huwie / Website (28.8.08 10:24) Yep, this is all a little worrying in the news. And - I must confess I'm no expert -but I haven't heard it explained why this posturing is so difficult to avoid...

amillionpieces / Website (28.8.08 12:45) I had this strange idea that it could be avoided by them simply not doing it, and accepting everyone has different world views, but it seems that's not the case.

Rebecca / Website (28.8.08 13:34) Well I happen to have some admiration for your neighbour matey. It’s about time other countries stood up to Russia. Their behaviour is not acceptable anymore. You can’t invade places willy-nilly, and they shouldn’t be allowed to hold the surrounding countries to ransom every time they do something Russia doesn’t like. The USSR does not exist anymore. Good on him I say.

amillionpieces / Website (28.8.08 14:32) I'm afraid I can't agree, who are we to tell them not to invade countries when we have troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq? Georgia started the military action despite Putin having said that any attack on South Ossetia would meet a military response. How can we expect Russia to put up with the west doing whatever we want, deciding who's causes are just and who is acceptable? Why is it we don't even suggest that the UN debates the issue of Ossetian or Abkhazian independence, yet we openly support Kosovan independence? The US and UK constantly goad Russia and act surprised when she does the same back to us. It's a silly game on both sides. We can't take the view that USA/UK is always right and they are always wrong. Why shouldn't Russia have a say in international affairs? We intervene militarily all the time, she does so once and suddenly everyone is ready to have another cold war?

Rebecca / Website (28.8.08 15:19) Well it is actually unclear who started the military action, as both Georgia and South Ossetia claim they were fired upon first. The force with which Russia hit Georgia was unnecessary. I am not suggesting that the West is innocent, yes we have made many awful mistakes that will takes years to put right, and that is shameful. Some causes are more acceptable than others thats the way it is. The West had to get involved in Kosovo because innocent people were being slaughtered, and we are now seeing that process through to the end (independence for Kosovo.) I am sure South Ossetia and Abkhazian would be provided with the same assistance if they ever require it. Russia has done its fair bit of goading, (sending fighter planes into UK airspace, threatening to turn off the gas supply to the West.) Of course they should have a say in international affairs, but a say is very different to having an aggresive opinion about such matters. Russia can be a bully, and the softly-softly approach does not work with bullies.

amillionpieces / Website (28.8.08 17:26) The force with which Georgia hit South Ossetia was unnecessary too. South Ossetia and Abkhazia aren't new problems, they too had civil war in the 1990's and there has been reports of human rights abuses there too. Why is it therefore that kosovo is a "more acceptable" cause, so much so that it gets independence while the other two don't even get their situation looked at? And who made the US/UK the judge of what is acceptable or not? Yes, Russia tries to throw it's weight around, but so does America and so does the UK. Is it not just possible that Russia feels threatened too? We go on about how threatening they are but the west is often threatening too. Remember how America reacted to Soviet Missiles in Cuba? Yet we expect Russia to just accept American missiles in Poland? My point is not that either side is right or wrong. It's that there can't be one rule for us and another for them. There seems to be an assumption that the rest of the world should just accept whatever the UK/USA do as in their best interests and abide by whatever we decide.

petescully / Website (28.8.08 18:13) Russia is pushing its weight, and it has a lot of weight, and there are bound to be some pretty nervous people in the baltic states that have large (and under-represented) russian populations. But their approach does appear to be because we've set the bar, we have no problem invading countries to protect our interest, and no problem recognizing Kosovo and ignoring Russia's objections about Serbia just being split apart. Whatever we think of their response, this is right on their doorstep, not our doorstep, and we can't begin to understand it the way they do. Can they understand the issues in Northern Irlenad, for example? Most people in Britain can't, so we can't expect to understand their issues in Ossetia. And the missile analogy is true as well, it is as if we learnt nothing from 1962. We are right to worry about Russia's increasing clout, but we are wrong to isolate and accuse them of things we have no problem doing ourselves.

amillionpieces / Website (28.8.08 19:52) Pete - Good point re: Northern Ireland. I think it's interesting that since the fall of the USSR this is the first time Russian troops have attacked or intervened. We've done it many times in the same time period. Yet Russia is painted as the aggressive and imperialist one? I think by isolating them and attacking them we strengthen Putin, he is an old fashioned strong man and when a country's population is feeling threatened they're bound to support that more. If we want to change years of mistrust and antipathy we need to show that co-operation is a two way street.

MOobs / Website (31.8.08 01:21) I'm with Milliboy. I see that the South Ossetians have now indicated that as soon as they get their independence they hope to be "absorbed" into Russia. I don't see that as the same thing as Afghanistan. A closer analogy would be the Sudetenland.

amillionpieces / Website (31.8.08 13:36) The thing is though, I tend to believe in the validity behind Wilson's idea of National Self-Determination, though it was never applied properly in the last century. If the Ossetians as a people largely feel Russian and wish to be Russian, then why shouldn't they choose that? They're not going to suddenly become friends with Georgia just because the west says they should be ruled from Tbilisi.

petescully / Website (2.9.08 22:52) so if we know the ossetians don't want to be part of georgia, but we're gonna keep them with georgia anyway, i think it means we care about self-determination for some but not others. From a black and white standpoint, it does sound a bit like sudetenland - except germany took over the whole of czechoslovakia as a result. This situation is very far from black and white, and is certainly far closer to the kosovo situation - which we supported.

amillionpieces / Website (3.9.08 21:49) Yeah, the problem with the Hitler analogy is that the west punished Germany at Versailles, instead of applying self-determination and the other principles of the 14 points properly. It's a what-if, and we'll never know, but I tend to think if the 14 points had been implemented properly and the League of Nations had been backed by America, Europe would have been a much more stable place. By pretending to be just and yet punishing Germany the allies left the door open for Hitler to disguise his aggressive intent as simply getting what should have been fairly Germany's after Versailles. It does seem very similar to Kosovo, I just wish that they'd agree that the solution for both is likely to be similar, instead of trying to split hairs to justify our own morally ambiguous stance.

Name:	Email:
Website:	Email me when further comments are posted Save information (cookie)
Insert emoticons