Display:
A few points on Georgia made in the article I mentioned yesterday by Vitalij Tret'jakov, director of the review Politiceskij klass that bolster your argument. Tret'jakov sees three principal reasons why Russia will never allow the Ukraine and Georgia to become part of NATO.

  1. It would be the first time territories that were historically Russian would pass under the control of NATO;
  2. The Black Sea would become essentially a US-NATO lake;
  3. Any future war engaged by the US-NATO, especially against Islamic regimes, would directly involve these border states with direct repercussions on Russia.

During the NATO summit in Bucarest last April Putin bluntly told Bush that Ukraine is not even a nation save for a small territory in Eastern Europe. Putin is not one to mince words. In short, if Georgia and the Ukraine want to play soldier in NATO they'll have to do it without the historical Russian territories. The causus belli in this crisis was the killing of Russian "peacekeepers." I needn't cite other nations that routinely retaliate for the killings of its citizens.

Putin and Medvedev have clearly stated- and enacted- their foreign policy. Despite neocon ranting there are cooler heads in the NATO that disagree with admitting the two states. NATO doesn't need more shit. It's already got its hands full with the Baltic republics and the ex-Warsaw Pact, whose members once prone always prone.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Sat Aug 9th, 2008 at 05:43:52 PM EST
.
Ukraine threatens to bar Russian warships-Interfax

MOSCOW, Aug 10 (Reuters) - Ukraine said it reserved the right to bar Russian warships dispatched to the Georgian coast from returning to their Ukrainian base of Sevastopol, Interfax news agency reported.

    "Ukraine ... reserves the right to bar warships and vessels which could take part in the action (conflict with Georgia) from returning to Ukrainian territory until the conflict is solved ..."

"Georgian Attack Killed 1,600 S Ossatians

by Oui on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 05:54:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Ukrainian base of Sevastopol

Sevastopol and Crimea consider themselves to be Russian.

by blackhawk on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 06:16:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Here we fucking go...

I told them the Kosovo decision was a mad one, I told'em! But does anyone ever listen to me?

Noooo...

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 02:16:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It would be the first time territories that were historically Russian would pass under the control of NATO;

Um, what? Define historically Russian. If we're talking Tsarist Russia the Baltics and Poland. If we're talking the USSR, Baltics. The other two reasons make sense.

by MarekNYC on Sun Aug 10th, 2008 at 01:32:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by blackhawk on Mon Aug 11th, 2008 at 07:31:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
This is a late reply. Tret'jakov kicks off his argument with Putin's blunt remark to George Bush last April in Bucarest of the tenure, -Come on George, there's no such thing as the Ukraine except for a small eastern European enclave. Everything they have, we gave to them.

This refers to when Kruschchev, a Ukrainian, "gave" the Ukraine all its present territories which have a vast majority of Russians in 1954. Today's Russia has this perception of the situation whether propaganda or not.

As for the past centuries you are right. A look at the changing borders and empires that have come and gone makes for much confusion. What remains is the present day contention that does echo Hitler's claim over territories with a strong German "ethnic" presence, were it not for NATO enchroachment since the cancellation of the USSR. I suppose that if the Warsaw Pact were cozying up to Saskatchewan the US would be touchy, too.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Wed Aug 13th, 2008 at 06:34:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series