Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Georgia will be taken in a night. What's next?

Rate this topic


Juxtys

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why are you afraid that Lithuania will be next? Lithuania is a NATO member. Do you think that Russia is willing to engage in a war against NATO now?

What do you think are the goals that Russia is pursuing in Georgia? How far do you think they are willing to go - and how much risk are they willing to take? Do you think they seek to crush the Georgians and re-conquer them, or are their goals more restrained?

P.S.: As I type this, TV news says that Russian troops are 20 km away from Tbilisi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lithuania is a NATO member. Any military attack on it could be construed as an attack on all other members. Russia won't risk that.

What worries me is that there isn't much America can do about Russian agression in Georgia. Sending troops is out of the question, and so is any kind of military attack on Russia, even if Gerogia is an american ally, an eager candidate for NATO and a pro-Western country. The US simply can't get into a war with Russia now (if ever, keep in mind the Russians have nukes).

I can think of one possibility, but it reeks so badly of altruism I hesitate to bring it up. Nevertheless:

1) Use every diplomatic means to end the current war, even if it means ceding South Ossetia to the Russians.

2) Set up a multinational "peacekeeping" force under NATO command, including American troops

3) Warn Russia any further attack on georgia while NATO troops are there would be construed as an attack on NATO and will be treated as an act of war (Russia is less eager to fight the US)

4) Admit Georgia into NATO at once.

While we're on the subject, it's high time to defuse the Iranian threat. If Russia has any ideas about reconstituting the USSR, or reconquering the former Soviet Republics, the last thing we'd want is to leave it an ally in control of that much oil elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guy's are forgetting that it is a good thing that Russia is finally cracking down on Georgia. Georgia is a haven of Islamofascist terrorists. This is simply an extention of the War on Terror, and as such we should be helping Russia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guy's are forgetting that it is a good thing that Russia is finally cracking down on Georgia. Georgia is a haven of Islamofascist terrorists. This is simply an extention of the War on Terror, and as such we should be helping Russia.

Huh? :P What is your evidence? Can you point to a link supporting these statements?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You guy's are forgetting that it is a good thing that Russia is finally cracking down on Georgia. Georgia is a haven of Islamofascist terrorists. This is simply an extention of the War on Terror, and as such we should be helping Russia.

Muslims themselves make up about 8% of the Georgian population.

The terrorism that Georgia is inhabited with is one of political separatism

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This seems to me like the frightening side of the recent rise of foreign countries adopting pieces of Capitalism (Russia, China). It's good while it allows people some freedom to trade and profit. However, what if the governments of these nations decided to rescind their recent good will and devour the new prosperity and wealth in order to fund military hostility or wars. Is this a legitimate cause to worry? I am curious what the Russians think of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the harvest of our (the West's) altruistic interference in Kosovo. Russia warned the west that they were setting a dangerous precedent by going into a sovereign nation in order to help a separatist movement.

Guess what. The exact same excuses used by NATO in the bombing and invasion of Kosovo are now being used by the Russians to legitimize their invasion, occupation and 'liberation' of the Russian dominated enclaves in Georgia.

We reap what we have sown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other thing that Russia is after is Georgia's oil pipeline. If it conquers Georgia it will have a literal monopoly on oil distribution in Europe.

This whole situation feels dangerously close to Nazi Germany invading Poland.

Edited by Myself
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lithuania is a NATO member. Any military attack on it could be construed as an attack on all other members. Russia won't risk that.

What worries me is that there isn't much America can do about Russian agression in Georgia. Sending troops is out of the question, and so is any kind of military attack on Russia, even if Gerogia is an american ally, an eager candidate for NATO and a pro-Western country. The US simply can't get into a war with Russia now (if ever, keep in mind the Russians have nukes).

We could wipe the floor with Russia if we'd fight all out.

Now maybe people will see more clearly why it's good to be armed to the teeth and to use force rarely, but when you do use it use it decisively and overwhelmingly. The Russians wouldn't be so bold in such a context.

I agree with Myself (not me, but the poster "Myself", well me as well, but you get my drift ), from what little I know of this it appears to be about control over oil. It directly affects an American pipeline, btw.

And now I’m wondering if this has the potential to spread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could wipe the floor with Russia if we'd fight all out.

But that's the problem! Congress wants to fight a politically correct war. Which, of course, is a contradiction in terms (just as 'civil war' is). A war can't be politically correct. Killing is never 'politically correct'. We wouldn't fight all out, but I'm pretty sure Russia would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps the US should covertly supply the Georgians with tow and stinger missiles and create an entanglement for the Russians. If it becomes too much of a quagmire for Russia they’ll pull out. The Russians of course will know that we did it. When they confront us with it well tell give the same eye roll and shrug they are giving us now. We could also supply them with satellite imagery and intelligence. Keep in mind the Georgian troops were trained by the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is interesting in all kinds of ways. But there's one issue no-one seems to be raising.

What about the rights of the South Ossetians and the Abkhazis? They evidently want independence. This is their right. Georgia seems to be the clear aggressor here. Should America stand up for the attackers and would-be conquerors in this situation -- even if they are admittedly pro-American in many ways? I don't see it.

Based on the news reports I've read, Georgia is the war-monger and evil party here. Georgia is the attacker and aggressor. Russia, in contrast, is the defender of the rights of the South Ossetians and Abkhazis. They're punishing long-time Georgian aggression which was recently radically brazenly escalated.

In my view, Russia is not the bad guy here, and will not become the aggressor until and unless: (1) they notably over-retaliate or (2) they occupy significant parts of Georgia for a significant time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about the rights of the South Ossetians and the Abkhazis? They evidently want independence. This is their right. Georgia seems to be the clear aggressor here. Should America stand up for the attackers and would-be conquerors in this situation -- even if they are admittedly pro-American in many ways? I don't see it.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia. Back in the mid 90's Russia sponsored both of those territories in their revolt against the Georgian government. The seperatists are Russian pawns, with Russian passports, taking Russian orders. They don't want independence. Russia wants them to be part of Russia. Which they pretty much are at this point.

Based on the news reports I've read, Georgia is the war-monger and evil party here. Georgia is the attacker and aggressor. Russia, in contrast, is the defender of the rights of the South Ossetians and Abkhazis. They're punishing long-time Georgian aggression which was recently radically brazenly escalated.

Russia has been massing troops in S. Ossetia for months now, building their "peace-keeping" force and just started to attack villages on the border. They were clearly goading Georgia into a fight. Georgia was acting in its own defense by entering a territory that's part of it's own country to stop the attacks.

In my view, Russia is not the bad guy here, and will not become the aggressor until and unless: (1) they notably over-retaliate or (2) they occupy significant parts of Georgia for a significant time period.

What do you call invading a sovereign nation and marching on its capital?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are part of Georgia. Back in the mid 90's Russia sponsored both of those territories in their revolt against the Georgian government. The seperatists are Russian pawns, with Russian passports, taking Russian orders. They don't want independence. Russia wants them to be part of Russia. Which they pretty much are at this point.
Even if the South Ossetian want to join Russia rather than being independent, that does not affect the point that Wotan was making. I think he is asking why the South Ossetians do not have a right to self-determination (if the Georgians did, and just as the Kosovans did).

Objectivism does not support the notion that the people in some geographical area have a right to self-determination, in the sense that the majority can decide whatever type of government they want. No matter how small the geographical area, the majority (or minority, for that matter) may not morally opt for a system that deprives people of rights.

Applying that to this conflict, the moral question becomes: which country -- Georgia or Russia -- has the more moral political system. I don't know the answer to this; but, that's the way to approach it, rather than thinking of self-determination and the will of the majority.

This conflict makes Russia's ability and willingness to use force more concrete and real to all others in Europe. Over the last few years, it appeared that this was being evaded. For instance, western european countries are increasing relying on Russian natural gas (over 30% of German NG consumption, 25% of Italy's, and 20% of France's).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Georgia probably thought that NATO will aid them. Well, they mistaken. If NATO aids Georgia, Russia would probably aid Iran. We don't want it, do we? Georgia would better hand over South Osetia, althought some Osetian's could be Russian puppets pulled in order to spark a war between these two countries.

By the way, Lithuania calls herself to be Georgia's friend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Applying that to this conflict, the moral question becomes: which country -- Georgia or Russia -- has the more moral political system. I don't know the answer to this; but, that's the way to approach it, rather than thinking of self-determination and the will of the majority.

I’m not sure what is happining with the rebels in South Ossetia. What I am sure of is the evil intensions of Putin and the Russians. This is a land grab pure and simple. Putin is the same leader who says he’ll aim missiles at Poland supports dictators like Lushenko, cut gas to the Ukraine when the vote doesn’t go the kremlins way, declares murdered journalist work to be “uninfluential”, stops regional elections as a response to terrorism, nationalizes privet industries and nearly all the media, and shields KGB-style murders.

I doubt Russia’s claim that it cares for the “poor people of South Ossetia”. When Georgia was told that it would not be let into NATO earlier this year it was a green light for Russia to invade. Putin just waited for the summer weather and the distractions of the Olympics in to invade.

Having succumbed to Russia's tactics, Georgia will find its pipelines under Russian control as Russia plays its oil weapon card.

I don’t k now enough about the rebels in Ossetia to claim that they are not morally superior to Georgia (all though I suspect its caused stirred and paid for by the Russians). But I do know that the Russia has no more justified intensions in “liberating” Ossetia” then Hitler did by bullying the annexation of Austria.

"When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand we apply too late the remedies which then might have effected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the sibylline books. It falls into that long, dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong, these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history." Churchill 1936

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The best summary of the history and context of this event is here:

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power

What the article doesn't say, but I will, is that Kosovo should never have been separated from Serbia, this was pure altruism.

We should not be expanding NATO in such an aggressive manner when NATO members do not contribute to their own defense in any significant way, it makes the NATO member countries militarily indefensible the moment the US turns its attention elsewhere. This is also altruism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not sure what is happining with the rebels in South Ossetia. What I am sure of is the evil intensions of Putin and the Russians. This is a land grab pure and simple. Putin is the same leader who says he’ll aim missiles at Poland supports dictators like Lushenko, cut gas to the Ukraine when the vote doesn’t go the kremlins way, declares murdered journalist work to be “uninfluential”, stops regional elections as a response to terrorism, nationalizes privet industries and nearly all the media, and shields KGB-style murders.

I doubt Russia’s claim that it cares for the “poor people of South Ossetia”. When Georgia was told that it would not be let into NATO earlier this year it was a green light for Russia to invade. Putin just waited for the summer weather and the distractions of the Olympics in to invade.

Having succumbed to Russia's tactics, Georgia will find its pipelines under Russian control as Russia plays its oil weapon card.

I don’t k now enough about the rebels in Ossetia to claim that they are not morally superior to Georgia (all though I suspect its caused stirred and paid for by the Russians). But I do know that the Russia has no more justified intensions in “liberating” Ossetia” then Hitler did by bullying the annexation of Austria.

If Lithuania is full of Russian spies, KGB agents and their puppets, why Osetia can't be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We could wipe the floor with Russia if we'd fight all out.

I'm not so sure about that. Granted America has easily defeated armies using Soviet/Russian weapons, but not, thus far, any armies that were well trained. While it's hard to see that Russia's army is well trained (as the Israeli or US armies are), they're bound to be better trained than Iraq's. Militarily what you have counts for a lot, but also what you know how to do with it.

But aside from that there are matters of logistics and man power. Russia would have a much simpler logistical situation, which might be hard to disrupt (imagine the hue and cry the first time US aricraft bombed depots within Russia). They also may be able to bring larger numbers to the front.

Lastly Russia has a large nuclear stockpile. I don't think they'd try a mass nuclear attack on America, or even a tactical strike at the front. But here's one thing they could do:

Use a tactical nuke on their own units, maybe near the front, maybe on reinforcements on their way, and lcaim it was America who dropped the nuke. Such claims could be easily disproved by taking fallout samples, analyzing their isotope ratios, and comparing them to US nuke fabrication records. it wouldn't take more than a few days. But by then the large majority of the world would be convinced America nuked Russian troops first.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about that. Granted America has easily defeated armies using Soviet/Russian weapons, but not, thus far, any armies that were well trained. While it's hard to see that Russia's army is well trained (as the Israeli or US armies are), they're bound to be better trained than Iraq's. Militarily what you have counts for a lot, but also what you know how to do with it.

But aside from that there are matters of logistics and man power. Russia would have a much simpler logistical situation, which might be hard to disrupt (imagine the hue and cry the first time US aricraft bombed depots within Russia). They also may be able to bring larger numbers to the front.

Lastly Russia has a large nuclear stockpile. I don't think they'd try a mass nuclear attack on America, or even a tactical strike at the front. But here's one thing they could do:

Use a tactical nuke on their own units, maybe near the front, maybe on reinforcements on their way, and lcaim it was America who dropped the nuke. Such claims could be easily disproved by taking fallout samples, analyzing their isotope ratios, and comparing them to US nuke fabrication records. it wouldn't take more than a few days. But by then the large majority of the world would be convinced America nuked Russian troops first.

America's strength is always underestimated, and maybe that's a good thing, because it keeps us vigilante. But, I remember time and time again how American tanks out performed the best Russian tanks, and air power out performed the best Soviet fighters. America continues to improve its military technology in all areas. The innovations just keep on coming. Robots in lieu of soldiers may be the wave of the future. That technology is starting to come more and more online.

Also, I think an all volunteer force makes us much stronger, because the men are motivated to fight.

Our real problem is that we don't fight all out and we don't focus on crushing the enemy.

Having said that, I don’t think we should go into Georgia. Maybe give the Georgians arms and aid and moral support, but we can't fight every battle in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should not be expanding NATO in such an aggressive manner when NATO members do not contribute to their own defense in any significant way, it makes the NATO member countries militarily indefensible the moment the US turns its attention elsewhere.
Maybe the ex-Eastern block nations should form a military alliance of their own. Little Georgia doesn't stand a chance against Russia; but, a real alliance of the various ex Eastern block countries should be able to put a fair amount of resources together. Nukes won't be available; but, Russia is unlikely to cross that line anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...