nuclear facilities, and justify it with the same sort of reasoning that Russia invoked in Georgia. Contrary to surface impressions, Moscow wouldn't mind a bit.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Read in today's TOI, Russia may be eyeing Ukraine next.
Its cant be bad for India. Ukraine's guilty of supplying military hardware to Pak (T-80UDs and IL-78 mid-air refuellers...)
Any comments, Gurus?
Its cant be bad for India. Ukraine's guilty of supplying military hardware to Pak (T-80UDs and IL-78 mid-air refuellers...)
Any comments, Gurus?
-
Nayak
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
- Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Fizzle-ya does not have air-refuellers.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
From reports, it seems they(Il-78s) are on order?
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Slavic rivals embroiled in church rift
On Saturday, President Viktor A. Yushchenko of Ukraine chose the 1,020th anniversary of the advent of Christianity in the Slavic kingdom that predated Ukraine and Russia — a date that each country claims as a founding event of its nationhood — to issue a plea for Ukraine’s Orthodox Christians to gain independence from the Russian Orthodox Church.
With Orthodox Church notables from around the world looking on, Mr. Yushchenko asked Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, the spiritual leader of the world’s 250 million Orthodox Christians, to bless the creation of an independent Ukrainian church — “a blessing,” he said on Saturday, “for a dream, for the truth, for a hope, for our state, for Ukraine.”
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
New assertive Russia not the Soviet Union
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... obb20.html
How quickly conservatives returned to Cold War rhetoric and attitudes in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict was astonishing.
Vladimir Putin's Russia is an aggressive, nationalistic power. And that's a problem.
But Putin's Russia isn't the Soviet Union. It doesn't represent the same kind of threat to the West. The stakes just aren't the same, which means that Cold War attitudes don't lead to clear-headed thinking about how best to respond to the problem Russia does present.
The ambitions of the communist Soviet Union were universal. It wanted to remake the world in its image.
It promoted the spread of communism throughout the globe. It actively sought to undermine Western democracies, particularly in Western Europe. It posed a military threat to the independence of Western Europe.
Putin has emasculated nascent democratic institutions in post-Soviet Russia. He has successfully turned Russia's oil and natural-gas resources into an instrument of state power. Putin's Russia seeks power and influence.
But there is no evidence that Putin's Russia aims to remake the world in its image. Instead, it is seeking safe space for its authoritarianism.
.....
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... obb20.html
How quickly conservatives returned to Cold War rhetoric and attitudes in the wake of the Russia-Georgia conflict was astonishing.
Vladimir Putin's Russia is an aggressive, nationalistic power. And that's a problem.
But Putin's Russia isn't the Soviet Union. It doesn't represent the same kind of threat to the West. The stakes just aren't the same, which means that Cold War attitudes don't lead to clear-headed thinking about how best to respond to the problem Russia does present.
The ambitions of the communist Soviet Union were universal. It wanted to remake the world in its image.
It promoted the spread of communism throughout the globe. It actively sought to undermine Western democracies, particularly in Western Europe. It posed a military threat to the independence of Western Europe.
Putin has emasculated nascent democratic institutions in post-Soviet Russia. He has successfully turned Russia's oil and natural-gas resources into an instrument of state power. Putin's Russia seeks power and influence.
But there is no evidence that Putin's Russia aims to remake the world in its image. Instead, it is seeking safe space for its authoritarianism.
.....
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Vladimir Putin's mastery checkmates the West
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 525885.ece
Russia has been biding its time, but its victory in Georgia has been brutal - and brilliantMichael Binyon
The cartoon images have shown Russia as an angry bear, stretching out a claw to maul Georgia. Russia is certainly angry, and, like a beast provoked, has bared its teeth. But it is the wrong stereotype. What the world has seen last week is a brilliant and brutal display of Russia's national game, chess. And Moscow has just declared checkmate.
Chess is a slow game. One has to be ready to ignore provocations, lose a few pawns and turn the hubris of others into their own entrapment. For years there has been rising resentment within Russia. Some of this is inevitable: the loss of empire, a burning sense of grievance and the fear that in the 1990s, amid domestic chaos and economic collapse, Russia's views no longer mattered.
A generalised resentment, similar to the sour undercurrents of Weimar Germany, began to focus on specific issues: the nonchalance of the Clinton Administration about Russian sensitivities, especially over the Balkans and in opening Nato's door to former Warsaw Pact members; the neo-conservative agenda of the early Bush years that saw no role for Russia in its global agenda; and Washington's ingratitude after 9/11 for vital Kremlin support over terrorism, Afghanistan and intelligence on extremism.
More infuriating was Western encouragement of “freedom” in the former Soviet satellite states that gave carte blanche to forces long hostile to Russia. In the Baltic states, Soviet occupation could be portrayed as worse than the Nazis. EU commissioners from new member states could target Russian policies. Populists in Eastern Europe could ride to power on anti-Russian rhetoric emboldened by Western applause for their fluency in English.
Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia, two countries long part of the Russian Empire, whose history, religion and culture were so intertwined with Russia's. Moscow tried, disastrously, to check Western, and particularly American, influence in Ukraine. The clumsy meddling led to the Orange Revolution.
Georgia was a different matter. Relations were always mercurial, but Eduard Shevardnadze, the wily former Soviet Foreign Minister, knew how to keep atavistic animosities in check. Not so his brash successor, Mikheil Saakashvili. From then on, hubris was Tbilisi's undoing.
It was not simply the dismissive rhetoric, the open door to US advisers or the economic illiteracy in forgetting dependence on Russian energy and remittance from across the border; it was the determined attempt to make Georgia a US regional ally and outpost of US influence.
Big powers do not like other big powers poaching. This may not be moral or fair but it is reality, and one that underpins the Security Council veto. The Monroe Doctrine - “hands off the Americas” - has been policy in Washington for 200 years. The US is ready to risk war to keep out not only other powers but hostile ideologies - in Cuba and Nicaragua.
Vladimir Putin lost several pawns on the chessboard - Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation of the ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. But he waited.
The trap was set in Georgia. When President Saakashvili blundered into South Ossetia, sending in an army to shell, kill and maim on a vicious scale (against US advice and his promised word), Russia was waiting.
It was not only Mr Saakashvili who thought that he had the distraction of the Olympics to cover him; the Kremlin also knew that Mr Bush was watching basketball, and, in the longer term, that the US army was fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the day that the Russian tank brigade raced through the tunnel into South Ossetia, Russia has not made one wrong move. Mr Bush's remarks yesterday notwithstanding, In five days it turned an overreaching blunder by a Western-backed opponent into a devastating exposure of Western impotence, dithering and double standards on respecting national sovereignty (viz Iraq).
The attack was short, sharp and deadly - enough to send the Georgians fleeing in humiliating panic, their rout captured by global television. The destruction was enough to hurt, but not so much that the world would be roused in fury. The timing of the ceasefire was precise: just hours before President Sarkozy could voice Western anger. Moscow made clear that it retained the initiative. And despite sporadic breaches - on both sides - Russia has blunted Georgian charges that this is a war of annihilation.
Moscow can also counter Georgian PR, the last weapon left to Tbilisi. Human rights? Look at what Georgia has done in South Ossetia (and also in Abkhazia). National sovereignty? Look at the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. False pretexts? Look at Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada to “rescue” US medical students. Western outrage? Look at the confused cacophony.
There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics - remember your geography. To Nato - do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi - do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington - does Russia's voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.
Have your say
Russia is not what it was 20 years ago. It's not week and confused, but it's not a Soviet Union either ! The Russians have no wish to return to soviet times at all and wey do our best to build another coutry with other rulls, values. It's so funny to read how western politics draw us as an anamy
Elizabeth, Tyumen, Russia
If the US continue the 1970-80's politics to dictate their ZANDARMO charecter,and that will buried by the new Russia in the head of MR.PUTIN.
Talk to Russia in a proper manner and that is good for all of "US"
Dr.Balan, Chennai, India
Finally someone said the truth!
Saakashvili is a butcher paid by US. US will replace USAshvili with another butcher. But 2000 people are dead and blood is on US gov. hands too!
W. Bush and Co. are still lying to American people - that is not acceptable! Americans should kick off W.B from W. House.
Bud, Philadelphia, USA
With the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact, there was no "purpose" for NATO anymore, unless bombing weaker nations into stone ages and stealing their natural resources in the name of defending democracy can be called a "purpose".
Georgia threatened Moscow with NATO bases, hence all this conflict.
Protik Maitra, Charlotte, NC
A good, thoughtful article. However it is unlikely that President Saakashvili attacked Georgia against US advice! More likely the US gave Georgia the green light in order to discredit Russia and turn world opinion against them. Fortunately, Russia came out on tops geopolitically.
Derek Papps, Oamaru, New Zealand
The US and the West have lost all their marbles in their biased and unfair blame on Russia. The real culprit is MS, that little stooge of the US who thought he has been empowered by the US' promise of NATO membership & support. It's not unexpected for Russia to rspond the way they did, & rightly so!
tuyiang, KL, Malaysia
Great article, finally we can read a piece that doesn't sound like a sour loser's weeping. The fact is: if Americans didn't push for Kosovo's independence, we wouldn't have this situation in Georgia. Now both Russians and especially Serbs can say: told you so...
miconi, Belgrade, Serbia
_nado_videt_chertu_gde_my_ostanovimsya
shame.
alex, london, uk
It seems the conflict with Georgia is a tactical victory, and a strategic error for Russia.
Charles, Frodsham, UK
What is worrying is the sheer complacency and arrogance of the US and many of its allies. Even with first hand knowledge and intimate details, the blundering antics and lack of 'savvy' from the west and its allies beggars belief. You have to admire the Russians in many respects
Gordon Charlesworth, Colchester, England
Checked but far from checkmate. Russia has declared its brutal hand and now the whole world knows it is not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. World chess is a long game. Blustering, bullying and threatening behaviour is for the short game only. Russia has 1.5 billion Chinese in its back.yard
albert hall, hove, england
A very well weighed opinion and good analysis - quite a contrary to almost everything I have read about this conflict before. US have definitely lost in Georgia - at least, this round. Bush has to remember he is not the only player on the field.
Kudos and respect to the author!
Andrew, Karlsruhe, Germany
Thank you for such a great article!
It was such a pleasure to read it.
Albina Smirnova, Trondheim, Norway
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 525885.ece
Russia has been biding its time, but its victory in Georgia has been brutal - and brilliantMichael Binyon
The cartoon images have shown Russia as an angry bear, stretching out a claw to maul Georgia. Russia is certainly angry, and, like a beast provoked, has bared its teeth. But it is the wrong stereotype. What the world has seen last week is a brilliant and brutal display of Russia's national game, chess. And Moscow has just declared checkmate.
Chess is a slow game. One has to be ready to ignore provocations, lose a few pawns and turn the hubris of others into their own entrapment. For years there has been rising resentment within Russia. Some of this is inevitable: the loss of empire, a burning sense of grievance and the fear that in the 1990s, amid domestic chaos and economic collapse, Russia's views no longer mattered.
A generalised resentment, similar to the sour undercurrents of Weimar Germany, began to focus on specific issues: the nonchalance of the Clinton Administration about Russian sensitivities, especially over the Balkans and in opening Nato's door to former Warsaw Pact members; the neo-conservative agenda of the early Bush years that saw no role for Russia in its global agenda; and Washington's ingratitude after 9/11 for vital Kremlin support over terrorism, Afghanistan and intelligence on extremism.
More infuriating was Western encouragement of “freedom” in the former Soviet satellite states that gave carte blanche to forces long hostile to Russia. In the Baltic states, Soviet occupation could be portrayed as worse than the Nazis. EU commissioners from new member states could target Russian policies. Populists in Eastern Europe could ride to power on anti-Russian rhetoric emboldened by Western applause for their fluency in English.
Nowhere was such taunting more wounding than in Ukraine and Georgia, two countries long part of the Russian Empire, whose history, religion and culture were so intertwined with Russia's. Moscow tried, disastrously, to check Western, and particularly American, influence in Ukraine. The clumsy meddling led to the Orange Revolution.
Georgia was a different matter. Relations were always mercurial, but Eduard Shevardnadze, the wily former Soviet Foreign Minister, knew how to keep atavistic animosities in check. Not so his brash successor, Mikheil Saakashvili. From then on, hubris was Tbilisi's undoing.
It was not simply the dismissive rhetoric, the open door to US advisers or the economic illiteracy in forgetting dependence on Russian energy and remittance from across the border; it was the determined attempt to make Georgia a US regional ally and outpost of US influence.
Big powers do not like other big powers poaching. This may not be moral or fair but it is reality, and one that underpins the Security Council veto. The Monroe Doctrine - “hands off the Americas” - has been policy in Washington for 200 years. The US is ready to risk war to keep out not only other powers but hostile ideologies - in Cuba and Nicaragua.
Vladimir Putin lost several pawns on the chessboard - Kosovo, Iraq, Nato membership for the Baltic states, US renunciation of the ABM treaty, US missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic. But he waited.
The trap was set in Georgia. When President Saakashvili blundered into South Ossetia, sending in an army to shell, kill and maim on a vicious scale (against US advice and his promised word), Russia was waiting.
It was not only Mr Saakashvili who thought that he had the distraction of the Olympics to cover him; the Kremlin also knew that Mr Bush was watching basketball, and, in the longer term, that the US army was fully engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan. From the day that the Russian tank brigade raced through the tunnel into South Ossetia, Russia has not made one wrong move. Mr Bush's remarks yesterday notwithstanding, In five days it turned an overreaching blunder by a Western-backed opponent into a devastating exposure of Western impotence, dithering and double standards on respecting national sovereignty (viz Iraq).
The attack was short, sharp and deadly - enough to send the Georgians fleeing in humiliating panic, their rout captured by global television. The destruction was enough to hurt, but not so much that the world would be roused in fury. The timing of the ceasefire was precise: just hours before President Sarkozy could voice Western anger. Moscow made clear that it retained the initiative. And despite sporadic breaches - on both sides - Russia has blunted Georgian charges that this is a war of annihilation.
Moscow can also counter Georgian PR, the last weapon left to Tbilisi. Human rights? Look at what Georgia has done in South Ossetia (and also in Abkhazia). National sovereignty? Look at the detachment of Kosovo from Serbia. False pretexts? Look at Ronald Reagan's invasion of Grenada to “rescue” US medical students. Western outrage? Look at the confused cacophony.
There are lessons everywhere. To the former Soviet republics - remember your geography. To Nato - do you still want to incorporate Caucasian vendettas into your alliance? To Tbilisi - do you want to keep a President who brought this on you? To Washington - does Russia's voice still count for nothing? Like it or not, it counts for a lot.
Have your say
Russia is not what it was 20 years ago. It's not week and confused, but it's not a Soviet Union either ! The Russians have no wish to return to soviet times at all and wey do our best to build another coutry with other rulls, values. It's so funny to read how western politics draw us as an anamy
Elizabeth, Tyumen, Russia
If the US continue the 1970-80's politics to dictate their ZANDARMO charecter,and that will buried by the new Russia in the head of MR.PUTIN.
Talk to Russia in a proper manner and that is good for all of "US"
Dr.Balan, Chennai, India
Finally someone said the truth!
Saakashvili is a butcher paid by US. US will replace USAshvili with another butcher. But 2000 people are dead and blood is on US gov. hands too!
W. Bush and Co. are still lying to American people - that is not acceptable! Americans should kick off W.B from W. House.
Bud, Philadelphia, USA
With the disbanding of the Warsaw Pact, there was no "purpose" for NATO anymore, unless bombing weaker nations into stone ages and stealing their natural resources in the name of defending democracy can be called a "purpose".
Georgia threatened Moscow with NATO bases, hence all this conflict.
Protik Maitra, Charlotte, NC
A good, thoughtful article. However it is unlikely that President Saakashvili attacked Georgia against US advice! More likely the US gave Georgia the green light in order to discredit Russia and turn world opinion against them. Fortunately, Russia came out on tops geopolitically.
Derek Papps, Oamaru, New Zealand
The US and the West have lost all their marbles in their biased and unfair blame on Russia. The real culprit is MS, that little stooge of the US who thought he has been empowered by the US' promise of NATO membership & support. It's not unexpected for Russia to rspond the way they did, & rightly so!
tuyiang, KL, Malaysia
Great article, finally we can read a piece that doesn't sound like a sour loser's weeping. The fact is: if Americans didn't push for Kosovo's independence, we wouldn't have this situation in Georgia. Now both Russians and especially Serbs can say: told you so...
miconi, Belgrade, Serbia
_nado_videt_chertu_gde_my_ostanovimsya
shame.
alex, london, uk
It seems the conflict with Georgia is a tactical victory, and a strategic error for Russia.
Charles, Frodsham, UK
What is worrying is the sheer complacency and arrogance of the US and many of its allies. Even with first hand knowledge and intimate details, the blundering antics and lack of 'savvy' from the west and its allies beggars belief. You have to admire the Russians in many respects
Gordon Charlesworth, Colchester, England
Checked but far from checkmate. Russia has declared its brutal hand and now the whole world knows it is not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. World chess is a long game. Blustering, bullying and threatening behaviour is for the short game only. Russia has 1.5 billion Chinese in its back.yard
albert hall, hove, england
A very well weighed opinion and good analysis - quite a contrary to almost everything I have read about this conflict before. US have definitely lost in Georgia - at least, this round. Bush has to remember he is not the only player on the field.
Kudos and respect to the author!
Andrew, Karlsruhe, Germany
Thank you for such a great article!
It was such a pleasure to read it.
Albina Smirnova, Trondheim, Norway
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_ ... 1EHxdvaA8F
AP
Rice to sign missile defense deal with Poland
WARSAW, Poland - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans Wednesday to sign a deal to build a U.S. missile defense base on Polish soil, an agreement that has already prompted an infuriated Russia to threaten its former Soviet satellite.
The deal to install 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost frontier also has strained relations between Moscow and the West, ties that already troubled by Russia's invasion of its former Soviet neighbor, U.S. ally Georgia, earlier this month.
Rice flew to Poland Tuesday after meeting with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Belgium, where the military allies agreed to suspend formal contacts with Russia as punishment for the Georgia conflict, but resisted U.S. pressure for more severe penalties.
The U.S. says the missile defense system is aimed at protecting the U.S.
and Europe from future attacks from states like Iran. Moscow insists that it is a threat to Russia.
After Warsaw and Washington announced the agreement on the deal last week, top Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn warned that Poland is risking attack, and possibly a nuclear one, by deploying the American missile defense system, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.
Poles have been shaken by the threats, but NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop dismissed them Tuesday as "pathetic rhetoric."
"It is unhelpful and it leads nowhere," he told reporters at the NATO meeting.
Many Poles consider the agreement a form of protection at a time when Russia's actions in Georgia have generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe. Poland is a member of the European Union and NATO, and the deal is expected to deepen its military partnership with Washington.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said Wednesday will be "an important day in our history."
He stressed that the missile defense shield was purely a defensive system and not a threat.
"For that reason, no one who has good intentions toward us and toward the Western world should be afraid of it," he said.
Poland and the United States spent a year and a half negotiating, and talks recently had snagged on Poland's demands that the U.S. bolster Polish security with Patriot missiles in exchange for hosting the missile defense base.
Washington agreed to do so last week, as Poland invoked the Georgia conflict to strengthen its case.
The Patriots are meant to protect Poland from short-range missiles from neighbors — such as Russia.
The U.S. already has reached an agreement with the government in Prague to place the second component of the missile defense shield — a radar tracking system — in the Czech Republic, Poland's southwestern neighbor and another formerly communist country.
Approval is still needed the Czech and Polish parliaments.
No date has been set for the Polish parliament to consider the agreement, but it should face no difficulties in Warsaw, where it enjoys the support of the largest opposition party as well as the government.
AP
Rice to sign missile defense deal with Poland
WARSAW, Poland - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans Wednesday to sign a deal to build a U.S. missile defense base on Polish soil, an agreement that has already prompted an infuriated Russia to threaten its former Soviet satellite.
The deal to install 10 U.S. interceptor missiles just 115 miles from Russia's westernmost frontier also has strained relations between Moscow and the West, ties that already troubled by Russia's invasion of its former Soviet neighbor, U.S. ally Georgia, earlier this month.
Rice flew to Poland Tuesday after meeting with NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, Belgium, where the military allies agreed to suspend formal contacts with Russia as punishment for the Georgia conflict, but resisted U.S. pressure for more severe penalties.
The U.S. says the missile defense system is aimed at protecting the U.S.
and Europe from future attacks from states like Iran. Moscow insists that it is a threat to Russia.After Warsaw and Washington announced the agreement on the deal last week, top Russian Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn warned that Poland is risking attack, and possibly a nuclear one, by deploying the American missile defense system, Russia's Interfax news agency reported.
Poles have been shaken by the threats, but NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop dismissed them Tuesday as "pathetic rhetoric."
"It is unhelpful and it leads nowhere," he told reporters at the NATO meeting.
Many Poles consider the agreement a form of protection at a time when Russia's actions in Georgia have generated alarm throughout Eastern Europe. Poland is a member of the European Union and NATO, and the deal is expected to deepen its military partnership with Washington.
Polish President Lech Kaczynski said Wednesday will be "an important day in our history."
He stressed that the missile defense shield was purely a defensive system and not a threat.
"For that reason, no one who has good intentions toward us and toward the Western world should be afraid of it," he said.
Poland and the United States spent a year and a half negotiating, and talks recently had snagged on Poland's demands that the U.S. bolster Polish security with Patriot missiles in exchange for hosting the missile defense base.
Washington agreed to do so last week, as Poland invoked the Georgia conflict to strengthen its case.
The Patriots are meant to protect Poland from short-range missiles from neighbors — such as Russia.
The U.S. already has reached an agreement with the government in Prague to place the second component of the missile defense shield — a radar tracking system — in the Czech Republic, Poland's southwestern neighbor and another formerly communist country.
Approval is still needed the Czech and Polish parliaments.
No date has been set for the Polish parliament to consider the agreement, but it should face no difficulties in Warsaw, where it enjoys the support of the largest opposition party as well as the government.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
If you look at the map ,it is patently obvious that missiles sited in Poland are of little value in shooting down hypothetical Iranian missiles and N.Korea does not possess the missiles that could threaten NATO or its defences.The obvious location is Turkey,already a member of NATO and a prime candidate for any ABM system.As one analyst says,"if the Americans want to protect Europe against Iranian missiles so much, why don't they want to use the information received by Daryal, a Russian radar that is part of the missile warning system in Gabala, Azerbaijan? Daryal is the world's most powerful radar and monitors air space to the range of more than 3,000 miles -- up to the Indian Ocean. The Sevastopol-based Dnepr radar also covers the potential flight path of Iranian missiles bound for Europe."
The repercussions of the "Georgian Gambit",which in chess parlance will now come to mean a suicidal,doomed attack,is that Shaky-Willy's friends who rushed to stand by his side during the crisis,leaders from some former Soviet bloc like the Ukranian Yuschenko,now run the risk of similarly committting at a future date,by their indecent haste to become NATO cannonfodder.The following article describes the Ukranian leader's love for the "Georgian Gambit" as potentially suicidal and that Ukraine coulod be the next flashpoint if Yuschenko continues with his "Ukranian Gambit".
Ukraine risks wrath of Russia as Yushchenko sides with the West
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 02906.html
By Askold Krushelnycky in Kiev
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Denis MacShane: The mood has darkened across the whole of Europe Nato foreign ministers kept alive the hopes of Georgia and Ukraine yesterday that they could eventually become members of the military alliance. But even without the provocation to Russia of a clear timetable for either country to join, many Ukrainians fear they could be next to face the force of a resurgent Russia seemingly bent on avenging the disintegration of the Soviet empire.
Ukraine had mastered a skilful balancing act since independence in 1991, courting the West while at the same time trying not to overtly offend Moscow.
But, with the outbreak of conflict in Georgia, the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yushchenko, seemed to make what, to many fellow countrymen, looks like a suicide leap off that tightrope. He went to Tbilisi to show support for Georgia, ordered restrictive new regulations for the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, and offered Ukrainian co-operation in a Western missile defence system despite the knowledge that neighbouring Poland received a chilling warning from Russia for agreeing to allow deployment on its territory of elements of the US missile defence shield. For the first time since independence, Ukrainian television has aired discussion of possible conflict with Russia and even politicians considered to be pro-Moscow have begun warning that Ukraine could be next in the firing line.
"If the West swallows the pill and forgives Russia the Georgian war, the invasion of 'peacekeeping tanks' into Ukraine will just be a matter of time," Oleksandr Suchko of the Kiev-based Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, said.
Russia has never completely reconciled itself to Ukraine's independence which Moscow viewed as an affront to the vision nurtured by Vladimir Putin, of Russia restored to its former might. Ukraine humiliated Mr Putin in 2004 when millions joined in demonstrations that became known as the Orange Revolution to overturn the results of a presidential election rigged in favour of a pro-Moscow candidate.
Almost all of Ukraine's vital gas supplies come from Russia and Russia has tried to punish Ukraine by enormous price increases in gas and even turning off supplies. Moscow's attempts to install a pro-Moscow government are, to a large extent, governed by its desire for absolute control over the pipelines that are responsible for most of its wealth.
But Ukraine's last census showed that 17 per cent of the country's population of around 47 million were ethnic Russians. Most of those are concentrated in Ukraine's east and south and Moscow has persistently backed Russian groups there which pine for past days of rule from Moscow. Crimea is the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians outnumber Ukrainians and its port city of Sevastopol is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
The peninsula is a tinderbox and many have already tried to start a fire. It was from Sebastopol that Russian ships sailed to shell and land invading troops in Georgia last week. Mr Yushchenko said the use of Russian ships for war violated Ukraine's neutrality and risked drawing it into conflict. Now Ukraine is insisting that the Russian fleet must leave when its lease expires in 2017.
Ukraine's first president, Leonid Kravchuk, who negotiated the terms of the Sebastopol lease under heavy pressure from the Kremlin, doubts that Ukraine's small navy could prevent Russian ships from returning. "How do you prevent the Russian ships from coming in?" he said. "I don't know of any way to do so. If we continue to stick to the point of view of 'not letting them in,' this will mean a war between Ukraine and Russia."
Ukraine had already angered Moscow five years ago when, under the nominally Russian-friendly presidency of Leonid Kuchma, the country applied for Nato membership. Although most Ukrainians want to join the EU, they are deeply divided over whether their country should join the military alliance and many see Mr Yushchenko's robust rhetroic on Nato as an attempt to win back nationalist votes ahead of 2010 presidential elections. Yet many Ukrainians also believe that the French and German-led opposition to a concrete timetable for membership at the Nato summit held in Bucharest in April encouraged Russia's current aggression.
During the 2004 Orange Revolution, pro-Russian politicians brought the country to the brink of civil war by threatening to split the country into the half that leaned towards the West and Nato membership and an eastern portion where most want to attach themselves to Moscow.
A Russian military analyst, Pavel Felgenhauer, believes Ukraine could be next on a Russian expansionist agenda. "Russia right now wants at least half of Ukraine to be annexed," he said.
The repercussions of the "Georgian Gambit",which in chess parlance will now come to mean a suicidal,doomed attack,is that Shaky-Willy's friends who rushed to stand by his side during the crisis,leaders from some former Soviet bloc like the Ukranian Yuschenko,now run the risk of similarly committting at a future date,by their indecent haste to become NATO cannonfodder.The following article describes the Ukranian leader's love for the "Georgian Gambit" as potentially suicidal and that Ukraine coulod be the next flashpoint if Yuschenko continues with his "Ukranian Gambit".
Ukraine risks wrath of Russia as Yushchenko sides with the West
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 02906.html
By Askold Krushelnycky in Kiev
Wednesday, 20 August 2008
Denis MacShane: The mood has darkened across the whole of Europe Nato foreign ministers kept alive the hopes of Georgia and Ukraine yesterday that they could eventually become members of the military alliance. But even without the provocation to Russia of a clear timetable for either country to join, many Ukrainians fear they could be next to face the force of a resurgent Russia seemingly bent on avenging the disintegration of the Soviet empire.
Ukraine had mastered a skilful balancing act since independence in 1991, courting the West while at the same time trying not to overtly offend Moscow.
But, with the outbreak of conflict in Georgia, the Ukrainian President, Viktor Yushchenko, seemed to make what, to many fellow countrymen, looks like a suicide leap off that tightrope. He went to Tbilisi to show support for Georgia, ordered restrictive new regulations for the Russian Black Sea Fleet based in Ukraine's Crimean peninsula, and offered Ukrainian co-operation in a Western missile defence system despite the knowledge that neighbouring Poland received a chilling warning from Russia for agreeing to allow deployment on its territory of elements of the US missile defence shield. For the first time since independence, Ukrainian television has aired discussion of possible conflict with Russia and even politicians considered to be pro-Moscow have begun warning that Ukraine could be next in the firing line.
"If the West swallows the pill and forgives Russia the Georgian war, the invasion of 'peacekeeping tanks' into Ukraine will just be a matter of time," Oleksandr Suchko of the Kiev-based Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation, said.
Russia has never completely reconciled itself to Ukraine's independence which Moscow viewed as an affront to the vision nurtured by Vladimir Putin, of Russia restored to its former might. Ukraine humiliated Mr Putin in 2004 when millions joined in demonstrations that became known as the Orange Revolution to overturn the results of a presidential election rigged in favour of a pro-Moscow candidate.
Almost all of Ukraine's vital gas supplies come from Russia and Russia has tried to punish Ukraine by enormous price increases in gas and even turning off supplies. Moscow's attempts to install a pro-Moscow government are, to a large extent, governed by its desire for absolute control over the pipelines that are responsible for most of its wealth.
But Ukraine's last census showed that 17 per cent of the country's population of around 47 million were ethnic Russians. Most of those are concentrated in Ukraine's east and south and Moscow has persistently backed Russian groups there which pine for past days of rule from Moscow. Crimea is the only part of Ukraine where ethnic Russians outnumber Ukrainians and its port city of Sevastopol is home to the Russian Black Sea Fleet.
The peninsula is a tinderbox and many have already tried to start a fire. It was from Sebastopol that Russian ships sailed to shell and land invading troops in Georgia last week. Mr Yushchenko said the use of Russian ships for war violated Ukraine's neutrality and risked drawing it into conflict. Now Ukraine is insisting that the Russian fleet must leave when its lease expires in 2017.
Ukraine's first president, Leonid Kravchuk, who negotiated the terms of the Sebastopol lease under heavy pressure from the Kremlin, doubts that Ukraine's small navy could prevent Russian ships from returning. "How do you prevent the Russian ships from coming in?" he said. "I don't know of any way to do so. If we continue to stick to the point of view of 'not letting them in,' this will mean a war between Ukraine and Russia."
Ukraine had already angered Moscow five years ago when, under the nominally Russian-friendly presidency of Leonid Kuchma, the country applied for Nato membership. Although most Ukrainians want to join the EU, they are deeply divided over whether their country should join the military alliance and many see Mr Yushchenko's robust rhetroic on Nato as an attempt to win back nationalist votes ahead of 2010 presidential elections. Yet many Ukrainians also believe that the French and German-led opposition to a concrete timetable for membership at the Nato summit held in Bucharest in April encouraged Russia's current aggression.
During the 2004 Orange Revolution, pro-Russian politicians brought the country to the brink of civil war by threatening to split the country into the half that leaned towards the West and Nato membership and an eastern portion where most want to attach themselves to Moscow.
A Russian military analyst, Pavel Felgenhauer, believes Ukraine could be next on a Russian expansionist agenda. "Russia right now wants at least half of Ukraine to be annexed," he said.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Brits never stop playing divide & Rule...Philip wrote:Vladimir Putin's mastery checkmates the West
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 525885.ece
Russia has been biding its time, but its victory in Georgia has been brutal - and brilliantMichael Binyon
......................
Have your say
.................
................
Checked but far from checkmate. Russia has declared its brutal hand and now the whole world knows it is not to be trusted in any way, shape or form. World chess is a long game. Blustering, bullying and threatening behaviour is for the short game only. Russia has 1.5 billion Chinese in its back.yard
albert hall, hove, england
..........
The bold part emphasis the need for Russia to work more closely with India. Just as albert hall commented that, Russia has 1.3 B Chinese in its back yard, the Chinese have 1.1 B Indians and the Japanese in their backyard. If only Russia can play their cards well with India and Japan things will be different on the eastern front for Russia.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
This video is an interesting take on geopolitics.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9386&hl=en
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9386&hl=en
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
The new world order was supposed to be done in 2000 but has been delayedVriksh wrote:This video is an interesting take on geopolitics.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 9386&hl=en
Why was the delay - Due to failure of Kargil war? Need to ponder
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
A male Arundhati Roy...A Russian military analyst, Pavel Felgenhauer
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Good mention about China,but China is looking eastward to Taiwan more than any confrontation with Russia.Someone in the west described the Georgian cease-fire agreement as another "Munich",as it gave Russia an effective carte-blanche over the Georgian region.Having broken wind only in response to the crisis,the US's committment to prevent/intervene in a similar crisis over Taiwan is a moot point.Emboldened by its great success of hosting the most spectacular Olympics ever,China might very well accelerate its global strategy while the world is in awe of Chinese capabilities and scared to act.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... rgia.china
Georgia on China's mindThe consequences of the war between Russia and Georgia may cause China to reevaluate its relationship with Taiwan
Muhammad Cohen guardian.co.uk, Wednesday August 20 2008 20:30
One extremely interested observer in the war between Russia and Georgia hasn't vocally taken sides in the conflict. Given the war's timing, you might call this country's interest – or lack thereof – in the conflict "sporting". But in reality, Georgia versus Russia provides a convenient simulation for this great power's options of dealing with the western backed irritant on its own perimeter.
Beyond the combatants and other former Soviet Republics, no nation is more interested in the Russia-Georgia conflict's global fallout than China. China's relationship with Taiwan resembles Russia's ties to Georgia. In both situations, the big state feels a sense of grievance over the very existence of its puny neighbour and resents outsiders that act as its self-appointed protectors.
The Caucuses conflict offers China a realistic model for what it can expect if it the Taiwan situation turns violent. The parallels aren't perfect, but there's a close enough fit for China to pay very close attention, particularly to the international consequences of Russia's humiliation of Georgia. With China watching, the US and it allies need to get their response to Russia absolutely right.
The crisis may have its roots in a failure to communicate. Georgia and its president Mikheil Saakashvili may have grossly overestimated the west's commitment to defending its borders and interests. Saakashvili may have equated the west's promise of Nato membership with mutual defence benefits. Or, at least, Saakashvili may have believed that Russia believed the west would fight for Georgia. Although the US insists Georgia is still a candidate for Nato, it's now comedic or criminal to imagine putting a Georgian finger on the trigger to set American, British, French, German and other European troops firing on Russian forces.
Shift the focus to Taiwan, an island that China considers a renegade province, and the proposition seems equally ludicrous, while the scope for miscalculation appears similarly broad. America has been purposely vague about what it would do in the event of a mainland military threat to Taiwan and its 23 million people. A dozen years ago, China conducted missile tests in the Taiwan Strait ahead of Taiwan's first presidential election. As unbelievable as that seems, it's even more incredible to recall that the US sent an aircraft carrier group warning China to back off.
Today Taiwan is a de facto separate country, while China claims it's still part of the nation. Keeping the peace relies on both governments preserving the status quo: China won't attempt reunification by force, and Taiwan won't move toward official independence. Within those rules, everyone trades and invests together peacefully. But rules are made to be broken, and even if nobody explicitly crosses the line, ticklish situations can arise. For example, China could decide that Taiwan's ambition to join the World Trade Organisation constitutes a move toward independence.
When Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov urged the US to choose between "support for a virtual project" in Georgia and its "real partnership" with Russia on key issues such as nuclear negotiations with Iran and North Korea, he could have been China's foreign minister Yang Jiechi speaking about the US, China and Taiwan. The unprecedented turnout of world leaders for the Olympics in Beijing indicates that the global establishment desperately wants "real partnership" with China. It's hard to imagine that Taiwan would be allowed to interfere.
Deepened economic ties between the US, EU and China over the past decade mean all sides have more to lose in a conflict. While moving toward a consumer economy, China still remains heavily dependent on exports to developed countries. Developed economies depend on China for cheap goods to meet consumer demand while controlling inflation and maximising corporate profits. With bricks and mortar investment in the mainland, western companies would risk expropriation in the event of a crisis. China also holds trillions of dollars in US Treasury securities, which it could dump on the market to depress US bond prices and raise Uncle Sam's financing costs. A fire sale of Treasury notes would cost China dearly, so the holding acts as a sort of financial mutual suicide pact neither side wants to test.
Russia's huge energy reserves may give it even greater economic leverage than China, especially over Europe. Therefore Russia may get off a little easier than China would for its military excesses. If the US and EU show spine despite this leverage, then China can expect to pay a bigger price.
China will particularly be watching threats to punish Russia in international organisations and institutions, where China participates more deeply than Russia. While Russia hopes to join the WTO, China entered it in 2001, boosting foreign investment exponentially and making economic reform seem irreversible. Sanctions would be embarrassing, but also potentially harmful to investment and trade.
"If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the US-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come," US defence secretary Robert Gates warned last Thursday. That's tough talk, but so far, there's only been talk and empty ceasefire proposals as Russia has advanced beyond disputed territory into Georgia proper. There's "no prospect" of US military intervention, Gates added emphatically. The Russians are writing the script here. The US and EU are in no position to edit it, and it would be hard for China not to notice.
Russia benefits because the US is involved in two wars already and has neither the troops nor the stomach for a third. China may be tempted to act soon, while US commitments and its need for China's help on North Korea and other issues are great. But the US can still muster more than blankets and cots in response to aggression.
Today's signing of a US-Poland agreement on missile defence and mutual defence is a reminder that the US has some weapons to counter Russian ambitions. For China, it's a reminder that assertiveness on Taiwan will trigger reactions from its neighbours. The two biggest neighbours, US allies Japan and South Korea, have long histories of hostility toward China. Additionally, other countries on its flanks, including Southeast Asia could be spooked by military action in Taiwan. Imagine Vietnam reopening the naval base at Cam Rahn Bay to its old enemy the US in response to China's belligerence.
The most hopeful sign of avoiding a replay of the Georgian war between China and Taiwan is warming cross-strait relations, particularly since Ma Ying-jeou took office as Taiwan's president in May. The better the two sides get along, the less likely outsiders can tempt either side to throw a spanner into the works. The outcome in Georgia will illustrate the cost of miscalculation.
If Russia humiliates Georgia at little cost, it could inspire China to press Taiwan when the opportunity beckons. Taiwan's allies, like Georgia's, are eager to remain friends with the big player neighbour and not eager for a fight. If the current sunshine over the Taiwan Strait gives way to clouds, that could drive the little player to do something desperate, as Georgia did, before it loses whatever leverage it has, and China to take advantage of the opening.
To avoid a replay, the US need to show Taiwan and China that it wants to be a dependable friend to each, but that friendship depends on following the rules. That means Russia and Georgia both have to pay a price for their misadventure in the Caucuses. Otherwise, Taiwan will pay a far bigger one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... rgia.china
Georgia on China's mindThe consequences of the war between Russia and Georgia may cause China to reevaluate its relationship with Taiwan
Muhammad Cohen guardian.co.uk, Wednesday August 20 2008 20:30
One extremely interested observer in the war between Russia and Georgia hasn't vocally taken sides in the conflict. Given the war's timing, you might call this country's interest – or lack thereof – in the conflict "sporting". But in reality, Georgia versus Russia provides a convenient simulation for this great power's options of dealing with the western backed irritant on its own perimeter.
Beyond the combatants and other former Soviet Republics, no nation is more interested in the Russia-Georgia conflict's global fallout than China. China's relationship with Taiwan resembles Russia's ties to Georgia. In both situations, the big state feels a sense of grievance over the very existence of its puny neighbour and resents outsiders that act as its self-appointed protectors.
The Caucuses conflict offers China a realistic model for what it can expect if it the Taiwan situation turns violent. The parallels aren't perfect, but there's a close enough fit for China to pay very close attention, particularly to the international consequences of Russia's humiliation of Georgia. With China watching, the US and it allies need to get their response to Russia absolutely right.
The crisis may have its roots in a failure to communicate. Georgia and its president Mikheil Saakashvili may have grossly overestimated the west's commitment to defending its borders and interests. Saakashvili may have equated the west's promise of Nato membership with mutual defence benefits. Or, at least, Saakashvili may have believed that Russia believed the west would fight for Georgia. Although the US insists Georgia is still a candidate for Nato, it's now comedic or criminal to imagine putting a Georgian finger on the trigger to set American, British, French, German and other European troops firing on Russian forces.
Shift the focus to Taiwan, an island that China considers a renegade province, and the proposition seems equally ludicrous, while the scope for miscalculation appears similarly broad. America has been purposely vague about what it would do in the event of a mainland military threat to Taiwan and its 23 million people. A dozen years ago, China conducted missile tests in the Taiwan Strait ahead of Taiwan's first presidential election. As unbelievable as that seems, it's even more incredible to recall that the US sent an aircraft carrier group warning China to back off.
Today Taiwan is a de facto separate country, while China claims it's still part of the nation. Keeping the peace relies on both governments preserving the status quo: China won't attempt reunification by force, and Taiwan won't move toward official independence. Within those rules, everyone trades and invests together peacefully. But rules are made to be broken, and even if nobody explicitly crosses the line, ticklish situations can arise. For example, China could decide that Taiwan's ambition to join the World Trade Organisation constitutes a move toward independence.
When Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov urged the US to choose between "support for a virtual project" in Georgia and its "real partnership" with Russia on key issues such as nuclear negotiations with Iran and North Korea, he could have been China's foreign minister Yang Jiechi speaking about the US, China and Taiwan. The unprecedented turnout of world leaders for the Olympics in Beijing indicates that the global establishment desperately wants "real partnership" with China. It's hard to imagine that Taiwan would be allowed to interfere.
Deepened economic ties between the US, EU and China over the past decade mean all sides have more to lose in a conflict. While moving toward a consumer economy, China still remains heavily dependent on exports to developed countries. Developed economies depend on China for cheap goods to meet consumer demand while controlling inflation and maximising corporate profits. With bricks and mortar investment in the mainland, western companies would risk expropriation in the event of a crisis. China also holds trillions of dollars in US Treasury securities, which it could dump on the market to depress US bond prices and raise Uncle Sam's financing costs. A fire sale of Treasury notes would cost China dearly, so the holding acts as a sort of financial mutual suicide pact neither side wants to test.
Russia's huge energy reserves may give it even greater economic leverage than China, especially over Europe. Therefore Russia may get off a little easier than China would for its military excesses. If the US and EU show spine despite this leverage, then China can expect to pay a bigger price.
China will particularly be watching threats to punish Russia in international organisations and institutions, where China participates more deeply than Russia. While Russia hopes to join the WTO, China entered it in 2001, boosting foreign investment exponentially and making economic reform seem irreversible. Sanctions would be embarrassing, but also potentially harmful to investment and trade.
"If Russia does not step back from its aggressive posture and actions in Georgia, the US-Russian relationship could be adversely affected for years to come," US defence secretary Robert Gates warned last Thursday. That's tough talk, but so far, there's only been talk and empty ceasefire proposals as Russia has advanced beyond disputed territory into Georgia proper. There's "no prospect" of US military intervention, Gates added emphatically. The Russians are writing the script here. The US and EU are in no position to edit it, and it would be hard for China not to notice.
Russia benefits because the US is involved in two wars already and has neither the troops nor the stomach for a third. China may be tempted to act soon, while US commitments and its need for China's help on North Korea and other issues are great. But the US can still muster more than blankets and cots in response to aggression.
Today's signing of a US-Poland agreement on missile defence and mutual defence is a reminder that the US has some weapons to counter Russian ambitions. For China, it's a reminder that assertiveness on Taiwan will trigger reactions from its neighbours. The two biggest neighbours, US allies Japan and South Korea, have long histories of hostility toward China. Additionally, other countries on its flanks, including Southeast Asia could be spooked by military action in Taiwan. Imagine Vietnam reopening the naval base at Cam Rahn Bay to its old enemy the US in response to China's belligerence.
The most hopeful sign of avoiding a replay of the Georgian war between China and Taiwan is warming cross-strait relations, particularly since Ma Ying-jeou took office as Taiwan's president in May. The better the two sides get along, the less likely outsiders can tempt either side to throw a spanner into the works. The outcome in Georgia will illustrate the cost of miscalculation.
If Russia humiliates Georgia at little cost, it could inspire China to press Taiwan when the opportunity beckons. Taiwan's allies, like Georgia's, are eager to remain friends with the big player neighbour and not eager for a fight. If the current sunshine over the Taiwan Strait gives way to clouds, that could drive the little player to do something desperate, as Georgia did, before it loses whatever leverage it has, and China to take advantage of the opening.
To avoid a replay, the US need to show Taiwan and China that it wants to be a dependable friend to each, but that friendship depends on following the rules. That means Russia and Georgia both have to pay a price for their misadventure in the Caucuses. Otherwise, Taiwan will pay a far bigger one.
-
Nayak
- BRF Oldie
- Posts: 2553
- Joined: 11 Jun 2006 03:48
- Location: Vote for Savita Bhabhi as the next BRF admin.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
German envoy attacks MPs for bad behaviour on US junket - Guardian
German MP's accused of racial slur on US 'junket' - Telegraph
Now check the changes.....* Kate Connolly in Berlin
* The Guardian,
* Wednesday August 20 2008
A German diplomat has criticised a group of bundestag MPs over their behaviour on a recent visit to San Francisco, accusing them of using a racial slur and of choosing sightseeing and shopping above meetings with US counterparts.
Rolf Schütte, the German consul general in San Francisco, wrote to the foreign ministry in Berlin to express his outrage. His confidential letter, which is furious and frank in tone, has been leaked to the German press and created a public debate about the legitimacy of publicly funded foreign political trips and whether they should be more tightly controlled.
Schütte wrote that the behaviour of the bundestag's health committee members during a visit to the US and Canada in May ranged from "inappropriate to bloody-minded". He euphemistically referred to the visit as a "trip of a special nature", which the MPs had requested should leave plenty of room for a combination of "theatre and concert events, and shopping - especially shoe shopping".
The most barbed part of Schütte's attack concerned the request he received to provide Annette Widmann-Mauz, 42, with a wheelchair because she had broken her foot. But the wheelchair provided was deemed unacceptable by the Christian Democrat MP, who described it as "a chair for the sick with small wheels, the kind you see in old US movies".
Concerned that Widmann-Mauz would be unable to take part in a sightseeing tour of San Francisco, her colleague Randolph Krüger, a Social Democrat from Potsdam, allegedly told Schütte: "We need a nigger who can push the wheelchair."
Krüger has not denied he made the remark, telling Spiegel magazine: "I wouldn't exclude having said that, but if they're going to provide us with such a splendid contraption, they can at least help us out with it."
Responding on behalf of the committee, he added that the consulate's service was "not of the standard we're used to ... The people at the consulate appear to be used to getting drunk tourists out of prison, but are unaware of the sort of service they should give to German MPs."
German MP's accused of racial slur on US 'junket' - Telegraph
A group of German MPs have been accused by one of the country's own diplomats of "inappropriate" and "bloody minded" behaviour on an official trip to the US including allegedly demanding the services of a "negro" to push a wheelchair.
By Jessica Salter
Last Updated: 1:05PM BST 20 Aug 2008
The behaviour of the six bundstag MPs was been described as "unacceptable and devious" by Rolf Schütte, the German consul general in San Francisco.
In a letter leaked to the German press, Mr Schütte accused a group from the parliamentary health committee of using a racial slur and of choosing sightseeing and shopping above meetings with US counterparts.
The group were due to take a sightseeing trip around San Francisco, but one delegate, Annette Widmann-Mauz, 42, had broken her foot. When Mr Schütte provided her with a wheelchair, the Christian Democrat MP complained that it was "a chair for the sick with small wheels, the kind you see in old US movies".
Concerned that she would not be able to move the chair, her colleague, Randolph Krüger, a Social Democrat from Potsdam, reportedly said: "We need a negro who can push the wheelchair."
Mr Krüger has not denied he made the remark.
When asked by Spiegel magazine, he said: "I wouldn't exclude having said that, but if they're going to provide us with such a splendid contraption, they can at least help us out with it."
Mr Schütte wrote in a letter to the foreign ministry in Berlin that during a visit to the US and Canada in May the MPs requested that the schedule include a combination of "theatre and concert events, and shopping - especially shoe shopping".
He claimed they cancelled appointments with US officials, forcing him to lie to American counterparts.
In another incident at the end of the trip, the Christian Democrat MP Hubert Hüppe allegedly demanded to be chauffeured to the airport because, he claimed, he could "barely speak English".
However, on arriving at the check-in desk before departure, his English was good enough to demand an upgrade to first class.
Mr Schütte's furious letter claimed the group's behaviour on the publicly-funded trip ranged from "inappropriate to bloody-minded".
Responding on behalf of the committee, Mr Krüger said that the consulate's service was "not of the standard we're used to".
He said: "The people at the consulate appear to be used to getting drunk tourists out of prison, but are unaware of the sort of service they should give to German MPs."
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Antony likely to ink three pacts during US visitAds By Google
No Hassle Military Loans
No Credit No problem. Fast and easy. Satisfaction Guaranteed
Understanding al Qaeda
Bin Laden, Al Zarqawi and the future of al Qaeda
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, August 18, 2008
First Published: 22:14 IST(18/8/2008)
Last Updated: 22:36 IST(18/8/2008)
Print
Defence Minister A.K. Antony is likely to ink three pacts during his maiden US visit Sept 7-10, an official said in New Delhi on Monday.
Under one of these pacts, the Indian and US militaries can refuel ships and aircraft in cashless transactions that are balanced at the end of the year.
Apart from the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the other pacts are the Communication Inter-operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) that will enable the two militaries communicate on a common platform, and an end-user agreement governing the sale of US military hardware to India.
These pacts have been on the backburner for long due to the objections of the Left parties over the warming India-US military ties. With the communists having withdrawn their outside support to the government, which subsequently won a trust vote in parliament, the way is now clear for inking the agreements, a defence ministry official said.
"The LSA would require both countries to provide their bases, fuel and other kind of logistics support to each others' fighter jets and naval warships," the official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Explaining the advantages of the agreement, the official said: "India is spending close to Rs.100 crore (Rs.1 billion) for participating in the ongoing Red Flag exercise with the US Air Force."
"Had an LSA been in place, India would not have had to physically pay the money but would have provided reciprocal facilities in this country whenever the US defence forces required them," the official added.
India's ambassador to the US Ronen Sen had met Antony here July 24 to discuss the three India-US pacts.
The US has agreements similar to the LSA in place with some 65 countries.
In most cases, it is called the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that was formerly known as the NATO Mutual Support Act. It was enacted to simplify exchanges of logistic support, supplies, and services between the US and NATO forces. It was amended in 1986, 1992 and 1994 to permit ACSAs with non-NATO countries.
With the Indian and US militaries increasing their engagement in war games on land, in the air and at sea, CISMOA has become a necessity to ensure there are no communication glitches.
"With the increasing number of military exercises between the countries, the pact is set to be given the green signal soon," the official said.
As for the end-user agreement, India has so far refused to sign it in its present form and has asked for modifications.
"It's like this: we purchase, say, night vision goggles from the US and deploy these on the LoC (Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir). Obviously, we cannot allow US inspectors to physically verify this," the official said.
"Therefore, we'll work out a system where we will certify where the equipment is located and the US will take our word for it," the official added.
Rushing to be embraced by Uncle Sam.The indecent haste with which this dispensation wants to tie the "thali" with Uncle Sam,and thus get screwed in the bargain for life like Pak,is simply disgusting.Here is Antony now rushing off before the govt. falls to enter into a military logistics agreement with the US.The entire strategy of the US is to integrate the Indian armed forces into the US's order of battle,where later on with NCW,the US can simply command Indian military forces and commit them to battle anywhere from the Pentagon in Washington.
The ongoing Georgian fiasco has illustrated the futility of relying upon Uncle Sam as a strategic partner.This Indian govt. is rushing headlong like Poland into the abyss.If we continue in this vein,it will not be too long before we turn our staunchest friend Russia,into an enemy thanks to the colossal stupidity of this worthless govt. The sooner it is sent into the dustbin of history,the better will the country be.In fact,any wretched govt. that has the national interest first would be welcome.
(cross posted from the aviation thread)
Antony likely to ink three pacts during US visit.
Defence Minister A.K. Antony is likely to ink three pacts during his maiden US visit Sept 7-10, an official said in New Delhi on Monday.
Under one of these pacts, the Indian and US militaries can refuel ships and aircraft in cashless transactions that are balanced at the end of the year.
Apart from the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the other pacts are the Communication Inter-operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) that will enable the two militaries communicate on a common platform, and an end-user agreement governing the sale of US military hardware to India.
These pacts have been on the backburner for long due to the objections of the Left parties over the warming India-US military ties. With the communists having withdrawn their outside support to the government, which subsequently won a trust vote in parliament, the way is now clear for inking the agreements, a defence ministry official said.
"The LSA would require both countries to provide their bases, fuel and other kind of logistics support to each others' fighter jets and naval warships," the official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Explaining the advantages of the agreement, the official said: "India is spending close to Rs.100 crore (Rs.1 billion) for participating in the ongoing Red Flag exercise with the US Air Force."
"Had an LSA been in place, India would not have had to physically pay the money but would have provided reciprocal facilities in this country whenever the US defence forces required them," the official added.
India's ambassador to the US Ronen Sen had met Antony here July 24 to discuss the three India-US pacts.
The US has agreements similar to the LSA in place with some 65 countries.
In most cases, it is called the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that was formerly known as the NATO Mutual Support Act. It was enacted to simplify exchanges of logistic support, supplies, and services between the US and NATO forces. It was amended in 1986, 1992 and 1994 to permit ACSAs with non-NATO countries.
With the Indian and US militaries increasing their engagement in war games on land, in the air and at sea, CISMOA has become a necessity to ensure there are no communication glitches.
"With the increasing number of military exercises between the countries, the pact is set to be given the green signal soon," the official said.
As for the end-user agreement, India has so far refused to sign it in its present form and has asked for modifications.
"It's like this: we purchase, say, night vision goggles from the US and deploy these on the LoC (Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir). Obviously, we cannot allow US inspectors to physically verify this," the official said.
"Therefore, we'll work out a system where we will certify where the equipment is located and the US will take our word for it," the official added.
No Hassle Military Loans
No Credit No problem. Fast and easy. Satisfaction Guaranteed
Understanding al Qaeda
Bin Laden, Al Zarqawi and the future of al Qaeda
Indo-Asian News Service
New Delhi, August 18, 2008
First Published: 22:14 IST(18/8/2008)
Last Updated: 22:36 IST(18/8/2008)
Defence Minister A.K. Antony is likely to ink three pacts during his maiden US visit Sept 7-10, an official said in New Delhi on Monday.
Under one of these pacts, the Indian and US militaries can refuel ships and aircraft in cashless transactions that are balanced at the end of the year.
Apart from the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the other pacts are the Communication Inter-operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) that will enable the two militaries communicate on a common platform, and an end-user agreement governing the sale of US military hardware to India.
These pacts have been on the backburner for long due to the objections of the Left parties over the warming India-US military ties. With the communists having withdrawn their outside support to the government, which subsequently won a trust vote in parliament, the way is now clear for inking the agreements, a defence ministry official said.
"The LSA would require both countries to provide their bases, fuel and other kind of logistics support to each others' fighter jets and naval warships," the official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Explaining the advantages of the agreement, the official said: "India is spending close to Rs.100 crore (Rs.1 billion) for participating in the ongoing Red Flag exercise with the US Air Force."
"Had an LSA been in place, India would not have had to physically pay the money but would have provided reciprocal facilities in this country whenever the US defence forces required them," the official added.
India's ambassador to the US Ronen Sen had met Antony here July 24 to discuss the three India-US pacts.
The US has agreements similar to the LSA in place with some 65 countries.
In most cases, it is called the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that was formerly known as the NATO Mutual Support Act. It was enacted to simplify exchanges of logistic support, supplies, and services between the US and NATO forces. It was amended in 1986, 1992 and 1994 to permit ACSAs with non-NATO countries.
With the Indian and US militaries increasing their engagement in war games on land, in the air and at sea, CISMOA has become a necessity to ensure there are no communication glitches.
"With the increasing number of military exercises between the countries, the pact is set to be given the green signal soon," the official said.
As for the end-user agreement, India has so far refused to sign it in its present form and has asked for modifications.
"It's like this: we purchase, say, night vision goggles from the US and deploy these on the LoC (Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir). Obviously, we cannot allow US inspectors to physically verify this," the official said.
"Therefore, we'll work out a system where we will certify where the equipment is located and the US will take our word for it," the official added.
Rushing to be embraced by Uncle Sam.The indecent haste with which this dispensation wants to tie the "thali" with Uncle Sam,and thus get screwed in the bargain for life like Pak,is simply disgusting.Here is Antony now rushing off before the govt. falls to enter into a military logistics agreement with the US.The entire strategy of the US is to integrate the Indian armed forces into the US's order of battle,where later on with NCW,the US can simply command Indian military forces and commit them to battle anywhere from the Pentagon in Washington.
The ongoing Georgian fiasco has illustrated the futility of relying upon Uncle Sam as a strategic partner.This Indian govt. is rushing headlong like Poland into the abyss.If we continue in this vein,it will not be too long before we turn our staunchest friend Russia,into an enemy thanks to the colossal stupidity of this worthless govt. The sooner it is sent into the dustbin of history,the better will the country be.In fact,any wretched govt. that has the national interest first would be welcome.
(cross posted from the aviation thread)
Antony likely to ink three pacts during US visit.
Defence Minister A.K. Antony is likely to ink three pacts during his maiden US visit Sept 7-10, an official said in New Delhi on Monday.
Under one of these pacts, the Indian and US militaries can refuel ships and aircraft in cashless transactions that are balanced at the end of the year.
Apart from the Logistics Support Agreement (LSA), the other pacts are the Communication Inter-operability and Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA) that will enable the two militaries communicate on a common platform, and an end-user agreement governing the sale of US military hardware to India.
These pacts have been on the backburner for long due to the objections of the Left parties over the warming India-US military ties. With the communists having withdrawn their outside support to the government, which subsequently won a trust vote in parliament, the way is now clear for inking the agreements, a defence ministry official said.
"The LSA would require both countries to provide their bases, fuel and other kind of logistics support to each others' fighter jets and naval warships," the official told IANS, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Explaining the advantages of the agreement, the official said: "India is spending close to Rs.100 crore (Rs.1 billion) for participating in the ongoing Red Flag exercise with the US Air Force."
"Had an LSA been in place, India would not have had to physically pay the money but would have provided reciprocal facilities in this country whenever the US defence forces required them," the official added.
India's ambassador to the US Ronen Sen had met Antony here July 24 to discuss the three India-US pacts.
The US has agreements similar to the LSA in place with some 65 countries.
In most cases, it is called the Acquisition and Cross Servicing Agreement (ACSA) that was formerly known as the NATO Mutual Support Act. It was enacted to simplify exchanges of logistic support, supplies, and services between the US and NATO forces. It was amended in 1986, 1992 and 1994 to permit ACSAs with non-NATO countries.
With the Indian and US militaries increasing their engagement in war games on land, in the air and at sea, CISMOA has become a necessity to ensure there are no communication glitches.
"With the increasing number of military exercises between the countries, the pact is set to be given the green signal soon," the official said.
As for the end-user agreement, India has so far refused to sign it in its present form and has asked for modifications.
"It's like this: we purchase, say, night vision goggles from the US and deploy these on the LoC (Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir). Obviously, we cannot allow US inspectors to physically verify this," the official said.
"Therefore, we'll work out a system where we will certify where the equipment is located and the US will take our word for it," the official added.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
The Death of 1989
The vast, frightening fallout of Russia's invasion of Georgia
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/conten ... order=page
Indian Geopolitics, the United States and Evolving Correlates of Power in Asia
Author: Bruce Vaughn a
Affiliation: a Georgetown University, Adjunct Professor, Australian Embassy, Washington, Washington, DC, DC, USA
DOI: 10.1080/14650040490442944
Publication Frequency: 4 issues per year
Published in: journal Geopolitics, Volume 9, Issue 2 2004 , pages 440 - 459
Subjects: Economic and Political Geography; Political Geography; Politics & International Relations;
Formats available: HTML (English) : PDF (English)
Article Requests: Order Reprints : Request Permissions
Abstract
India has been poorly understood and often neglected by the United States. Its emerging role and geopolitical importance in the evolving correlates of power in Asia has been underestimated and overlooked by America until recently. The following article traces the changing dynamics of India's geopolitical posture to better inform our understanding of where India is headed as an international actor before assessing India's current place in the evolving strategic environment in Asia. It also asserts that the key to India's future geopolitical disposition is to be found in how the idea of India evolves as a concept. The outcome of the competition between Indian secular and Hindu fundamentalist ideologies will play a key role in how India's internal dynamics and international posture evolve.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
http://www.geocities.com/aipsg/proc21-geo.html
Geopolitics of South Asia and the Threat of War
(Paper presented at the Conference on Global Conflict and Threat of War at the University of Windsor, Canada on October 2, 1999)
Geopolitics of South Asia and the Threat of War
(Paper presented at the Conference on Global Conflict and Threat of War at the University of Windsor, Canada on October 2, 1999)
Similarly, if one examines the way the Indian government views the world, you will not get a sense that there is any problem of division, or that India has any enemies in this world who are perpetuating the divisions.
But the same considerations that existed in 1947 still exist. The US and Europe are very active with respect to keeping the divisions alive in South Asia. United Europe has historically sought to conquer Asia, and although the Germans, French, and British have different aims, there is much consanguinity of interest with respect to Asia
Within that, all the big powers are very keen to see that India does not renew itself. That is the reason why the Queen of England went to India to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the loss of her possession. That is the reason, the US President is going to India in the year 2000 - to assure the Indians that they must noot renew any institutions there. In the last few years, all the predators of the world have praised India’s democratic credentials. Canada is in the forefront of this praise because they are as much a partner in the conflicts going on today and those that are being hatched. None of the powers want the people of India to look any other way. The British in particular are the most active because they view that India is their territory, its institutions as their institutions. They will ally with the US to ensure that when South Asia is destabilised, they become the main beneficiaries to move in.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Right after Cold War a number of arms limitation agreements were made which helped realize the peace dividend and reduce the budget deficit. However with march of technology its being realized that these agreements are limiting the progress and redcusing the manouver room. So one can expect these agreements being slowly discarded for technolgy improvements. One example was the ABM treaty from which the US withdrew and not much of hue and cry was raised as the 'threat' of missiles from 'rogue' nations was bandied about and at same time the other side was down and out. From a specific location in continental US the bases are getting spread out and the threat of pre-emptive strike is increasing but the doomsday clcok is not been changed! I expectmore bilateral treaties will get broken as Russia will be provoked providing justification for the broken treaties.
A segment in US worries that the absence of an exstential threat has wiped out the surviving civilization eg Rome got Christianised once Carthage was defeated and so on. So they want a big threat to make the dynamics more predictable and comfortable. However the end of history is a big challenge for non-ideological threats are just small time games and when one is organized onthe dialectic basis it becomes difficult to apply same rules for non ideological clashes.
A segment in US worries that the absence of an exstential threat has wiped out the surviving civilization eg Rome got Christianised once Carthage was defeated and so on. So they want a big threat to make the dynamics more predictable and comfortable. However the end of history is a big challenge for non-ideological threats are just small time games and when one is organized onthe dialectic basis it becomes difficult to apply same rules for non ideological clashes.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
/Lurking mode off/
acharya:
It is simplistic to view Indian policies in the way dipicted in the post you have quoted. South block has been far more aware of trends in geopolitics than anyone gives them credit for. One can see the consequences for India and its security through the turbulent end of the 20th century, particularly disintegration of the USSR. India came through that period with minimum damage.
This Georgian incident appears to be an opning gambit in Russia's counter offensive against US/NATO's disasterous geopolitical offensives following the fall of the Soviet state twenty or so years ago (Balkans, Middle east, south asia). We are going to see a reversal of fortunes, strategies & roles in Afghanistan. A new "northern alliance", with covert material support from Iran and Russia, with Indian tacit approval & "peaceful" participation on the ground, will likely begin a new & successful "jehad" against US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. In fact, a long term US/NATO presence in Afghanistan is probably the last hope of the pakis to keep their artificial "country" together. But Russian/Iranian supported bleeding of US/NATO forces in Afghanistan will drive them out in a lot less time than the Soviets held out. When it comes to bleeding & body bags, US/NATO are far far more squeemish at the sight of blood & death than any other armed force in the world. And in the subsequent obvious conflict between opposing Jihads (Taliban from the south and new NA from the north), the Taliban will finaly bleed to death, putting Afghanistan squarely in Russian (& Indian) orbit. That should also begin the long delayed unraveling of the artificial construct otherwise known as paki stan. As usual, and contrary to paki hi expectations, China will intrude minimally in this process. What matters is that with retreat from Afghanistan, and also from Iraq (foregone conclusion), US/NATO will find itself in an unusual (for it) defensive mode. The consequences for India, while full of cautionary circumstances, will be nothing but fruitful.
/lurking mode on/
acharya:
It is simplistic to view Indian policies in the way dipicted in the post you have quoted. South block has been far more aware of trends in geopolitics than anyone gives them credit for. One can see the consequences for India and its security through the turbulent end of the 20th century, particularly disintegration of the USSR. India came through that period with minimum damage.
This Georgian incident appears to be an opning gambit in Russia's counter offensive against US/NATO's disasterous geopolitical offensives following the fall of the Soviet state twenty or so years ago (Balkans, Middle east, south asia). We are going to see a reversal of fortunes, strategies & roles in Afghanistan. A new "northern alliance", with covert material support from Iran and Russia, with Indian tacit approval & "peaceful" participation on the ground, will likely begin a new & successful "jehad" against US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. In fact, a long term US/NATO presence in Afghanistan is probably the last hope of the pakis to keep their artificial "country" together. But Russian/Iranian supported bleeding of US/NATO forces in Afghanistan will drive them out in a lot less time than the Soviets held out. When it comes to bleeding & body bags, US/NATO are far far more squeemish at the sight of blood & death than any other armed force in the world. And in the subsequent obvious conflict between opposing Jihads (Taliban from the south and new NA from the north), the Taliban will finaly bleed to death, putting Afghanistan squarely in Russian (& Indian) orbit. That should also begin the long delayed unraveling of the artificial construct otherwise known as paki stan. As usual, and contrary to paki hi expectations, China will intrude minimally in this process. What matters is that with retreat from Afghanistan, and also from Iraq (foregone conclusion), US/NATO will find itself in an unusual (for it) defensive mode. The consequences for India, while full of cautionary circumstances, will be nothing but fruitful.
/lurking mode on/
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Syria reaps a Russian reward
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH23Ak01.html
North Korea wary of Russia's return
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JH23Dg01.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH23Ak01.html
North Korea wary of Russia's return
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JH23Dg01.html
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
NATO must choose between Russia, Georgia: FM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 390782.cms
MOSCOW: Russia does not want to "slam the door" on NATO but the alliance must choose between partnership with Moscow or support for Georgia, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.
"Everything depends on NATO's priorities," Lavrov said in remarks from the Black Sea resort of Sochi broadcast on Russian television.
"If the priority is blind support for the bankrupt Saakashvili regime and if they are ready to pay the price of a break in relations with Russia, then that is not our choice," the foreign minister said.
"We are not planning to slam the door" on NATO, Lavrov said in Sochi where President Dmitry Medvedev held talks with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad.
At a Brussels meeting on Tuesday, NATO foreign ministers decided to suspend a cooperation council with Russia until Moscow honours its promise to pull back troops from Georgia.
In response, the Russian navy announced it was pulling out of a NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea and was unable to host a scheduled visit by a US naval frigate.
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko earlier was quoted by Interfax as saying that Moscow was "reviewing" cooperation with NATO and assessing relations that have plunged to their lowest point since the Cold War.
Lavrov argued that cooperation with Russia was critical for the success of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's mission in Afghanistan, where the alliance has deployed 40,000 troops after the Taliban were ousted in late 2001.
While Russia has no troops in Afghanistan, it has signed key agreements to allow NATO supplies to transit through Russian territory.
"We hope that cooperation on Afghanistan will not end," said Lavrov.
Russian forces moved deep inside Georgian territory after Tbilisi mounted an offensive against separatists in the breakaway region of South Ossetia on August 7.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who has won US support in his drive for NATO membership, accused Russia of dragging its feet in its pledge to pull back its troops in Georgia.
Medvedev has pledged to complete the withdrawal by Friday.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/New ... 390782.cms
MOSCOW: Russia does not want to "slam the door" on NATO but the alliance must choose between partnership with Moscow or support for Georgia, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday.
"Everything depends on NATO's priorities," Lavrov said in remarks from the Black Sea resort of Sochi broadcast on Russian television.
"If the priority is blind support for the bankrupt Saakashvili regime and if they are ready to pay the price of a break in relations with Russia, then that is not our choice," the foreign minister said.
"We are not planning to slam the door" on NATO, Lavrov said in Sochi where President Dmitry Medvedev held talks with his Syrian counterpart Bashar al-Assad.
At a Brussels meeting on Tuesday, NATO foreign ministers decided to suspend a cooperation council with Russia until Moscow honours its promise to pull back troops from Georgia.
In response, the Russian navy announced it was pulling out of a NATO exercise in the Baltic Sea and was unable to host a scheduled visit by a US naval frigate.
Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko earlier was quoted by Interfax as saying that Moscow was "reviewing" cooperation with NATO and assessing relations that have plunged to their lowest point since the Cold War.
Lavrov argued that cooperation with Russia was critical for the success of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's mission in Afghanistan, where the alliance has deployed 40,000 troops after the Taliban were ousted in late 2001.
While Russia has no troops in Afghanistan, it has signed key agreements to allow NATO supplies to transit through Russian territory.
"We hope that cooperation on Afghanistan will not end," said Lavrov.
Russian forces moved deep inside Georgian territory after Tbilisi mounted an offensive against separatists in the breakaway region of South Ossetia on August 7.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who has won US support in his drive for NATO membership, accused Russia of dragging its feet in its pledge to pull back its troops in Georgia.
Medvedev has pledged to complete the withdrawal by Friday.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219445 ... lenews_wsj
Russian Nuclear Pact Stalls
Tensions Prompt U.S. to Reconsider Proliferation Agreement
Russian Nuclear Pact Stalls
Tensions Prompt U.S. to Reconsider Proliferation Agreement
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
The outlook on a triple-superpower world
It's time for Russia, China, and the US to work together.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html
Washington - The tectonic plates of world politics have been shifting for several years now, and on Aug. 8 the extent of this shift became plain. In Beijing, China held a stunning coming-out party as a world power. Meanwhile, 4,000 miles away, Russia invaded neighboring Georgia, signaling loud and clear that it would no longer be taken for granted.
Russia is back. China has emerged. Suddenly, the United States isn't the world's only superpower.
How will these three big powers interact in the years ahead, and what does that mean for all of humanity?
The global architecture that's emerging will be very different from the cold war. That was a contest between two big powers with clashing visions of how the whole world should be organized, and it centered on a very costly – and risky – nuclear arms race. The emerging framework will probably be anchored by the three large powers and by four others (Europe, Japan, India, and Brazil). And in today's more globalized world, raw military power has become much less important; economic and "soft" power, more so.
Here's the good news: The interests of the world's leading powers are deeply entwined. China and Japan hold large amounts of US debt; Russia supplies much of Europe's energy needs; markets, investments, and production systems criss-cross national boundaries.
This interdependence makes open warfare among them less likely. A war would be devastating for the whole system – especially for the US, whose military is stretched very thin and whose economy relies on overseas oil and loans.
From the beginning of the crisis in Georgia, President Bush has recognized these facts. He has wisely refrained from doing anything there that might lead to a shooting war with Russia. That might not seem "right" to many Americans. But Georgia was certainly not blameless. Now Washington should work hard for a settlement – possibly a broad demilitarization – that can protect both Georgia's borders and minority rights.
But our strong concern over Georgia shouldn't distract Americans from doing some hard thinking about how to work with both Russia and China – and other governments – to address even bigger global challenges: nuclear proliferation (especially in Iran), violent transnational Islamism, and climate change – not to mention the continuing challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the new Big Three work together on these issues, each will bring to the table distinctive strengths, vulnerabilities, and national aspirations.
The US brings its record as a longstanding (if now troubled) economic powerhouse, its role in creating and sustaining the present world system, and its advocacy – some would say hypocritical advocacy – of human rights, freedoms, and democratic government. Many Americans still feel the US is, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "the last best hope of earth."
Russia comes as a country that, having shed an empire along with the communist ideas that underlay it, has found a new internal balance – fueled by energy wealth – and restored its national pride. For many Russians, the 1990s were a time of social upheaval and humiliation at the hands of foreigners. Now their main impetus is one of prickly self-assertion: "Don't take us for granted again!"
And China comes as a behemoth that has emerged quietly. For all its repressive internal policies, Beijing has generally played a softer hand externally, relying much more on building economic and cultural ties than on military expansion. Many Chinese are proud that their rulers have brought their country out of centuries of warlordism, poverty, and subjugation by foreigners to its presently powerful position. They recognize that this was achieved through engagement with other world powers, not open confrontation, and that trend looks set to continue.
Is the United Nations strong and flexible enough to host the kinds of globe-girdling discussions that now need to be held – among these three, but also including the rest of the world's peoples? I believe so, though Big Three policymakers will also need to find quieter places where they can brainstorm different options, probe one another's reactions, and build decent working relationships away from the public spotlight.
The UN Security Council will be one key forum where a durable settlement for Georgia gets hammered out. Both the US and Russia have veto power there, so the focus needs to be on negotiating a consensus text that both governments – as well as the people of Georgia – can live with. Consensus is also the working rule at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 56-nation body that will probably also have a key role in midwifing and monitoring the peace accords for Georgia.
Do Russia's leaders care much whether they get kicked out of the "G-8" or denied entry to the World Trade Organization, as Bush administration officials have threatened? I doubt it. But they – and the rest of us – should care deeply about finding a way to deal with all the issues on today's global agenda without getting into a shooting war that would inflict unimaginable harm on us all.
• Helena Cobban, a former Monitor correspondent, is a "Friend in Washington" with the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Her latest book is "Re-engage! America and the World after Bush."
It's time for Russia, China, and the US to work together.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0822/p09s03-coop.html
Washington - The tectonic plates of world politics have been shifting for several years now, and on Aug. 8 the extent of this shift became plain. In Beijing, China held a stunning coming-out party as a world power. Meanwhile, 4,000 miles away, Russia invaded neighboring Georgia, signaling loud and clear that it would no longer be taken for granted.
Russia is back. China has emerged. Suddenly, the United States isn't the world's only superpower.
How will these three big powers interact in the years ahead, and what does that mean for all of humanity?
The global architecture that's emerging will be very different from the cold war. That was a contest between two big powers with clashing visions of how the whole world should be organized, and it centered on a very costly – and risky – nuclear arms race. The emerging framework will probably be anchored by the three large powers and by four others (Europe, Japan, India, and Brazil). And in today's more globalized world, raw military power has become much less important; economic and "soft" power, more so.
Here's the good news: The interests of the world's leading powers are deeply entwined. China and Japan hold large amounts of US debt; Russia supplies much of Europe's energy needs; markets, investments, and production systems criss-cross national boundaries.
This interdependence makes open warfare among them less likely. A war would be devastating for the whole system – especially for the US, whose military is stretched very thin and whose economy relies on overseas oil and loans.
From the beginning of the crisis in Georgia, President Bush has recognized these facts. He has wisely refrained from doing anything there that might lead to a shooting war with Russia. That might not seem "right" to many Americans. But Georgia was certainly not blameless. Now Washington should work hard for a settlement – possibly a broad demilitarization – that can protect both Georgia's borders and minority rights.
But our strong concern over Georgia shouldn't distract Americans from doing some hard thinking about how to work with both Russia and China – and other governments – to address even bigger global challenges: nuclear proliferation (especially in Iran), violent transnational Islamism, and climate change – not to mention the continuing challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan.
When the new Big Three work together on these issues, each will bring to the table distinctive strengths, vulnerabilities, and national aspirations.
The US brings its record as a longstanding (if now troubled) economic powerhouse, its role in creating and sustaining the present world system, and its advocacy – some would say hypocritical advocacy – of human rights, freedoms, and democratic government. Many Americans still feel the US is, in Abraham Lincoln's words, "the last best hope of earth."
Russia comes as a country that, having shed an empire along with the communist ideas that underlay it, has found a new internal balance – fueled by energy wealth – and restored its national pride. For many Russians, the 1990s were a time of social upheaval and humiliation at the hands of foreigners. Now their main impetus is one of prickly self-assertion: "Don't take us for granted again!"
And China comes as a behemoth that has emerged quietly. For all its repressive internal policies, Beijing has generally played a softer hand externally, relying much more on building economic and cultural ties than on military expansion. Many Chinese are proud that their rulers have brought their country out of centuries of warlordism, poverty, and subjugation by foreigners to its presently powerful position. They recognize that this was achieved through engagement with other world powers, not open confrontation, and that trend looks set to continue.
Is the United Nations strong and flexible enough to host the kinds of globe-girdling discussions that now need to be held – among these three, but also including the rest of the world's peoples? I believe so, though Big Three policymakers will also need to find quieter places where they can brainstorm different options, probe one another's reactions, and build decent working relationships away from the public spotlight.
The UN Security Council will be one key forum where a durable settlement for Georgia gets hammered out. Both the US and Russia have veto power there, so the focus needs to be on negotiating a consensus text that both governments – as well as the people of Georgia – can live with. Consensus is also the working rule at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), a 56-nation body that will probably also have a key role in midwifing and monitoring the peace accords for Georgia.
Do Russia's leaders care much whether they get kicked out of the "G-8" or denied entry to the World Trade Organization, as Bush administration officials have threatened? I doubt it. But they – and the rest of us – should care deeply about finding a way to deal with all the issues on today's global agenda without getting into a shooting war that would inflict unimaginable harm on us all.
• Helena Cobban, a former Monitor correspondent, is a "Friend in Washington" with the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Her latest book is "Re-engage! America and the World after Bush."
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Good to see you back.parsuram wrote:/Lurking mode off/
acharya:
It is simplistic to view Indian policies in the way dipicted in the post you have quoted. South block has been far more aware of trends in geopolitics than anyone gives them credit for. One can see the consequences for India and its security through the turbulent end of the 20th century, particularly disintegration of the USSR. India came through that period with minimum damage.
This Georgian incident appears to be an opning gambit in Russia's counter offensive against US/NATO's disasterous geopolitical offensives following the fall of the Soviet state twenty or so years ago (Balkans, Middle east, south asia). We are going to see a reversal of fortunes, strategies & roles in Afghanistan. A new "northern alliance", with covert material support from Iran and Russia, with Indian tacit approval & "peaceful" participation on the ground, will likely begin a new & successful "jehad" against US/NATO forces in Afghanistan. In fact, a long term US/NATO presence in Afghanistan is probably the last hope of the pakis to keep their artificial "country" together.
What matters is that with retreat from Afghanistan, and also from Iraq (foregone conclusion), US/NATO will find itself in an unusual (for it) defensive mode. The consequences for India, while full of cautionary circumstances, will be nothing but fruitful.
/lurking mode on/
Yes the quoted article was to show how screwed up their view of India is and how UK still thinks India is still their own to make policies for. And some Indian elites actually agree with this kind of article.
New generations of Indians have to make sure that India gets out of this trap
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
The New New World Order
The West's foreign policy priority is no longer terrorism: it is to tame the new great power nationalisms and harness them to democratic ideals
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Churchill must be turning over in the grave at how badly the stuff is getting mismanaged by the English speaking Anglo-Saxon people!
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Gerard wrote:The New New World OrderThe West's foreign policy priority is no longer terrorism: it is to tame the new great power nationalisms and harness them to democratic ideals
there is a lot of interesting things in this article as the idea of Westphalian states is coming back to roost. And see the last para which expsoes the so called History and what it means to the West.
Its the universal empire of Alexander couched in Christian idelogy and now in modernism. Its world domination by one group over all others by making their rules the rules for everyone.
The Asiatics are not buying in except the deracinated Indians. I some times wonder if the Aryan invasion theory has sucked the Indian elite of their group and national interests for they feel part of the rulers from the dominant groups.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Here is a pdf of Caroll Quigley's lecture on Comparative National Cultures
Please read this to understand current geopolitical trends and how the prof has predicted them 50 years ago!.
Pay attention the demographics expalanation. we should be able to make use of his material. Also note how he sues ancient geographical concepts like Galacis etc. Shows that at the core its still ancient knowledge. And the importance of success of India for the world.
Please read this to understand current geopolitical trends and how the prof has predicted them 50 years ago!.
Pay attention the demographics expalanation. we should be able to make use of his material. Also note how he sues ancient geographical concepts like Galacis etc. Shows that at the core its still ancient knowledge. And the importance of success of India for the world.
Re: Geopolitical thread - 15
Awesome Ramana garu.ramana wrote:Here is a pdf of Caroll Quigley's lecture on Comparative National Cultures
Please read this to understand current geopolitical trends and how the prof has predicted them 50 years ago!.
Pay attention the demographics expalanation. we should be able to make use of his material. Also note how he sues ancient geographical concepts like Galacis etc. Shows that at the core its still ancient knowledge. And the importance of success of India for the world.
Am totally blown away by the level, the quality, the clarity, the insight..... wow. Bloody wow.
Mazaa aa gaya. Once again, Thanks for pointing this one out!