NationStates Jolt Archive

http://media.economist.com/images/20080823/D3408EU1.jpg

After Georgia’s defeat, the West struggles to deal with a newly belligerent Russia

IN LESS than two weeks—from the first heated discussion about Russia’s push into Georgia that took place between President George Bush and Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir Putin, at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, to the supposed start on August 19th of the Russian army’s rifle-dragging withdrawal—the geopolitical map of Europe has been redrawn. Swathes of Georgia, not just the enclave of South Ossetia, the proximate cause of the fighting, are in Russian hands (see article). Surprised and shocked by the outbreak of war over a place few of their citizens had ever heard of, Western governments have scrambled to cover their divisions over how to respond. Yet for all its triumphalist taunts that “Russia is back”, there is no gold medal for the Kremlin for invading a neighbour for the first time since the end of the cold war.

The immediate damage to Russia’s relations with America and Europe is clear from NATO’s decision to suspend co-operation with the Kremlin until its “disproportionate” action ends and its troops are back in the positions they held before the fighting erupted on August 7th. Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, who is Mr Putin’s hand-picked successor, now says this will be done by August 22nd. But it is Mr Putin and the generals who call the shots—and they mutter that the Georgians have “not given up on their aggressive intentions.”

Mr Bush has already cancelled military exercises with Russia and withdrawn from Congress a civilian nuclear co-operation agreement that could potentially have netted Russia’s atomic industry billions. High-level visits have been put on hold. There is to be a fundamental review of relations with Russia. Beyond that, Russia’s hopes of getting into the World Trade Organisation this year have been dashed: Georgia, among others, would block it. Some, including John McCain, the Republican candidate in America’s presidential election, talk of expelling Russia from the G8 group of rich and supposedly responsible countries; others of diluting its influence by inviting China and others to join.

Some European governments have puffed hot, some cold over all this. But Germany’s Angela Merkel, often in the cautious camp when it comes to dealings with Russia because of her country’s extensive business and energy ties, has spoken with increasing sharpness of Russia’s obligations under the ceasefire agreement that she helped to nail down. Meanwhile the repercussions of this small war in the Caucasus will spread a lot wider.

The (dis)honours are shared. Georgia’s youthful president, Mikheil Saakashvili, made a terrible mistake in ordering attacks on civilian targets in South Ossetia on August 7th. NATO has set up a special commission with Georgia to oversee reconstruction and to help the country eventually fulfil its aspirations for membership, which Russia fiercely opposes. Yet Mr Saakashvili’s actions have made Georgia’s path longer and steeper. Once Russian troops go, the anger of ordinary Georgians at the catastrophe that has befallen their country may yet turn on the man who got them into this mess.

Mr Putin would count Mr Saakashvili’s scalp as another victory. Polls suggest that Russia’s leaders have popular backing at home. But Russia has also miscalculated by marching its troops into Georgia proper. That has lost it the propaganda war abroad, with the television pictures conjuring up memories of Prague in 1968 and, more recently, of Chechnya.

Russia’s interests will not go unscathed. Ukraine, another NATO candidate some day, far from being cowed by Georgia’s fate, promptly offered America and the Europeans access to its air-defence radars. Belarus, usually tightly allied with the Kremlin, took almost two weeks to declare its support; other neighbours have stayed stumm. Behind the cover of the Olympic celebrations, it will not have gone unnoticed in Beijing that China’s ally at the United Nations in opposing “interference” in a sovereign country’s affairs has just worryingly stepped over the line.

The new low in Russia’s relations with the West is one of a dispiriting series. Russia’s failed attempts to shape the outcome of Ukraine’s presidential election in 2004, followed by the orange revolution there (after Georgia’s rose revolution in 2003), hit a nerve with Mr Putin. Resentment that simmered at the continued expansion of NATO, and America’s plans to site parts of its missile defences in the Czech Republic and Poland, then boiled over after the announcement at NATO’s summit in Bucharest in April that both Georgia and Ukraine could one day join the alliance, albeit only when they were ready. Both Russia and Georgia were left itching for a fight.

That it came to one only makes difficult things harder. One is the effort to keep Europe, America, Russia and China united in the face of Iran’s defiance of UN calls for a suspension of its suspected nuclear activity. Another is the bid to resurrect an amended Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) treaty. Russia stopped co-operating with CFE limits on troop movements last year. Shortly before the Georgia crisis, it came up with suggested troop limits that it could live with. The new chill will also kill Mr Medvedev’s proposed Treaty on European Security, an idea that a British official says now looks “slightly absurd”.

Efforts to overcome Russia’s objections to missile defences in eastern Europe will also suffer. It has slammed America’s new agreement with Poland and frozen its own links with NATO. It might have done this anyway, but the shape of a deal to address some of Russia’s fears about the system was in sight, argues Rose Gottemoeller of the Carnegie Moscow Centre. Now the next American president will find it harder to make the compromises needed to get Russia involved.

Indeed, in the run-up to the inauguration of a new American president in January, scores of think-tanks, commissions and working groups have been beavering away on advice for the next incumbent of the White House. Democrats in particular have been looking for ways for an Obama presidency to broaden relations with Russia, which they argue have been neglected, except in narrow nuclear matters, by the Bush administration. There is much nuclear work still to be done, including agreeing upon a new round of cuts in strategic arsenals. But they are now scratching their heads. How to take account of Russia’s interests, when its idea of respect from the outside world is based on fear?

http://www.theelectroniceconomist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11977005

What do you guys think of this? Did Russia's 'victory' in this war actually hurt Russia in the greater scheme of things? Did Russia lose from this war? What do you think?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Also...on a side note, do you think it will be important to learn Russian again in the near future? I believe so and have just started studying Russian. The cold war may not be starting again, but something is...and I want to be ready for it.

I hope it hurt them. They ran up and stomped on a newly developing nation! Heck, at least we use the excuse that they aren't democratic!:D

Nah... it strengthen them. They pwnd Georgia, who was dealing to become NATO member and got away with it.

They learned from the US. It's okay to invade other nations provided you just keep blindly asserting in a loud voice that it's okay.

Nah... it strengthen them. They pwnd Georgia, who was dealing to become NATO member and got away with it.

Did you even read the article?:rolleyes:

Did you even read the article?:rolleyes:

Obviously no...duh!!

But I don't care what the article says. Russia got away with it. Just see if Ukraine dares to join the NATO

Russia has more or less proven itself to still be an independent power which if looking at central Asian powers support only shows it still has considerable power where it counts

but really I'd say this has been blown out of proportion, its just regular stuff isn't it?

Russia is sitting on vast stores of oil and natural resources while its western rivals are suffering from economic recession.

Russia wins the decade.

Russia is sitting on vast stores of oil and natural resources while its western rivals are suffering from economic recession.

Russia wins the decade.

Economic recessions reduce demand for said commodities, producing a decrease in prices that ultimately lead to far more severe economic decline in the resource producer. It's one of the major problems that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union; when oil prices tanked, the decrepit industrial sector could no longer produce the kind of growth necessary to sustain their military spending, let alone the consumer needs of their population.

The same thing will happen again unless Russia builds up its industrial sector. Of course, once that happens, they also become much less able to do things like this because their economy can no longer keep itself afloat through commodities exports. Wars just aren't easy in the global era.

Economic recessions reduce demand for said commodities, producing a decrease in prices that ultimately lead to far more severe economic decline in the resource producer. It's one of the major problems that caused the collapse of the Soviet Union; when oil prices tanked, the decrepit industrial sector could no longer produce the kind of growth necessary to sustain their military spending, let alone the consumer needs of their population.

The same thing will happen again unless Russia builds up its industrial sector. Of course, once that happens, they also become much less able to do things like this because their economy can no longer keep itself afloat through commodities exports. Wars just aren't easy in the global era.

As long as oil stays above $50 a barrel Russia will be swimming in money.

This is no longer the early 80s when supply and output capacity was taken to be infinite, and demand primarily determined oil prices. These days global output is tight and just to satisfy the basic energy requirements even of an economically moribund energy-importing nation will result in vast riches for the energy exporter.

nah, Russia got a boost.

Welcome back Comrade.

They definitely gained from the war...I aint worried though...

They can have Georgia, we'll get Iraq...and we'll see who gets more oil in the end, thats what its really about anyway, lol...

When its all said and done, i believe it shall be come obvious who picked the better Oil Fields...

People should be should study Russian history, seems like there is a lack of understanding the goverment and the people.

I'd say this is a clear victory for Russia for several reasons.

1) Russia stomped one of its annoying neighbors to dust.

2) The EU is too scared to do anything but talk in a loud voice.

3) Ukraine will certainly think twice of joining NATO after what happened.

4) The West can't do anything to Russia since they have the plug on all the oil. One bad remark and your Western nation is oil stared.

5) Russia proved that in essence "giving the finger" to the West is perfectly okay.

6) An upsurge in Russian Patriotism.

Not to mention Russia had a MUCH better excuse for Georgia then the idiotic debacle that is Iraq.

They learned from the US. It's okay to invade other nations provided you just keep blindly asserting in a loud voice that it's okay.

It's how international law has always worked. When the defendants are also the judges, the jury, the executioners and the legislators, you're always fine as long as you don't convict yourself.

Russia is also a Permanent Security Council Member. And after plenty of lessons provided by the U.S. on how to spam that veto, Putin would be showboating not to use it himself.

Russia is also a Permanent Security Council Member. And after plenty of lessons provided by the U.S. on how to spam that veto, Putin would be showboating not to use it himself.

It'll be like the good old days, when we vetoed each others' resolutions regardless of content. Nothing better than teaching those commies (or capitalists) like torpedoing their resolution to increase aid to Africa!

There have been a few well thought out answers, but it seems that most people didn't read the article at all or did, but totally missed the points The Economist was making.....

Ukraine will certainly think twice of joining NATO after what happened.

See, I don't think this is the case at all. I think this drives Ukraine right into NATO and the EU's waiting arms. Despite their similarities, Ukraine is NOT Georgia. Russia does not possess the logistics to invade and occupy all of Ukraine like it can with a much smaller Georgia. Ukraine knows this. But Ukraine likely knows that their window for escaping the Russian sphere of influence is shrinking. I think this emboldens them. I think they ramp up the anti-Russia rhetoric, and start forging some serious ties with the EU and NATO. They're going to want to show Russia that they will not be pushed around like Georgia was.

I think what this really was was a demonstration to their old ally Serbia. With Serbia being dismantled by NATO, I believe Russia wanted to show the Serbs that Russia was not impotent in the face of the West, and that they were still capable of making the West back down.

I'd say this is a clear victory for Russia for several reasons.


3) Ukraine will certainly think twice of joining NATO after what happened.



Your right but in the wrong. The Ukraine had already decided against joining NATO. Now they open up their Air space and share Radar with NATO. Seems they though again and decided they would be better off with NATO help.

See, I don't think this is the case at all. I think this drives Ukraine right into NATO and the EU's waiting arms. Despite their similarities, Ukraine is NOT Georgia. Russia does not possess the logistics to invade and occupy all of Ukraine like it can with a much smaller Georgia. Ukraine knows this. But Ukraine likely knows that their window for escaping the Russian sphere of influence is shrinking. I think this emboldens them. I think they ramp up the anti-Russia rhetoric, and start forging some serious ties with the EU and NATO. They're going to want to show Russia that they will not be pushed around like Georgia was.


I agree. The Ukraine has, at present, the same ethnic situation (majority Russians, real this time) in the Crimea, a strategically vital region. Hypothetically, Russia could try something there.

Georgia started it, Russia finished it as it is their right. Victory for Russia. Za Putina.

Russia has basically lost all of the good will it had developed since the fall of Communism. It was okay for them to fight to maintain Russia as a single entity - any nation would do that. But their continuous interference in ex-Soviet states' internal matters has left a nasty taste in the mouth of the West, and this smacks far too much of an attempt to rebuild the Russian Empire, an end that the West strongly opposes, and which has NO support in Eastern Europe outside Russia.

The worst part of it for Russia is that they have just ENCOURAGED Eastern Europe to go for NATO membership as soon as they can manage it, and removed any reason for NATO to listen to Russian objections. They've painted themselves into a corner - If they use military power and the West gets involved they will lose, and if they don't use military power they'll be ignored.

Russia has basically lost all of the good will it had developed since the fall of Communism. It was okay for them to fight to maintain Russia as a single entity - any nation would do that. But their continuous interference in ex-Soviet states' internal matters has left a nasty taste in the mouth of the West, and this smacks far too much of an attempt to rebuild the Russian Empire, an end that the West strongly opposes, and which has NO support in Eastern Europe outside Russia.

I suspect the West is just jealous that somebody is becoming a mirror to their actions as an "other". Russia really hasn't had any good will from the Western world ever since, well, ever. They've had respect sometimes, but that was usually because they held power. But good will? Not a chance.


The worst part of it for Russia is that they have just ENCOURAGED Eastern Europe to go for NATO membership as soon as they can manage it, and removed any reason for NATO to listen to Russian objections. They've painted themselves into a corner - If they use military power and the West gets involved they will lose, and if they don't use military power they'll be ignored.

NATO still comprises a number of European states dependent on Russian gas reserves though, so their bargaining power isn't exactly nil. I wonder if Russia is trying to resurrect a Warsaw pact thing as a counter to NATO though.

See, I don't think this is the case at all. I think this drives Ukraine right into NATO and the EU's waiting arms. Despite their similarities, Ukraine is NOT Georgia. Russia does not possess the logistics to invade and occupy all of Ukraine like it can with a much smaller Georgia. Ukraine knows this. But Ukraine likely knows that their window for escaping the Russian sphere of influence is shrinking. I think this emboldens them. I think they ramp up the anti-Russia rhetoric, and start forging some serious ties with the EU and NATO. They're going to want to show Russia that they will not be pushed around like Georgia was.
Exactly.

On the other hand, Ukraine is still tied to the Russian gas pipeline. Russia doesn't have to invade. All it needs to do is turn the valves shut and there you have it.

http://www.theelectroniceconomist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11977005

What do you guys think of this?
It's BS. For starters, the Russians are not going to be kicked out of the G8 so long as Germany is in there.
Did Russia's 'victory' in this war actually hurt Russia in the greater scheme of things?
Nope.
Did Russia lose from this war?
Nope.
What do you think?
That the valuable lesson which Russia has learned is that it can do whatever the fuck it likes so long as it's providing Europe with oil and gas, and is only attacking people which Europe is completely divided in opinion upon.

The fact that the Ukranian government is in complete chaos, in part due to a very mixed response from different coalition partners on what to do about Russian belligerence in the region has also shown them that the surrounding states are also very, very weak.
Also...on a side note, do you think it will be important to learn Russian again in the near future?
No, because the language of mass production is English, whether for manufactured goods or for oil and gas.

I wonder if Russia is trying to resurrect a Warsaw pact thing as a counter to NATO though.

They might try it, but they don't have the power to make it stick. The Warsaw Pact wasn't a "society of equals" like NATO was/is - Russia made all the decisions and shot anyone who talked back. They might be able to force Georgia or Belarus into such a relationship, but Ukraine and the other ex-Soviet states will never go for it.

They might try it, but they don't have the power to make it stick. The Warsaw Pact wasn't a "society of equals" like NATO was/is - Russia made all the decisions and shot anyone who talked back. They might be able to force Georgia or Belarus into such a relationship, but Ukraine and the other ex-Soviet states will never go for it.

The Russia today certainly doesn't have much of a chance of raising a De facto Warsaw Pact of old, but that doesn't mean they can't pressure a less dictatorial variant of it. I know it sounds odd, but they can always point out that if it looks like they're going to join NATO, something bad might happen, which they'd respond to, etc, etc.

Your right but in the wrong. The Ukraine had already decided against joining NATO. Now they open up their Air space and share Radar with NATO. Seems they though again and decided they would be better off with NATO help.
Exactly...if anything, and what many are not understanding, is that this action by Russia has seemed to push many nations (Russia wants to influence), farther from Russia and indeed, in some cases (as in the case of The Ukraine), closer to NATO and the West.....

In this sense it seems logical to assume that Russia's goal of reconquering it's lost influence has backfired slightly (read, more than slightly) from this war.

The Warsaw Pact wasn't a "society of equals" like NATO was/is - Russia made all the decisions and shot anyone who talked back.

Wait a moment, I've missed something - when was NATO "a society of equals"? It has always been about allowing US bases on your territory in exchange for US protection.

Exactly...if anything, and what many are not understanding, is that this action by Russia has seemed to push many nations (Russia wants to influence), farther from Russia and indeed, in some cases (as in the case of The Ukraine), closer to NATO and the West.....

In this sense it seems logical to assume that Russia's goal of reconquering it's lost influence has backfired slightly (read, more than slightly) from this war.

If that was, in fact, it's goal. I think it would be silly to suggest that Russia thought this invasion would draw more of the ex-Soviet states into their fold through threats of force. I doubt Russia is that naive.

This was a shot at NATO, and a demonstration for Serbia. "Anything you can do, I can do better." They're merely showing that if NATO can forcibly detach Kosovo from Serbia, then Russia can forcibly detach South Ossetia from Georgia.

If that was, in fact, it's goal. I think it would be silly to suggest that Russia thought this invasion would draw more of the ex-Soviet states into their fold through threats of force. I doubt Russia is that naive.

This was a shot at NATO, and a demonstration for Serbia. "Anything you can do, I can do better." They're merely showing that if NATO can forcibly detach Kosovo from Serbia, then Russia can forcibly detach South Ossetia from Georgia.
I didn't mean their goal of this war was to bring more ex-Soviet satellites into their sphere of influence, but that is certainly their overall goal and I was just saying that in their attempt to bring Georgia (or parts of it) away from NATO and under Russian influence, they have set back their goal in regaining their lost influence in Eastern Europe....

That's what I meant.

Wait a moment, I've missed something - when was NATO "a society of equals"? It has always been about allowing US bases on your territory in exchange for US protection.

I think any of the major european NATO members would laugh in your face.

I think any of the major european NATO members would laugh in your face.

Which specifically of the "major" European NATO members has ever got a shot at an even remote possibility of considering itself equal to even a single branch of US armed forces?

Wait a moment, I've missed something - when was NATO "a society of equals"? It has always been about allowing US bases on your territory in exchange for US protection.

When membership in NATO wasn't required by force, a la Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968.

When membership in NATO wasn't required by force, a la Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia 1968.

Just because you're forced into becoming an American protectorate by USSR rather than US itself doesn't make you an equal to the US of A.

Just because you're forced into becoming an American protectorate by USSR rather than US itself doesn't make you an equal to the US of A.

What's the reasoning for nations joining NATO since the dissolution of the USSR, then?

What's the reasoning for nations joining NATO since the dissolution of the USSR, then?

Improving their relations to NATO members, getting a basis for creating economic ties, hoping to get some useful cargo from the White People. And getting at least some formal protection against Russia in case it tries to have a fifth go at empire-building.

Pretty much as it has always been.

Improving their relations to NATO members, getting a basis for creating economic ties, hoping to get some useful cargo from the White People. And getting at least some formal protection against Russia in case it tries to have a fifth go at empire-building.

Pretty much as it has always been.

And that makes them American protectorates, and NATO the Western equivalent of the Warsaw Pact?

In international law, a protectorate is an autonomous territory that is "protected" by a stronger state or entity, called the protector, which engages to protect it (diplomatically or, if needed, militarily) against third parties, in exchange for which the protectorate usually accepts specified obligations, which may vary greatly, depending on the real nature of their relationship.
Check, check, check.


And that makes them American protectorates, and NATO the Western equivalent of the Warsaw Pact?

Yes, it does. Except it's the Warsaw Pact which copied NATO, not the other way around.

Yes, it does. Except it's the Warsaw Pact which copied NATO, not the other way around.

The Warsaw Pact was far, far stronger than NATO ever was. It effectively guaranteed that the Soviet Union will determine the ultimate state of all economic, strategic and political affairs in its sphere of influence and that those nations were entirely within the control of the Soviet government and its policies. The US never had the power to do half the things the Soviets could within the boundaries of the Pact, and each nation within NATO was far freer to determine its own domestic affairs than any Warsaw Pact nation other than the USSR.

Remember, we didn't have to build walls and watchtowers and string thousands of miles of barbed wire to keep our people from fleeing the NATO nations. They did.

It effectively guaranteed that the Soviet Union will determine the ultimate state of all economic, strategic and political affairs in its sphere of influence and that those nations were entirely within the control of the Soviet government and its policies. The US never had the power to do half the things the Soviets could within the boundaries of the Pact, and each nation within NATO was far freer to determine its own domestic affairs than any Warsaw Pact nation other than the USSR.
US didn't need to. The nations complied with regulations - such as blanket banning the Communist Party - in exchange for Marshall's money. Later, they were simply tied by common interest.


Remember, we didn't have to build walls and watchtowers and string thousands of miles of barbed wire to keep our people from fleeing the NATO nations. They did.
That's because US these days was a libertarian capitalist nation with a high standard of living, and USSR was a totalitarian big-government country ruled by commies* and socialists (much like EU will probably be in a couple decades).

Obviously, a nation with more liberties doesn't have to keep people from leaving - they want to stay there themselves.



---
* I don't have anything against communism. Not at all, it's great in principle. What economic system do you think they run in Heaven, capitalist sharks fighting for Heaven Dollars? But what I'm very strongly against is any use of force to create quasi-communist societies. If communism ever becomes viable, people will come to it themselves eventually, like with Linux, without any revolutions.

Which specifically of the "major" European NATO members has ever got a shot at an even remote possibility of considering itself equal to even a single branch of US armed forces?

The British, French and German militaries were all far larger than the entire US force in Europe during the Cold War. They may not have been equivalent to the TOTAL US force in existence, but neither were they spread over four continents.

Not to mention that, as a point of fact, both Britain and France had the capacity to totally destroy the US in an afternoon.

The Europeans weren't our protectorates. They didn't need to be, and we didn't want them to be. Instead, NATO was a society of like-minded nations for mutual defence - and that is what it remains.

The British, French and German militaries were all far larger than the entire US force in Europe during the Cold War. They may not have been equivalent to the TOTAL US force in existence, but neither were they spread over four continents.
US didn't bother to station a force in Europe because it would be useless. Even USSR alone was no small fry - not to mention the entire Warsaw Pact and the commie China. It's double or nothing. Full draft and unrestricted nuclear, biological and chemical warfare, or quick surrender.


Not to mention that, as a point of fact, both Britain and France had the capacity to totally destroy the US in an afternoon.
More along the lines of crashing US stock market like the Black Tuesday, except with less lasting consequences. Or about a few WTC acts.

Even the whole USSR, with its 45,000 nukes, was predicted to only destroy 30-50% of US populace. And Europe had... 1% of that?


The Europeans weren't our protectorates. They didn't need to be, and we didn't want them to be. Instead, NATO was a society of like-minded nations for mutual defence - and that is what it remains.
Yes, mutual defense. All the militaries of the Western Europe combined don't compare to any single branch of US armed forces. It couldn't hope to protect its own butt, much less be of any help to US. Even with US assistance, Europe would be nothing more than a decoy in US-USSR war.

I wonder, how possibly do you imagine Europe protecting US? I mean, how would it look, where would it be?

More along the lines of crashing US stock market like the Black Tuesday, except with less lasting consequences. Or about a few WTC acts.

Even the whole USSR, with its 45,000 nukes, was predicted to only destroy 30-50% of US populace. And Europe had... 1% of that?

I don't know where you're pulling that idiocy from. The Soviets' stock of weapons were sufficient to make most of the planet uninhabitable - killing all of North America would have been child's play.

Britain or France probably couldn't have managed that, but they wouldn't have had to. As few as twenty nukes, properly placed, could have ended the US' existence as a functioning entity by destroying our vital infrastructure and command systems. Choose the right time of year and you can let starvation and cold do most of the actual killing - I'd call it a toss-up as to whether the US would recover or fracture. And those nations had a lot more than twenty.



Yes, mutual defense. All the militaries of the Western Europe combined don't compare to any single branch of US armed forces. It couldn't hope to protect its own butt, much less be of any help to US. Even with US assistance, Europe would be nothing more than a decoy in US-USSR war.

No, they'd be the forces doing most of the fighting. You seem to have an unrealistic picture of the size of the US military, and particularly that part of it that can be quickly and easily mobilized.

The NATO plan was for European and US forces in Europe to slow or stop a Soviet advance into Western Europe long enough for newly-mobilized forces in the US to be cycled across the Atlantic and counter-attack (a plan called REFORGER.) The US could not have afforded to do most of the initial fighting - in peacetime, most of our units are stood down, as reserves and National Guard.

I wonder, how possibly do you imagine Europe protecting US? I mean, how would it look, where would it be?

But that's precisely what they were doing. By standing together, the NATO alliance protected EVERY member from a nation that was expansionistic and ideologically determined. If the US had stood alone, we would not have won.

I don't know where you're pulling that idiocy from. The Soviets' stock of weapons were sufficient to make most of the planet uninhabitable - killing all of North America would have been child's play.
Far from that.
This data comes from both official and unofficial estimates, based on actually knowing the effects of nuclear weapons.

Britain or France probably couldn't have managed that, but they wouldn't have had to. As few as twenty nukes, properly placed, could have ended the US' existence as a functioning entity by destroying our vital infrastructure and command systems.
For a week or two, plus they'd cause an economic drop. Even attacking Washington would only take down the federal government, which is unnecessary (if not harmful) to the functioning of the United States.

Choose the right time of year and you can let starvation and cold do most of the actual killing - I'd call it a toss-up as to whether the US would recover or fracture. And those nations had a lot more than twenty.
US has long been the #1 food exporter. US can feed the population times over. Only some very major devastation - that caused by a USSR strike - could drop it below survival level. Even so, that would be due to the lack of oil rather than direct damage and radiation.



No, they'd be the forces doing most of the fighting.
More like along the lines of what they did in WWII.

You seem to have an unrealistic picture of the size of the US military, Large. The only one that could realistically oppose the Warsaw Pact.
and particularly that part of it that can be quickly and easily mobilized. Small. Not a major force.

The NATO plan was for European and US forces in Europe to slow or stop a Soviet advance into Western Europe long enough for newly-mobilized forces in the US to be cycled across the Atlantic and counter-attack (a plan called REFORGER.)
And this plan has always been one to aspire to, rather than actually hope to accomplish. Overseas warfare is NOT even remotely as effective as that on own soil. Europe didn't have the power to stop the Warsaw Pact and China, and an effective amphibious assault is only possible on a greatly weakened enemy (like Nazi Germany in 1944, which was all but destroyed). Neither US, nor any other country ever had the logistics required for such a fight.


But that's precisely what they were doing. By standing together, the NATO alliance protected EVERY member from a nation that was expansionistic and ideologically determined. If the US had stood alone, we would not have won.
If US stood alone, the Cold War would still be won by US. Maybe in 2000 or 2010, but that's it. All totalitarian empires are doomed to fall. It's not some moralistic assumption, it's how it goes: once the government no longer feels feedback for its actions, it can't be effective. And a big strong empire doesn't have the feedback, it soaks up the mistakes, until it just rots away.

They learned from the US. It's okay to invade other nations provided you just keep blindly asserting in a loud voice that it's okay.

Yes but now everyone knows the US did it for bullshit reasons, and US prestige fell because of that, Russia just showed "We're as much Jerks as the US".

By supporting "Breakaway states" This could lead to a restart of Chechyna as well.

It also destroys any chance of getting the other Eastern nations to support them again.

Russia had better reasons to do so, albeit still rather shaky reasons. South Ossetia cried for help in the typical Slavic big brother fashion, like Serbia did before WWI. Georgia cringed, Russia obliged. The West goes "ohnoezgtfo". Russia ignores the West. The West does nothing. Georgia cries to the West. The West does nothing.

Vault 10, a mere 10 megatons would destroy the United States, I heard.

Yes but now everyone knows the US did it for bullshit reasons, and US prestige fell because of that, Russia just showed "We're as much Jerks as the US". [...]
It also destroys any chance of getting the other Eastern nations to support them again.
The world is ruled by power, not by niceties. Everyone will rather join a strong and aggressive jerk than a passive nice guy.

Nations join blocks because they know they'll get support if there's trouble, in accordance with the international law or not.
Nations don't join blocks because they find the block leader humble, passive, and respectful towards others' borders.


Vault 10, a mere 10 megatons would destroy the United States, I heard.
Scare tactics. Nuclear war is seriously devastating, but it's not as instantly destructive as people tend to think.
Rather, it's that losing "just" 10% of the population entails a massive devastation of the economy.

The world is ruled by power, not by niceties. Everyone will rather join a strong and aggressive jerk than a passive nice guy. But which jerk would they side with, the one that will remain an ally, or the one that backstabs them? Georgia and Russia were in CIS.
Russia backstabs them, now who's going to trust Russia not to do it to THEM?

Some Russians in Estonia not getting their way? INVADE
Ukraine acts smart with them? INVADE

And so on and so forth.


Nations join blocks because they know they'll get support if there's trouble, in accordance with the international law or not.
Nations don't join blocks because they find the block leader humble, passive, and respectful towards others' borders. If the last one invades their supposed "Allied" neighbor, they won't want to be part of that alliance.


[Qote]
Scare tactics. Nuclear war is seriously devastating, but it's not as instantly destructive as people tend to think.
Rather, it's that losing "just" 10% of the population entails a massive devastation of the economy.[/QUOTE] True, turns out there really isn't enough nukes to "Wipe out the entire planet".

There is enough however to kill off a large majority of the population.

With the foreign cash withdrawals from their stockmarket, and what has happened to the Rouble, Russia is hurting, not just from collective diplomatic pressure, but from individuals foreign investors. People who play with money are not betting on Russia in the long term, and that says something.

Also, given that Saakashvili will prove to have been reinforced, especially if he succeeds in coordinating the relief effort efficiently, with the funding he's received from the IMF and US. He'll have been seen as having restored the status quo in spite of the big, mean bear. Russia hasn't gained Georgia, to whom South Ossetia and Abkhazia were already lost.

Further, the continued decline of the price of oil, coupled with the decreasing Western demand for the stuff as a result of the global recession will hurt. Commodity exporters are hurt far more by these sorts of things, than those of us with diverse economies.

Oh, and of course, the ill will of NATO, the WEU and the OSCE, and the big kid in the Shanghai group, China.

But which jerk would they side with, the one that will remain an ally, or the one that backstabs them? Georgia and Russia were in CIS.
Russia backstabs them, now who's going to trust Russia not to do it to THEM?
Attacking a self-proclaimed state the alliance leader has clearly supported, and getting punched out of there hardly qualifies as backstabbing. It would rather be backstabbing if they allowed Georgia to proceed, after promising protection to Ossetia.


True, turns out there really isn't enough nukes to "Wipe out the entire planet".
There is enough however to kill off a large majority of the population.
But only in the arsenals of Russia and US. And these two are like 98% of the world's nuclear weapon stockpiles.

Vault 10, a mere 10 megatons would destroy the United States, I heard.

Rather, no.

The famed "Tsar Bomb", detonated in Siberia, weighed in at 50 Megatons, and was not an effective combat weapon.

To get an accurate understanding of the effects of nuclear blasts, take a look at this site:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclear_weapon_effects/nuclearwpneffctcalc.html

You would need many hundreds of megatons to obliterate the US, and its strategic forces, and you'd need those to be quite accurate.

Militarily:
Victory for Russia. The standing and morale of their military is up. The campaign was essentially a field test for the reformed army, and it went smoothly and pretty much as expected. Strategically, Russia now has a much stronger foothold in Georgia, and has effectively neutralized Georgia's already weak defenses.

NATO:
NATO is talking about assisting Georgia, but behind the scenes I expect many in NATO are seriously questioning letting Georgia have full membership. The idea of the mutual defense pact looks rather unappealing when applied to countries like Georgia and Ukraine. America and the European nations are hardly going to happy with the idea of having to take it in the teeth to save their friends from the Russians. Talking is OK, but committing to a war with a nuclear power is something else entirely. Russia has mostly likely successfully undermined Georgia's chances of NATO membership, and put a broadside into Ukraine's chances too.

Ukraines efforts talk more of desperation to "buy" it's way into NATO by giving them all they have to offer, rather than NATO increasing it's own interest.

Cowing the others:
Fail. All it has done is make them desperate to get some, any, protection the west can offer, though the west is now a lot more cautious to offer.

Economic:
Int he long term it won't be a huge difference. The west needs Russian oil, end of. People will talk tough, but oil lubricates all kinds of friction, and India and China aren't going to stop trade just because Americas friend got a kicking.

I didn't mean their goal of this war was to bring more ex-Soviet satellites into their sphere of influence, but that is certainly their overall goal and I was just saying that in their attempt to bring Georgia (or parts of it) away from NATO and under Russian influence, they have set back their goal in regaining their lost influence in Eastern Europe....

That's what I meant.

Are you a member of Putin's inner circle? Are you a highly placed espionage agent within the circle? No? Then how the fuck do you know anything about their goals?

This is why your article fails. It assigns arbitrary goals to Russia and doesn't consider the possibility that maybe they have different ideas.

Int he long term it won't be a huge difference. The west needs Russian oil, end of. People will talk tough, but oil lubricates all kinds of friction, and India and China aren't going to stop trade just because Americas friend got a kicking.

Honestly, though, if China knew it could successfully pull it off it would invade Russia and seize Siberian oil and other raw materials for itself. I have no doubt a serious conflict between the US and Russia would trigger such interests, especially if the US were to give tacit approval to such a move...and you can bet if a real war flared up that's exactly what would happen. The two nations are hardly friends, and haven't been for a while, and China needs Russian resources and American markets to sustain its economy. You can seize resources but you can't seize markets, and I think they fully realize that despite how outlandish a possibility as a major war between NATO and Russia might seem.

I personally feel we'd benefit from such a move, although given the likely devastation of the war that would preclude it doesn't really seem like an upside.

Honestly, though, if China knew it could successfully pull it off it would invade Russia and seize Siberian oil and other raw materials for itself. I have no doubt a serious conflict between the US and Russia would trigger such interests, especially if the US were to give tacit approval to such a move...and you can bet if a real war flared up that's exactly what would happen. The two nations are hardly friends, and haven't been for a while, and China needs Russian resources and American markets to sustain its economy. You can seize resources but you can't seize markets, and I think they fully realize that despite how outlandish a possibility as a major war between NATO and Russia might seem.

I personally feel we'd benefit from such a move, although given the likely devastation of the war that would preclude it doesn't really seem like an upside.



A plausible scenario however do you not think a war that pits Nato & China vs Russia would go nuclear no matter what. Based off of the fact Russia would lose men, equipment and territory so fast that it would see no other option.

A plausible scenario however do you not think a war that pits Nato & China vs Russia would go nuclear no matter what. Based off of the fact Russia would lose men, equipment and territory so fast that it would see no other option.

That's the most likely situation; however, I don't think they would go nuclear so much as perhaps use initial tactical strikes (or threaten them) as part of a cease-fire agreement. In fact, that might be the only way for Russia to remain in existence in the event of a full-scale war; I have no doubt they'd lose a lot in the negotiations, but the potential for local devastation from nuclear weapons is enough to give all of the belligerents involved serious misgivings about pushing too far.

I think a full-scale exchange of ICBMs is unlikely, if only because all parties involved would want to avoid such consequences; it's the same reason why it never happened during the Cold War despite the real conflict between the two blocs. I think any attempts at launching a first strike would result in some form of coup or other regime change from within; the only way nukes would be used is if someone uses them first, basically precluding any large-scale exchange unless someone goes rogue and opens fire.

I wonder how North Korea would factor in to this; God knows they've got the kind of hair trigger that might lead to them using their weapons in an attempt to attack the South, or perhaps even China in exchange for Russian support. All we'd need is one nuke from them (which they might or might not have...) to set off a chain reaction that although not necessarily a global thermonuclear war could likely become a regional one.

The demographic problems facing Russia make a confrontation increasingly likely as their population declines. As their population reaches down towards the 100 million mark, they're looking at an increasing inability to maintain their vast territorial integrity. It doesn't help that the country is heavily divided along a broad spectrum of ethnic and geographic lines, and has never been fully economically integrated from East to West, even with the railways.

Overall, the ultimate guarantor of the Russians state and its territorial integrity is its nuclear arsenal, and they have to be willing to be perceived as crazy enough to use it. Of course, they also have to make sure the force is hardened and maintained. It's tough.

Wait a moment, I've missed something - when was NATO "a society of equals"? It has always been about allowing US bases on your territory in exchange for US protection.

First there are no bases in France. After the fall of the soviet union we almost withdrew our forces from Germany. Germany requested we stayed as some of the smaller towns near bases depended on the Us soldiers spending money off base for their economy.

The nations of Western Europe do have a considerable military power. the 2 aspects they fall behind against the US on are
1. unified command. no guarantee the Germans French and UK will all fight together overseas unless it is a nato attack against one as an attack against all scenario.
2. small number of carriers. they have fewer carriers that are smaller. but that is less of a factor in a show down with Russia. it is really only something need for the US flexing its muscle around the world not in a defensive land battle.

Are you a member of Putin's inner circle? Are you a highly placed espionage agent within the circle? No? Then how the fuck do you know anything about their goals?
First of all, since it's the internet, you have NO IDEA if I am or am not, so why even ask the question? Second of all, relax, you're going to give yourself wrinkles.
This is why your article fails. It assigns arbitrary goals to Russia and doesn't consider the possibility that maybe they have different ideas.
The article doesn't fail. In fact, most recent and current events help lead to the theory that Russia's goal is to regain lost influence, battle for NATO over influence and reclaim Russia's former place in the world.

This is the most likely option, given current and recent events, and there is no reason not to think so, until new evidence convinces otherwise.

First of all, since it's the internet, you have NO IDEA if I am or am not, so why even ask the question? Second of all, relax, you're going to give yourself wrinkles.

The question is valid because it shows that what you're saying is more likely to be wishful speculation than anything concrete.


The article doesn't fail. In fact, most recent and current events help lead to the theory that Russia's goal is to regain lost influence, battle for NATO over influence and reclaim Russia's former place in the world.

The article fails because it fails to assign any other likely goals, or interpretations of them.


This is the most likely option, given current and recent events, and there is no reason not to think so, until new evidence convinces otherwise.

Given current reactions, which in no way determines what Russia's goal is, or even if the reactions were desirable to them to begin with.

The article fails because it fails to assign any other likely goals, or interpretations of them.
That's because those other goals either don't exist or are so non-credible that The Economist (all that is Godly and all knowing of Politics) didn't deem it necessary to mention.

Я уже понимаю и говорю по-русски. Ну-ну-ну.

The nations of Western Europe do have a considerable military power. the 2 aspects they fall behind against the US on are
1. unified command

Well, the WEU and the European Battlegroups provide some sort of european military unification, still in its embryo phase though.

First there are no bases in France. After the fall of the soviet union we almost withdrew our forces from Germany. Germany requested we stayed as some of the smaller towns near bases depended on the Us soldiers spending money off base for their economy.

The nations of Western Europe do have a considerable military power. the 2 aspects they fall behind against the US on are
1. unified command. no guarantee the Germans French and UK will all fight together overseas unless it is a nato attack against one as an attack against all scenario.
2. small number of carriers. they have fewer carriers that are smaller. but that is less of a factor in a show down with Russia. it is really only something need for the US flexing its muscle around the world not in a defensive land battle.

first of all,during De Gaulle's presidency France left military-cooperation with NATO.second,if any NATO member is attacked,every nation in NATO will defend that member.says right so in the NATO charter.

That's because those other goals either don't exist or are so non-credible that The Economist (all that is Godly and all knowing of Politics) didn't deem it necessary to mention.

This is either sarcasm or a load of crap.

first of all,during De Gaulle's presidency France left military-cooperation with NATO.second,if any NATO member is attacked,every nation in NATO will defend that member.says right so in the NATO charter.

The text of the North-Atlantic Treaty (see www.nato.int) states that, in the event of an attack against the territory of a member country, or against NATO ships in the north atlantic, every NATO country will take the measures it deems necessary, including the use of armed force to help the attacked member (article 5 of the Washington Treaty). The use of military force isn't mandatory.
The use of military force is mandatory for the WEU (article V of the WEU treaty). (www.weu.int)

Why should I care any more or less about when Russia invades a country as when the USA does? It's not like any country ever invades any other for purely altruistic reasons.

The Economist (all that is Godly and all knowing of Politics)
I lol'd.

Well, the WEU and the European Battlegroups provide some sort of european military unification, still in its embryo phase though.

yes and I will be very curious to see how it develops in the future. Though right now

Id personally like the unification of EU and NATO. Military falls under Nato and trading block currency falls under EU. all members of either become members of Both. but alas my idealism will come to Naught. The Americans are too proud to submit to the EU in currency and economic matters and the Europeans would worry we would get them entangled in even more foreign wars.

This is either sarcasm or a load of crap.
Ipse dixit.

yes and I will be very curious to see how it develops in the future. Though right now

Id personally like the unification of EU and NATO. Military falls under Nato and trading block currency falls under EU. all members of either become members of Both. but alas my idealism will come to Naught. The Americans are too proud to submit to the EU in currency and economic matters and the Europeans would worry we would get them entangled in even more foreign wars.

As an American, I actually rather support the concept of an Occidental States Union. As it stands, keeping the Euro and the Dollar separate would not be that tough of a deal...they're easily exchanged, and the EU currently has members who are not Euro users. Perhaps you could make both currencies (plus the Pound) legal tender throughout. Who knows.

Beyond that, the US has been severely stung by Iraq and Afghanistan. No need for Europeans to worry about any more military adventurism.

I do like the idea, though. Especially increased transatlantic economic integration, even in the current state, we've done a lot of good things by working across the pond...just look at what GE and Safran are doing for aerospace.

As an American, I actually rather support the concept of an Occidental States Union. As it stands, keeping the Euro and the Dollar separate would not be that tough of a deal...they're easily exchanged, and the EU currently has members who are not Euro users. Perhaps you could make both currencies (plus the Pound) legal tender throughout. Who knows.

Beyond that, the US has been severely stung by Iraq and Afghanistan. No need for Europeans to worry about any more military adventurism.

I do like the idea, though. Especially increased transatlantic economic integration, even in the current state, we've done a lot of good things by working across the pond...just look at what GE and Safran are doing for aerospace.

the difficult part might be bringing in our current trading bloc (not so much Canada as Mexico. ) i wouldnt want to betray Nafta by not bringing them in as well.

Ipse dixit.

Yours? Certainly.

The Americans are too proud to submit to the EU in currency and economic matters and the Europeans would worry we would get them entangled in even more foreign wars.
And both sides would probably be right.

And both sides would probably be right.

but think of the pwoer such a trading block would wield.

but think of the pwoer such a trading block would wield.
Your problem is with states which are EEC members but not EU members. How do they fit in? Do they get left out completely, or are they forced to join? See also NAFTA.

the difficult part might be bringing in our current trading bloc (not so much Canada as Mexico. ) i wouldnt want to betray Nafta by not bringing them in as well.
Indeed. Mexico would be like the Turkey of the scenario.