Russia ''invades'' Georgia

marco murphy

gurramok wrote: »

So Russia is th eonly country now to recognise South Ossetia and Abkhazia violating international norms prompting serious talk of a new cold war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/26/russia.georgia2?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

Can the west now go ahead and recognise Chechnya or any other region within Russia that wants independence?

What other regions?

genericgoon

Poblachtach wrote: »

What other regions?

Dagestan and Ingushetia. (though these are perhaps not as restive as Chechnya)

Sand

What qualifies Chomsky .. hmmm maybe the fact that he is a scholar and a philosopher who has written international best sellers on politics

So you believe Ann Coulter is a genius of political insight too then? I mean shes written a lot of books on politics. Clearly she must know what shes talking about. If you disagreed with her, christ youd want to be some egomanical moron wouldnt you? Shes a published political titan and thus must be above any criticism. You agree with her, dont you Playboy?

Chomsky is a scholar on linguistics. His books on linguistics i am sure are great. He has no more qualification to hold forth on politics than any other angry ranter on a political blog. And hes done a lot of moronic things in his time, including making up quotes in his books to better suit his arguments, making "ends justifies the means" style arguments to support terrorism, and saying stuff like ""I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers or even denial of the Holocaust"

Holocaust survivors might not agree with the existence of their suffering, dehumanisation and murder being questioned however. They might even dare to say its a moronic thing to say. And if Ann Coulter had said something like that youd be screaming blue murder. But because its Chomsky, youll probably defend it.

even though he hates being called one is critical of intellectual communities

So hed probably appreciate my criticism more than your unqualified hero worship I guess?

Maybe the fact that he has spoken and given lectures on politics in many of the leading universities in the world.

Ann Coulter again. FFS, all sorts of weirdos are called to give lectures to universities. Its not a qualification of anything more than having attracted attention, for good or ill.

Soooo Sand .. If Chomsky is not qualified then I would like to hear who is?

Nobody on this Politics board it seems. Might as well shut it down. No one here is qualified to discuss politics.

Lets replace it with a forum where get our arguments from Chomsky books and copy and paste them for our posts. Possibly some sort of licencing checks will need to be introduced, to confirm posters are qualified enough to operate the copy and paste function on their keyboards. Re-education camps for anyone who makes any comment other than "I approve of this analysis and/or conclusion"

The US dont want democracy in Iraq and that is why they are trying to prevent elections.

This is the problem I have with the Chomsky style of writing that you admire so much.

You first decide what the conclusion is [ the US doesnt want democracy in Iraq], then you just take it as self evident ignore any requirement to justify that conclusion. If the real situation is examined at all it is only for anything that can support your pre-determined conclusion. Everything else is ignored.

As I said, Chomsky's books are for those who just want to read a book that tells them theyre right. Not for serious examination of any issue before reaching a conclusion.

What other regions?

I dont think NATO will get involved in an internal Russian affair like that, it would really ratchet things up - I imagine there will simply be reinforcement of deterrent against Russian meddling in the Baltics, Poland, Moldava and the Ukraine where there are all ethnic Russian communities and/or a tradition of Russian dominance which hasnt yet adjusted to the independance of these countries.

The Russian Black Sea fleet still bases out of the Ukraine, and there will be tension there as the Ukranians want them out, whereas the Russian-Ukranians may wish to return to Russia seeing as the Crimea only transferred to the Ukraine in the 1950s.

Manic Moran

GuanYin wrote: »

Exactly how are you qualified to speak about international politics?

I don't consider Mr Chomsky to be particularly more qualified than I. Do I have a politics degree? No. Does Mr Chomsky? No. Have I been involved in international relations at the governmental level? No. Has Mr Chomsky? When it comes to what the Shia in Iraq think, or how the elections worked out, was I involved in the elections or did I ask a bunch of Iraqis? Yes. Has Mr Chomsky...? The thing about politics is it's a very ethereal sort of subject. It's not like the sciences or even linguistics where there's methodical and logical progression with plenty of accumulable evidence. Even the amount of books published just indicates that the man's had more time to publish books. I'm friends with a chap named Michael Green, publishes lots of books about tanks. But I know a hell of a lot more about them than he does. There is no logical progression there. After my hard drive crashed half-way through writing my book, I gave up as real-life intervened. (I just contribute to Mike's)

Now, I take your point below as valid.

While I respect your opinion, your casual dismissal of a source based on...ermm actually, from your post, based on a whim and because it doesn't suit your point of view, doesn't sit well with me.

What doesn't sit well with me is the idea that Mr Chomsky is a final word because he's Mr Chomsky. As I said in my previous post, it's fine to quote him if you agree with him as he's a pretty good orator, but the fact that he's being quoted in itself does not automatically give credence or accuracy to his statements. Giving his opinion under the auspices of fact is itself pretty shoddy debating technique.

NTM

Lemming

Apologies for going off-topic from Russia vs. Georgia, but just to comment on the whole "Chomsky is not any more qualified to comment on politics than Joe Soap" thing, I'd just like to add this;

Chomsky (whether you agree with him or not) has spent most of his life studying linguistics. How humans communicate in other words. What is politics? A game of chess/war with words, either spoken or unspoken. I think the man's insights into politics might carry a little more weight than yours or mine given his chosen field. Doesn't make him de-facto right, but tbh I'd lend his thoughts more gravitas than Sands any day (sorry Sand, just making a point).

Asking who is more "qualified" is pointless. It's asking the wrong question.

Manic Moran

What is politics? A game of chess/war with words, either spoken or unspoken.

It's a bit more than that, it's down to 'getting what you want,' and involves sociology, theology, philosophy, psychology, history, military, and economic factors amongst others. The difficult bit about politics is not so much the 'how' as the 'why', the motivation behind the acts. I'm unconvinced that the study of languages is going to help you on that. Can it help identify whether Ossetians are Georgians or whether Iraqis and Iranians are originally the same group of people? Yes. But that's as far as it goes. It does not ascribe clairvoyance to the ultimate evil intentions of the Bush administration.

NTM

Lemming

Manic Moran wrote: »

It's a bit more than that, it's down to 'getting what you want,' and involves sociology, theology, philosophy, psychology, history, military, and economic factors amongst others. The difficult bit about politics is not so much the 'how' as the 'why', the motivation behind the acts. I'm unconvinced that the study of languages is going to help you on that. Can it help identify whether Ossetians are Georgians or whether Iraqis and Iranians are originally the same group of people? Yes. But that's as far as it goes. It does not ascribe clairvoyance to the ultimate evil intentions of the Bush administration.

NTM

You're quite right MM, I just simplified what I considered politics to be down to a bare level with regards why people feel compelled to reference Chomsky. The expression of ideas, theories, etc. with regards sociology, theology et al. is important in influencing our perceptions there-in. Language is crucial (obviously), otherwise we'd never express our thoughts/opinions/etc.

It isn't a complete answer and does not answer the motivation aspect which is equally as important, but it can help to understand how people are playing things. A little example, but hopefully one that puts forward what I wrote; a BBC article quoting Rice over the whole rendition and torture thing when it was in the news constantly. I found far more in what she didn't say than what she did say concerning then-current regime thinking/policy official or otherwise. She was deliberate with her words, and in that deliberateness is a view as to the 'how' and a little of the 'why' of what the current regime was/is/going to be up to.

nesf

Lemming wrote: »

insights into politics might carry a little more weight than yours or mine given his chosen field.

Seriously, linguistics is as relevant to politics as it is to sport or the art of French cuisine. I really wouldn't take his academic qualifications (which are excellent) into account when judging the worth of his political views.

Kama

Hmm, its his decades of detailed historical study of the presentation and management of news in Western democratic societies, and US foreign policy, that weighs heavier than what your opinion is on universal grammar, eh? Both of which seem quite relevant to current events in Georgia etc.

His political views are anarchist; unsurprisingly this makes him critical of US foreign policy; but don't have to accept his ideological views to see his work as of merit. Doesn't mean he's a god, or should be accepted uncritically, but neither is it so easy to dismiss his thoughts on the basis that 'he's a linguist, leave politics to the qualified'. And if preaching to the choir meant your thought was somehow illegitimate...we'd have *very* few political commentators

nesf

Kama wrote: »

Doesn't mean he's a god, or should be accepted uncritically, but neither is it so easy to dismiss his thoughts on the basis that 'he's a linguist, leave politics to the qualified'.

I agree, I wouldn't dismiss him because he's a linguist, I'd just not give his opinion any extra weight because of his academic reputation.


His work is of merit. I think it is very much informed by his ideology which makes it divisive but from his books that I've read, it's far better put together than the usual activist stuff.

Manic Moran

I agree, I wouldn't dismiss him because he's a linguist, I'd just not give his opinion any extra weight because of his academic reputation.

Well said. We're all in agreement then? Let's move on.

(Why can't important international political dealings be that simple?)

NTM

marco murphy

Get your crystal balls out. What do you see happening the situation now?
It could go either way IMO. Will there be a confrontation in the Black Sea... will the old US provocation tactics make another show? Will it be all defused diplomatically?
What is a cold war?

I change my forecast every day. I reckon it will to Cold War situation, meaning Russia will isolate themselves from the US and vice versa.

Sand

The states that comprised the former Soviet empire will draw even closer to the US and NATO as a result of Russias Georgian adventure. Relations between those states and Russia will remain poor or even worse, especially if Russia attempts to support seperatist movements in the Baltics or Ukraine.

Russia will keep occupying Georgia and poking EU/NATO with a stick until it stops being amusing. No serious conflict will ensue as the EU needs Russian oil, and Russia needs EU cash. South Ossetia will be annexed/invited to join the Russian state. The Georgians will be menaced and any pipelines that prevent a total Russian monopoly on the supply of energy to the EU will be threatened and obstructed.

Slav

Poblachtach wrote: »

Get your crystal balls out. What do you see happening the situation now?
It could go either way IMO. Will there be a confrontation in the Black Sea... will the old US provocation tactics make another show? Will it be all defused diplomatically?
What is a cold war?

I change my forecast every day. I reckon it will to Cold War situation, meaning Russia will isolate themselves from the US and vice versa.

Nothing really would happen now. It will be quiet for a while until next "Georgia". Republican Party in US and Russia have got almost all their benefits so there will be no major events I guess.

Russia won't isolate themselves from US and EU and vice versa because that would affect trade which is against interests of all the parties involved.

guinnessdrinker

Slav wrote: »

Russia won't isolate themselves from US and EU and vice versa because that would affect trade which is against interests of all the parties involved.

Can't see the EU being too tough on Russia considering Western Europe's thirst for Russian oil and gas.

gurramok

Ossetian and Abkhazian leaders indicated today that their regions will be incorporated into Russia in 'several years'
Evidence of mass ethnic cleansing against Georgians
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588428.stm

Meanwhile, a rights group has said UN satellite images prove ethnic Georgian villages in South Ossetia were torched.

Human Rights Watch says the pictures of five villages near the South Ossetian capital, Tskhinvali, are "compelling evidence of war crimes and grave human rights abuses".

gurramok

Pictures of burning destruction of Georgian villages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588473.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588792.stm

sink

gurramok wrote: »

Pictures of burning destruction of Georgian villages
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588473.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7588792.stm

That is rather scary. This proves beyond a doubt that Russia is intending to force all Georgians out of SO and probably even the 'buffer zone'. There actions are also known as 'ethnic cleansing' and if they are willing to do that they are willing to do a lot more than I presumed. The situation is very dangerous, Russia's eyes will next be on the Crimea which has the potential to escalate into a shooting war with the Ukraine and has the possibility of drawing in NATO.

ejmaztec

I see that the Russians have also stolen 5 Humvees from the port of Poti, formerly property of the USMC. These were awaiting shipment back to the US after a Georgian/US joint training excercise. In addition, the Russians have also thanked the Americans for the uniforms that they found in the same place, these originally being intended for use by the Georgian military. Even these minor things are fanning the flames.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4641341.ece

If anyone wants to take the Russians on, they would be best doing it now, before they've had the opportunity of modernising their military capabilities.

sink

Mark Mardell as usual seems to have hit the nail on it's head.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markmardell/2008/09/a_serious_summit.html

Europe is a heroin addict Russia is it's drug dealer. Europe might not like how Russia handles it's business but there is nothing it can do about it without disrupting it's own supply.

ejmaztec

I think that Western energy companies are to be blamed for our reliance on Russian supplies. They moved into Russia with the intention of making big bucks, taking advantage of Russia at a post-communist low ebb, and seemingly ignoring the possible risks of doing business with worse sharks than themselves. I wonder how many of these companies have now been edged out after all the hard work was done. They must now be searching desperately for other supply sources, at least I hope that they are.

It seems that if WW3 ever takes place, it'll be an energy war.

Kama

It seems that if WW3 ever takes place, it'll be an energy war.

Seems a good deal of recent geopolitics fits this map, not just Georgia/Russia.

Europe is a heroin addict Russia is it's drug dealer.

What happened to 'trade and interdependence brings peace'? Russia can't exactly cut off our supply without taking a severe economic hit, but neither are they responsible for giving us any more than their contractual obligations. The needle wasn't exactly put to our arm; we 'chose' on a market basis to become as over-dependent on gas as we have become. Talking about energy addiction and trying to change *our* behaviour seems one thing; casting another as the 'pusher' seems something else entirely.

sink

Kama wrote: »

What happened to 'trade and interdependence brings peace'? Russia can't exactly cut off our supply without taking a severe economic hit, but neither are they responsible for giving us any more than their contractual obligations. The needle wasn't exactly put to our arm; we 'chose' on a market basis to become as over-dependent on gas as we have become. Talking about energy addiction and trying to change *our* behaviour seems one thing; casting another as the 'pusher' seems something else entirely.

Fair point. I was never implying it was anybody else's fault but Europe's for it's over dependence on foreign energy suppliers. So I admit the analogy does not fit perfectly.

If energy dependence was not a factor, I am sure the the rhetoric from Europe would be a lot sterner. So perhaps 'trade and interdependence brings peace' is actually working.

SeanW

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think that Western energy companies are to be blamed for our reliance on Russian supplies. They moved into Russia with the intention of making big bucks, taking advantage of Russia at a post-communist low ebb, and seemingly ignoring the possible risks of doing business with worse sharks than themselves. I wonder how many of these companies have now been edged out after all the hard work was done. They must now be searching desperately for other supply sources, at least I hope that they are.

It seems that if WW3 ever takes place, it'll be an energy war.

I think the environmental-left have a lot of questions to answer about this point too. They have continuously opposed the only power generation technology (nuclear electricity) that has been proven time and time again to reduce a users' dependence on fossil fuels. Primarily due to the hippies at Carnsore Point, the Green Party and a few others, Ireland's power generation plant is primarily natural gas fired.

Now considering that our own fields, and the North Sea Field, are all running out, our gas pant will be almost dependent on Russian energy supplies going forward.
Hence all our European neighbors are taking stock. France is doing alright with it's 90%+ non-fossil electric supply, the U.K. is looking to re-invigorate its nuclear electricity system, and Germany, while abandoning nuclear energy, has ruled out natural gas on national security grounds, and is going on a coal fired plant building spree.

But we're going to just keep on burning gas, and so we're giving the Ruskies the power to turn our lights off if the EU & nations don't maintain a Moscow-friendly line no matter what they do, as well as killing our own economy with foreign payments.

Three cheers for John Gormless!

RedPlanet

It's trendy arguement you make SeanW.
It used to be to our detriment to be dependent upon the ME for our oil, now it's Russia for our gas.
And what's next?
Uranium? Well, guess what, ireland has none of that too.
So i suppose we'll be dependent upon Australia, Canada, and Russia for that too.
I propose that any nuclear power generating station be located next to your house SeanW, since you are it's pimary advocate.

Kama

Yet another global conflict caused by those pesky peaceniks...Will we never learn?

Still, seems we have emerging pragmatic and cross-partisan support for increased energy independence, whether from more hawkish geopolitical motives or more left-environmental peacenik ones. Clouds and silver linings?

sink

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's trendy arguement you make SeanW.
It used to be to our detriment to be dependent upon the ME for our oil, now it's Russia for our gas.
And what's next?
Uranium? Well, guess what, ireland has none of that too.
So i suppose we'll be dependent upon Australia, Canada, and Russia for that too.
I propose that any nuclear power generating station be located next to your house SeanW, since you are it's pimary advocate.

Canada and Australia make up 45% of worldwide uranium mining. Kazakhstan is 3rd with 16% and Russia is a distant 4th with just 8%. Canada and Australia two countries with very friendly relations with Ireland and both are amongst the most stable in the world. If we relied on them for all our power generation we would be in a very low risk situation. What is you argument?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html

ejmaztec

RedPlanet wrote: »

It's trendy arguement you make SeanW.
It used to be to our detriment to be dependent upon the ME for our oil, now it's Russia for our gas.
And what's next?
Uranium? Well, guess what, ireland has none of that too.
So i suppose we'll be dependent upon Australia, Canada, and Russia for that too.
I propose that any nuclear power generating station be located next to your house SeanW, since you are it's pimary advocate.

On a side-note, the Czechs I believe, still have Uranium. Apparently the Russians still owe them for supplying their nuclear programme during the Soviet era. The mines were also handy places to send anti-communist dissidents.

In the end, Ireland will be left with no choice but to go down the nuclear road. If no plants are ever built here, Ireland will have to rely on the UK grid. The Nimbys here won't worry too much about UK residents living close to a nuclear facility, and will worry even less if all of the facilities are on the UK's east coast.

RedPlanet

sink wrote: »

Canada and Australia make up 45% of worldwide uranium mining. Kazakhstan is 3rd with 16% and Russia is a distant 4th with just 8%. Canada and Australia two countries with very friendly relations with Ireland and both are amongst the most stable in the world. If we relied on them for all our power generation we would be in a very low risk situation. What is you argument?

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf23.html

The argument sink, is that despite our friendly relations with CAN and AUS, we'd still be dependant upon another country for our energy needs. Which was the crux of SeanW's post. There is of course no reason, we cannot be friendly with Russia and infact they would probably welcome a friendly overture from someone in "the west". Since we are a non-aligned country we'd be ideal, and in Nato's backyard to boot!
Russia is on the up, USA is on the down.
I'd say we should join VEN and recognize the independance of both break away regions of Georgia.

jonny72

Kama wrote: »

Seems a good deal of recent geopolitics fits this map, not just Georgia/Russia.



What happened to 'trade and interdependence brings peace'? Russia can't exactly cut off our supply without taking a severe economic hit, but neither are they responsible for giving us any more than their contractual obligations. The needle wasn't exactly put to our arm; we 'chose' on a market basis to become as over-dependent on gas as we have become. Talking about energy addiction and trying to change *our* behaviour seems one thing; casting another as the 'pusher' seems something else entirely.

Yes they can just 'cut' it, how many Russians do you think would be out in the streets protesting that? they've always been able to take huge hits. There is a freakish whirlwind of patriotism in that country right now, everything the propaganda machine spews out they believe. They aren't a bunch of wussies like we are, if they took 2,000 casualties in the recent war they'd hardly bat an eyelid.