Russia sez: Choose: us or them.

[mjs2101]

Serbia is a bunch of vicious, passive/aggessive thugs. Russia's a lot bigger, not crazy like Serbia, but not Mr Nice Guy either. I'd cast my vote on behalf on any group that wanted to cut free of either one.

What, or whom, are you basing your assumption of Serbians on? I have Serbian friends and Russian friends and I find them not very different from my American friends. Just as my Polish friends don't live up to the stereotypes placed on Poles over the past several decades. Would we do all Americans justice saying they were like Bill Clinton or George Bush?

So it is OK for regions to "cut free" of Russia or Serbia, but not OK for regions to cut free of Georgia?

Mykel

[Paul1953]

Actually, I have not heard that from MSM or any other outlet... It was just a thought I had..

The big difference between Iran and Russia tho, is that Russia can back up the tough talk...Iran, well, Frankly, could not punch it's way out of a wet paper bag.

LOL Reminds me of them sending out the "Praise Allah speed boats" to face down American Warships... LOL

You know, Since the Cole bombing, the Phalanx system can now deal with such minor threats....LOL What a sight that would be! That would be more entertaining than Ayatollah Khomeini Funeral!

While Iran still has a very long way to go with its nuke program, it does have an extensive biological warfare capability. I'll find the link later, I have to see somebody's ladder.


In the meantime , heres a summary for those of you distracted by the Olympics:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20535.htm

[Paul1953]

Actually the original 'Shanghai 5' where: China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan & Tajikistan. Uzbekistan joined later. Iran is not officially part of it, though they have applied. Currently they have observer status, as do Pakistan, India and Mongolia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

Though they seem to be trying to create an Asian version of NATO, don't be surprised if China and Russia have a falling out in the next decade or two. Historically they are competitors, not allies.

Indeed, that is correct. With all the Stans, one needs a scorecard to keep up.

Russia and China can both appreciate certain expediancies. They are under no illusion that the knives could be out for each other in a heart beat.

But for now, they smell blood.

[Andy J]

China, and the Soviet Union, has fought several minor border wars over the past 50 years.. Of course, these are not talked about, because it would show discord in the communist brotherhood.

Chinese communism, and Soviet communism, are two different strains, in truth, during the cold war, if shooting had broken out between the US and Soviet Union, their was a good chance that the Chinese would have been on OUR side.

(that does it for me, NOW, I am off for a weeks worth of R&R at the beach!!! But, I am taking my laptop, so who knows what will happen)

[muskokaandtahoe]

Dave - No, it is not the same. If the borders had been resolved in 1992 then the issue of the South Ossetians, Transnistrians etc would not be an issue. The fact of the matter is that the South Ossetian conflict has been taking place on and off since 1992. The South Ossetians and Abkahzi have never wanted to be part of Georgia. Much as the Transnistrians have no desire to be Moldovan.

snip

As for language laws - well unfortunately the ethnic boundaries of Eastern Europe are not nice and compact and in line with those of the state. 50% of the Ukrainian population consider themselves to be ethnically Russian and speak Russian not Ukrainian, 33% of the Estonian population is ethnically Russian, go north or east of Chisinau in Moldova and people speak Russian not Moldovan. Estonian language laws mean that to even have citizenship of the Estonian state you have to speak Estonian. This has been used as a law to sack Russians from jobs and to exclude them. The fact of life is that these states ARE bi-lingual in every day life.

Sorry Dan, but your point reads as if you think Russia is a brand new country, cut from whole cloth in 1989-92 with no history. All those folks who speak russian in the Baltic countries and all along the fringe from the Black Sea to China are there only because Russia, for 500 years, follow a policy of Imperialist expansion.

Imperialism was the way things were done for those centuries. And the entire history of the 20th century was the death struggle of those empires. They're all dead. They killed each other off. Except it's sure looking like Putin and his gang didn't get the announcement.

Anyway, you do have a point that borders are hard to define... what might seem right today might not have been right 100 years ago... and vice versa. That said, the borders ARE where they are today and if there are some Russians on "the wrong side of the line" it's an issue for that country to deal with, not Russia. Some, like the Ukraine, are trying to figure out how to get along. Other places, like Estonia, which has very little in common with Russia, is taking a harder line. But again, it's for them to work it out. Internal Affairs... Treaty of Westfalia stuff. Russia needs to mind it's own business and BUTT OUT of all those places. The problem is, they are not doing that and that's what I take exception too.

[muskokaandtahoe]

What, or whom, are you basing your assumption of Serbians on? I have Serbian friends and Russian friends and I find them not very different from my American friends. Just as my Polish friends don't live up to the stereotypes placed on Poles over the past several decades. Would we do all Americans justice saying they were like Bill Clinton or George Bush?

Sorry Mykel, I did not mean to imply that all Serbians or All Russians or all of anybody else is just one way or like another. My use of the word Serbians was meant to describe the policys of that Government, not a specific individual.

So it is OK for regions to "cut free" of Russia or Serbia, but not OK for regions to cut free of Georgia?

Could be a long answer... let me see how short I can make it. (1) Yugoslavia wasn't ever a nation, it was simply a state, largly controlled by Serbians. In a similar way Czechoslovakia wasn't ever a nation either, just a state. When their Soviet overloards pulled out of eastern Europe those people had to figure out what to do. The Czechs and Slovaks went down one road, the Serbs, Croats, and Sloviens another. Places like Georgia didn't get so far. And Russia stepped in a couple of places and just took over w/o regard to where the boarder was... and in other places, acted more like the Serbs and not at all like the Czechs.

So, as you know, it was all a mess.

As for the right and wrong of whatver happened (or might yet happen), I'll put myself on the side of whatever state is trying hard to be a democracy against whichever state is trying hard to be run by thugs. And so in my mind, that put the Bosnians and Kosovars on one side and the Serbs on the other. As for Georgia and it's integral minorities, it appears to be a choice of Georgia on one hand and the Russians on the other. I'll take Georgia, thank you very much.


So it's by that logic and not one purely of self determiniation, power policics, or where the borders are (or should be). It's the principles of democracy, flawed as it can be vs. the principles of Empire, flawed as that is.

Last comment: I've had to write this very quickly as my family is waiting for me to get in the car so if it doesn't quite make sense, please excuse my and I'll try and clear anything up later on.

[mjs2101]

Understood Dave.

But, what about the South Ossetians? Do they not get a chance to decide their future or is it up to the "bigger" states to tell them what they want? Sadly it seems everyone is more focused on Russia and Georgia while the South Ossetians are simply being ignored. If they they choose Russia over Georgia, then Georgia should simply let them go if peaceful negotiations hasn't convinced them other wise. Isn't that what democracy is about, even if the choice leads one away from democracy? Plus, I don't think democracy is about taking an autonomous region back by force if the population doesn't wish it to be.

While I am not saying the Russian government is any better, why would one support Georgian president Saakashvili when he seems to care more about the outline of Georgia's boarder than about his own citizens and the Georgians living in South Ossetia?

Mykel

[muskokaandtahoe]

> But, what about the South Ossetians?

Don't know too much except that there is a North Ossetian too, Ossetia having been divided by Stalin.

If all the Ossetians wanted their own country, I'd probably be inclined to say let them go give it a try. But that's not the case here: both Russia and Georgia are asserting that their half of Ossetia is theirs' and theirs' alone. Except that Russia wants the Georgian half too. And that makes me very suspicious that the issue of Ossetian seperatism is bogus... the whole thing looks like it is being manuipulated by Russia, for Russia.

I guess it boils down to this Mykel: On the topic of borders... on the topic of sovereignty for the states of the so-called "Far Abroad", I would not trust the current Russian government on anything .

[plainsman]

I know this sounds paranoid, but does anyone else wonder if this is a decoy to get USA to focus recon on Georgia, and off of Yamantau?

[cp5513]

I have to say this is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a long time. Just to add some insight into the conversation, here is a refresher on the inner-organization of the old Soviet Union, and this helps to understand the present situation.

The old USSR actually contained 15 constituent or "union republics", each in legal terms had equal power to one another, and each even had the right to secede from the union (Article 72 of the USSR Constitution). This article is what lead to the independence of all these 15 republics once the union fell in 1991. However during the USSR era, though the republics were technically independent from one another in reality their governments acted in a closely coordinated confederation. Russia was obviously one of the republics, along with Georgia, Ukraine, Byelorussia (White Russia), the 3 Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), Moldavia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and all the 'stans'.

At one time early in the 1920's Abkhazia was given republic status, but that was changed once Stalin took power, and it became an autonomous region within the Georgian SSR (somewhat equal status to that of a US state). Originally Ossetia was an autonomous region within the Russian SSR and also almost given republic status early on, but under Stalin it was split into North & South Ossetia, the north being an autonomous region of the Russian SSR, and the south becoming an autonomous region to Georgia.

This is the problem that is festering now, two gifts to Georgia from Stalin's time are now being disputed. In both regions, the dominant nationality is actually Russian, not Georgian. It should also be noted (for those that did not know) that Josef Stalin was Georgian.

[chucksc]

I have to say this is one of the most interesting threads I've read in a long time. Just to add some insight into the conversation, here is a refresher on the inner-organization of the old Soviet Union, and this helps to understand the present situation.

The old USSR actually contained 15 constituent or "union republics", each in legal terms had equal power to one another, and each even had the right to secede from the union (Article 72 of the USSR Constitution). This article is what lead to the independence of all these 15 republics once the union fell in 1991. However during the USSR era, though the republics were technically independent from one another in reality their governments acted in a closely coordinated confederation. Russia was obviously one of the republics, along with Georgia, Ukraine, Byelorussia (White Russia), the 3 Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia), Moldavia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and all the 'stans'.

At one time early in the 1920's Abkhazia was given republic status, but that was changed once Stalin took power, and it became an autonomous region within the Georgian SSR (somewhat equal status to that of a US state). Originally Ossetia was an autonomous region within the Russian SSR and also almost given republic status early on, but under Stalin it was split into North & South Ossetia, the north being an autonomous region of the Russian SSR, and the south becoming an autonomous region to Georgia.

This is the problem that is festering now, two gifts to Georgia from Stalin's time are now being disputed. In both regions, the dominant nationality is actually Russian, not Georgian. It should also be noted (for those that did not know) that Josef Stalin was Georgian.

As were most high ranking criminals in his day...

IIRC the Moscow Militia reputedly had a section chasing the georgians that was modeled on the FBI - Mafia task forces..

[cp5513]

Indeed, there is also a long history between Georgian criminal gangs and Russians.