European Tribune - Community, Politics & Progress.

kettle... pot

by Jerome a Paris
Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 09:31:51 AM EST

This is the first attempt in Europe since Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, Saakashvili said, by a big country to destroy a neighbor and openly annex its territory and change Europe's internal boundaries. (Georgian President on National Public Radio [US])

...ignoring Russia’s warnings, western countries rushed to recognise Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence from Serbia. We argued consistently that it would be impossible, after that, to tell the Abkhazians and Ossetians (and dozens of other groups around the world) that what was good for the Kosovo Albanians was not good for them. In international relations, you cannot have one rule for some and another rule for others. (Russian President Medvedev in the FT)

How long will "we" be able to hold on to such breathtaking double standards?

. Home
. About
. Contact
. New User Guide
. FAQ
. Search
. Search (Google)
. Archives (Wiki)
Art, Economics, Energy, Environment, EU Politics, Mech & Tech, By Country

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

kettle... pot | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: kettle... pot (4.00 / 2)

Well, thanks to Stalin Georgia did annex Abkhazia...And Crimea was given over to the Ukrainians by Krushchev, though without any mortalities nor destruction to speak of.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 10:05:52 AM EST

Re: kettle... pot (4.00 / 4)

Um, Russia didn't annex Abkhazia or South Ossetia, they just recognised their independence.

In that sense, the closest analogy is not Kosovo but Northern Cyprus, especially if only Russia recognises the breakaway Georgian Republics, like Turkey is the only country that recognises Northern Cyprus. Also, the fact that Russia has for years given Russian nationality to South Ossetians and Abkhaz is another parallel with the Turkey/Northern Cyprus situation.

The events in Georgia may be a predictable quid pro quo on Kosovo but they are not really analogous.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 10:19:27 AM EST

Re: kettle... pot (4.00 / 2)

Um, who is "we" here, Jerome? You are quoting the Georgian and the Russian Presidents.

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST

Re: kettle... pot (none / 1)

Oh, good. I was hoping you'd mention Dima's op-ed in the FT.

(On a technical note, your links to the FT always come up, for me, as requiring a subscription in order to read them. But I have no problem accessing entire articles if I just google them. I don't know what that's about.)

"This is nothing compared to how Putin rigged Eurovision."

by poemless on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 10:49:31 AM EST

Re: kettle... pot (4.00 / 3)

This doesn't come as a surprise, but, speaking of double standards, Kosovo is denying it's an example for South Ossetia or Abkhazia. I've pretty much run out of sarcasm at this point.

"You can't be a successful crook with a dishonest face, now, can you?" -The Fourth Doctor

by lychee (lychee9393 A yahoo D com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 11:06:31 AM EST

Re: kettle... pot (4.00 / 4)

All this hypocricy cuts both ways, of course. If Georgia has committed 'genocide' in South Ossetia, as Russia claims, then Russian has committed genocide in Chechnya.

by Gag Halfrunt on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM EST

What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 2)

Yes, what does Russia think it will gain by recognising Abkhazia and South Ossetia ? I mean, they have to know the price will be high, so what are they buying in exchange ?

They probably are thinking further down the line, but how ?

The real point of contention I believe is Crimea, and particularly Sebastopol. How would this help them over there ?

by balbuz on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 01:36:51 PM EST

Re: What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 5)

I can think of lots of possibilities, the most likely being that it forces the U.S. et al to be reactive rather than active which provides breathing space while everyone rethinks their positions.

Other possibilities? it makes sure that the neighbours all take Russia into account in their future plans. In the percieved monopolar world a lot of countries were ignoring russian feelings, if their actions could be seen as fine with the U.S. This could be seen as Russia reminding everyone its still in the game, without them having to do something directly threatening to any other major player.

Life should consist in at least fifty percent pure waste of time, and the rest doing what you please.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at) gmail (dot) com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 02:01:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (none / 1)

Yes, but didn't they just have to sit tight around those places as peacemakers, annoying NATO ?

Why recognise them ?

by balbuz on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 5)

<speculation class=wild>Because otherwise Russia would probably ne dup forced to withdraw its troops from them immediately, given that they would be considered hostile by the Georgian government after this month's conflict. Therefore, the only way to stay is to recognise the regions as sovereign. </speculation>

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:33:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (none / 1)

That as well.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:35:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

In case it's not obvious (none / 1)

probably ne dup forced

probably end up forced

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:39:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (none / 1)

Because otherwise Russia would probably ne dup forced to withdraw its troops from them immediately

I don't know.

The difference recognising these republics makes, is that they create a situation they cannot wiggle out of. This may be what they wanted. So you could be close.

But, aren't Turkish troops still in Cyprus, 30+ years after the invasion ?

by balbuz on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:58:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 2)

But, aren't Turkish troops still in Cyprus, 30+ years after the invasion ?

Actually, I posted too fast, this reinforces your point.

by balbuz on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 2)

How's the price going to be high? So far all we've had is a lot of bellicose talk from NATO and the State Department - inasmuch as one can separate the two. But it's not like the people who are doing the tough talking have much leverage against Russia.

- Jake

Ceterum censeo Chicago esse delendam

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 02:13:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (none / 1)

Ok, let's suppose they get way with it easy. Still, what is the gain ?

by balbuz on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 02:56:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (none / 1)

I can think of three:

Domestic political gain. This sort of stuff always plays pretty well back home.
Local strategic gain, perhaps. I don't understand the details of the disputes in the area well enough to judge this one.
They send a clear indication of the alternatives to dealing with Russia as a partner in good faith. Basically punishing default in the game by defaulting, which is a sensible strategy.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 02:59:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (none / 1)

Domestic political gain. This sort of stuff always plays pretty well back home.
I intend to ask folks over there how they react to it.

Local strategic gain, perhaps.
Might be it. I hope someone has an idea.

Basically punishing default in the game by defaulting, which is a sensible strategy.
Me no understand. If you don't play nice, I won't play nice either ?

by balbuz on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:25:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 4)

If you don't play nice, I won't play nice either ?

Pretty much. Sometimes it is worth taking damage to make clear that you won't accept disrespect/abuse. Bullies generally pick on the ones that don't fight back.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 03:30:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What gain for Russia ? (4.00 / 2)

I think that's close to the mark. We know that NK was reprieved from god knows what because they managed to build a bomb which scared the Americans, and Iran is smart enough to sail ahead with building one for the same reason.

While the danger is always present that the people in the White House will snap and bring down the planet, their actions show that they respect strength in others, and only stamp on the weak.

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

by martingale on Wed Aug 27th, 2008 at 07:49:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nazi Russia (none / 0)

It seems Saakashvili the tie-muncher has been inspired by his friend Carl Bildt to compare Russian actions with those of Nazi Germany, or maybe it was the other way around?

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

by Starvid (arvid.hallen at gmail.com) on Sat Aug 30th, 2008 at 08:20:30 AM EST

kettle... pot | 21 comments (21 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]