The Bear is back: Russia is an enemy again

[deepsepia]

Its extraordinary to hear Putin's language. Its self-evidently aggressive, a big "fuck you" to all challengers.

"Of course, Saddam Hussein ought to have been hanged for destroying several Shiite villages," Putin said in Moscow. "And the incumbent Georgian leaders who razed 10 Ossetian villages at once, who ran elderly people and children with tanks, who burned civilian alive in their sheds — these leaders must be taken under protection."

"Taken under protection" is Stalin-era euphemism. Notice that the war goals just expanded from "defend North Ossetia" to seizing Georgia's leadership. There's a close mirroring of US language in Serbia . .. the Russians supported the Serbs, and you'll see an equating of Western treatment of Milosevic with their pursuit of the Georgian guy.

This same ferocity is occurring domestically as well:

"We have a respected company, Mechel," Putin said in introducing his subject.

"By the way, we invited the owner and director of the company, Igor Vladimirovich Zyusin, to today's meeting, but he suddenly got sick. Meanwhile, it is known that in the first quarter this year the company exported raw materials abroad at half the domestic, and world, price. And what about the margin tax for the government?"

He added: "Of course, sickness is sickness, but I think Igor Vladimirovich should get better as quick as possible, otherwise we'll have to send him a doctor."

There's a real fury that you can feel in that irony. (Zyusin had had a heart attack). My guess --and the market's guess-- is that Putin plans to move on every strategically important company, and to go after every former Soviet republic.

Make no mistake about it-- while we were dicking around fighting tribespeople, China and Russia have been getting increasingly pissed off. And they, unlike al Qaeda, have tanks, submarines, and a conventional army.

So who's ready to fight to preserve Ukrainian independence? That may well be the question we have to ask our candidates.

[Nemowork]

The Ukrainians?

Theyre going to have to be walking on eggshells around the Russians for a while though particularly since they still host a huge Russian naval base.

Its the Caucasus thats going to be getting all the attention for a while i think, although the Estonians have been raising a few questions about how relaible an ally NATO would be if they get into trouble.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nemowork

The Ukrainians?

Theyre going to have to be walking on eggshells around the Russians for a while though particularly since they still host a huge Russian naval base.

Its the Caucasus thats going to be getting all the attention for a while i think, although the Estonians have been raising a few questions about how relaible an ally NATO would be if they get into trouble.

You got it. I would bet that Putin plans to seize Crimea . . . they have naval bases there, the Ukrainians have been trying to get them to leave early (at the fall of the Soviet Union, the agreement was that the Russians could stay till 2017)

Everyone's got to ask: What's the tripwire "where we'd have to fight"?

[TheLancinator]

Over the weekend I was watching the news and they had several experts on that area of the world and they all said the same thing: Putin's endgame is to restore the Soviet Union with the big prize being the Ukraine. They all believed that after Georgia he will set his sights squarely there.

And like deep just said...when does the West step in?

[Nemowork]

Its just an impression, i think the Ukraines fairly safe, theyre too big, too well armed and theyve got NATO support my point is that i think the Russians are going to doing some diplomacy in that area and reminding people to be careful who their friends are.

Oh, and about asking the fleet to go, how about if we extend the lease another 20 years, just for old times sake?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nemowork

Its just an impression, i think the Ukraines fairly safe, theyre too big, too well armed and theyve got NATO support my point is that i think the Russians are going to doing some diplomacy in that area and reminding people to be careful who their friends are.

I don't think this is a safe game for Ukraine. What does "Nato support" mean? When Putin cuts off the gas pipeline to Germany . . . what does Germany do? Poland? NATO?

Make no mistake, this is a very hard problem, not unlike Czechoslovakia 1938

Putin has been moving methodically on everyone and everything. He's said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a "tragedy". He means to put it back together.

[TheLancinator]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

Putin has been moving methodically on everyone and everything. He's said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a "tragedy". He means to put it back together.

And here it is:

Putin: Soviet collapse a 'genuine tragedy'
In annual speech, Russian leader cites Chechen violence as a result
Mon., April. 25, 2005

MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin told the nation Monday that the collapse of the Soviet empire “was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century” and had fostered separatist movements inside Russia.

In his annual state of the nation address to parliament and the country’s top political leaders, Putin said the Soviet collapse also was a tragedy for Russians.

“First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7632057/

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by TheLancinator

And here it is:
Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.

Notice the specific identification, even back then, to this idea that wherever there were Russians outside of Russian territory, something terrible was happening. He means to fix that.

There it is Lance . . . the world turns, and you and I agree. I have no idea where we fight.

The former Soviet republics used to have nuclear weapons. they apparently gave them back to Moscow. Hmmm . . . was that a good idea?

* Belarus had 81 single warhead missiles stationed on its territory after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. They were all transferred to Russia by 1996. Belarus has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[55]

* Kazakhstan inherited 1,400 nuclear weapons from the Soviet Union, and transferred them all to Russia by 1995. Kazakhstan has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.[56]

* Ukraine has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Ukraine inherited about 5,000 nuclear weapons when it became independent from the USSR in 1991, making its nuclear arsenal the third-largest in the world.[57] By 1996, Ukraine had voluntarily disposed of all nuclear weapons within its territory, transferring them to Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...uclear_weapons

[Nemowork]

If Ukraine made an attempt to reaquire nuclear weapons or kept its old ones would the US have been tolerant?

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nemowork

If Ukraine made an attempt to reaquire nuclear weapons or kept its old ones would the US have been tolerant?

No, we wanted them out of the republics, particularly Kazakhstan-- we were afraid, with good reason, that they might fall into the wrong hands.

But now you have a problem of a nuclear Russia, and its neighbors. You can see the Ukraine crisis coming . . . and Azherbaijan, for sure -- you think Putin' going to let the Caspian oil and gas go to someone else?

Seriously, this is a threat. Saddam was a bad joke, a brain-fart, the dumb obsession of an inadequate President with no sense of history, and less interest. Putin's the real deal, he really is a "ruthless dictator" and a "grave and gathering danger". While we were blowing our credibility and sinking into a quagmire, Russia --and China-- have been preparing for war.

What he wants is limited, probably, to the former Soviet Union. Who's going to say "no"? What do we back that "no" up with?

On the China front, at some point they're going to deliver an ultimatum to Taiwan, probably when Russia is filling the international environment with noise.

[Nemowork]

You know ive just had a horrible thought. the Georgian foreign minister was on BBC claiming an oppr4esive state was attacking the only true democracy in the caucasus.

Shakashvilli took control after the 'rose revolution', a popular uprising him and Buranadje led into elections.

Putin and Medvedev were elected freely.

Kind of kicks a hole in GW's theory that 'Democracies dont go to war with democracies

unless of course GW is backing the winner of a coup against a freely elected democracy

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Nemowork

Kind of kicks a hole in GW's theory that 'Democracies dont go to war with democracies

That's always been a fiction. Hitler was democratically elected, among others. The United States and the Confederacy were both democracies, as the United States and Britain.

Putin's Russia is only marginally "democratic" though. The state controls or will control the media, the economy, the armed forces, and it conducts the elections. The most recent elections were real, but Putin clearly had his thumb on the scales. Whether in the judiciary, the media, or the economy, the rules in Putin's Russia are written at the top, and the law comes after to paper the order.

[TheLancinator]

Just was watching the news and they are discussing this topic with a retired army colonel. He brought up a good point that is getting lost in the media's coverage of all the Russian propaganda saying this whole mess is Georgia's fault.

He contends there is no way that they could have moved in with the swiftness that the Russians moved their troops and armor into Georgia did. It was as if they moved all this equipment on a moments notice. He says the Russians have been planning this for months and the troops have been ready for weeks and her firmly believe Ukraine and the Balkans are next.

And you know what? I'm inclined to believe him.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by TheLancinator

J
He contends there is no way that they could have moved in with the swiftness that the Russians moved their troops and armor into Georgia did. It was as if they moved all this equipment on a moments notice. He says the Russians have been planning this for months and the troops have been ready for weeks and her firmly believe Ukraine and the Balkans are next.

And you know what? I'm inclined to believe him.

Absolutely. Same thought occurred to me. It appears that the Georgians did actually do something provocative in Ossetia -- this doesn't look like a staged "false flag" thing like the Germans did with Poland in 1939.

But the Russians instantly sent columns of tanks in. That's not an easy thing to do -- this is remote country, and the logistics aren't easy.

My guess is that the Russians got wind of some Georgian plan, and then decided to make use of the opportunity to show the Georgians a thing or two. The Georgians were stupid to give them the opportunity, if they actually did do any of what is claimed.

[Nemowork]

Not strictly speaking true, the Russians were holding exercises with the Indians recently so they still had a lot of forces in place, if you check out the actual numbers of forces and men the Russians have used theyre actually a very small force.
Everybody says the Russians have 600,000 men against the Georgians 20,000 but the Russians actual force initially was 6000 men, made up by a heavy inclusion of tanks and aircraft, it only now theyve managed to get enough people in theatre to equal the Georgian regulars (about 25,000 split between Ossetia and Abkhazia according to the Georgians) and nowhere close to the Georgian reserve draft of 100,000.
It sounds more like the Russians had some notion trouble was on the way and put people close by but they got caught off guard and reacted piecemeal.
In fact from the sound of it even Georgia didnt know they were going to attack, they've had long term plans but most of their best trained troops are out of country and their weapons upgrades arent complete so why they chose to react to what they describe as machine gun attacks across the border with a mass armour and artillery attack is anybodies guess.