Russland og NATO

Diskusjon om politiske temaer fra det internasjonale nyhetsbildet.

Russland og NATO

Innlegg simon 26 Aug 2008, 21:03

Jeg må si at jeg er ukomfortabel med endel av nyhetsreportasjene og noen av kommentarene fra våre egne rekker ifb krigen i Kaukasus.

Selv om tolkningen av Russlands motiver og adferd forøvrig er riktig, så synes jeg det forsvinner (på en kritikkverdig måte) det enkle faktum at Georgia angrep Sør-Ossetia. Russland responderte så etter at deres egne styrker der var angrepet. Det er et faktum. Troverdige analyser av situasjonen bør gjenspeile dette.

Jeg var i Beograd da det skjedde, og hadde tilgang på Russia Today. Det var litt selsomt, omtrent som CNN under Gulfkrigen, bare motsatt. Men faktaene som ble rapportert der stemte overens med det BBC o.l. fortalte, bare tolkningen var annerledes.

Spesielt når vi ser denne saken i lys av Kosovos løsrivelse, og NATOs angrep på Jugoslavia blir det hele litt pussig, må jeg si.
Kosovo har mange likhetstrekk med SørOssetia, og NATO angrep YU, som forsvarte republikkens territoriale integritet, som det heter, med relativt heftige tap av sivile liv.

Georgia gjør altså det Yugoslavia gjorde, og Russland gjør det som NATO gjorde, bare i mindre grad. NATO anerkjente Kosovo, og Russland anerkjente Sør-Ossetia m.m.

Når man da tar kraftig avstand fra Russlands adferd, bør det da samtidig argumenteres for hva det er som gjør Georgias adferd beundringsverdig, mens tilsvarende adferd i andre land fordømmes. Jeg må innrømme at jeg finner det vanskelig.
simon
 
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Innlegg Rounin 26 Aug 2008, 22:40

Jeg kan ikke annet enn å si meg enig. Diskusjonen rundt Russlands framferd ser dessuten ut til å ha tatt fokus helt vekk fra spørsmålet om hvem som har rett på landet og hvordan det skal forvaltes. Man kan undre seg på om de som nå taler varmt om Georgias territoriale integritet var like varme tilhengere av Serbias territoriale integritet, eller er det av Russlands og Kinas.
Brukerens avatar
Rounin
 
Innlegg: 747
Registrert: 06 Jun 2007, 17:17

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 10:48

Det over går vel til en viss grad på de kommentarene jeg skrev om dette.

La meg i første omgang sitere hva Hans Rustad har skrevet om foreløpig siste akt i dette dramaet, og så skal jeg komme med mer senere.

http://www.document.no/2008/08/shrek_iv.html


Shrek IV
27.08 2008 - 09:03

Russlands anerkjennelse av Sør-Ossetia og Abkhazia som selvstendige stater er den rene galemathias, uansett hvordan man betrakter det. Moskva er villig til å kaste vrak på to tiår med politisk, diplomatisk, militært og økonomisk samarbeid med Vesten til fordel for to små enklaver i Kaukasus. Måten de gjør det på forskrekker vel så mye: ved først å forvandle en avskrekkingsoperasjon til en invasjon, og deretter å kjøre videre i ekspressfart og forhåndslove anerkjennelse av selvstendighet. Løsrivelse er et brudd på prinsipper FN og Samveldet av tidligere sovjetstater bygger på: først og fremst grensenes ukrenkelighet, at grenser ikke kan forandres enerådig og med makt.

Det er disproporasjonaliteten, hva Moskva kaster vrak på for så lite, som forskrekker omverdenen: er Putin og Siloviki blitt gale, eller har de kastet alle hemninger? Er Georgia bare åpningstrekket? Da kan det bli en ny kald krig. En analytiker sa til BBC: Vi ser begynnelsen på en helt ny arkitektur, men vet ennå ikke hvordan den vil se ut.

President Dmitrij Medvedev har et anstrøk av noe komisk over seg. Det er lett å se at han fremfører andres ordre. Han kan minne om kongen i Shrek, liten, med fektende armer, som ingen tar helt alvorlig.

Han legger ansiktene i alvorlige folder, men det han sier er fullstendig tøvete.

Medvedev told his nation Georgia had forced Russia's hand.

"Saakashvili chose genocide to fulfill his political plans," Medvedev said. "Georgia chose the least human way to achieve its goal — to absorb South Ossetia by eliminating a whole nation.

Kreml-ledelsen kan minne om russiske adelsmenn som spiller bort gård og grunn i fylla:

Én ting var å straffe Saakasjvili og demonstrere hvem som er sjef i Kaukasus. Noe annet er å risikerer forholdet til Vesten for to små enklaver. Medvedevs uttalelser i Sotsji var pompøse og overspent.

"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War," President Dmitry Medvedev said hours after announcing the Kremlin's decision and one day after Parliament had supported the recognition.

Pengene snakker. Børsen i Moskva kan fortelle lederne hva de egentlig holder på med.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 16:29

Rounin skrev:Jeg kan ikke annet enn å si meg enig. Diskusjonen rundt Russlands framferd ser dessuten ut til å ha tatt fokus helt vekk fra spørsmålet om hvem som har rett på landet og hvordan det skal forvaltes. Man kan undre seg på om de som nå taler varmt om Georgias territoriale integritet var like varme tilhengere av Serbias territoriale integritet, eller er det av Russlands og Kinas.


Slik jeg ser det spiller det ingen rolle hvem som begynte, dvs. hvem som avfyrte det første skudd - i seksdagerskrigen i 1967 var det Israel som skjøt først - det som er viktig er: hvilken part er friest? I dette tilfellet er det klart Georgia som er friest. Her er det altså et aggressivt diktatur på den ene siden, og et land som forsøker å bli friere på den andre siden.

Hvem har rett på landet? Det frieste regimet har rett på landet.

Nedenfor gjengir jeg noen av de artiklene jeg bygde på da jeg skrev kommentarene om dette.
Sist endret av Vegard Martinsen den 27 Aug 2008, 16:37, endret 1 gang
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 16:31

http://jewishworldreview.com/0808/morris081208.php3

Hitler invaded Sudetenland; Now Putin invades South Ossetia
By Dick Morris & Eileen Mc Gann


On October 3, 1938, Adolf Hitler's armies marched into Sudetenland, a part of Czechoslovakia. Germany said it was responding to separatist demands from the large German population that lived there and that she was merely honoring their desire for reunion with Germany. Hitler's tanks took over a vital part of an independent country that had largely rejected his overtures and allied itself with the West. Neither Britain nor France nor the United States did a thing to stop him.


On August 7, 2008, Vladimir Putin's armies marched into South Ossetia, a part of Georgia. Russia said it was responding to separatist demands from the large Russian population that lived there and that she was merely honoring their desire for reunion with Russia. Putin's tanks took over a vital part of an independent country that had largely rejected his overtures and allied itself with the West. Neither Britain nor France nor the United States did a thing to stop him.


Encouraged by his occupation of Sudetenland, Hitler continued his designs on Czechoslovakia itself and invaded the rest of the nation a few months later.


Will history continue to repeat itself?


Georgia is one of the two countries that have split off from the old Soviet Union and most firmly reached out to the West. Now Putin is testing whether the west will respond to an overt Russian military attack on a part of Georgia, doubtless paving the way for a full scale invasion, perhaps in the coming days. One immediate Russian move would be to use its new found military leverage to force Georgia to give up Abkhazia, another province with a large Russian population.


Russia has encouraged migration by ethnic Russians into its satellite empire ever since Stalin's days and now is using the provinces with large Russian populations to foment discord in nations that lean to the West.


The United States and the European Union must not turn away at this crucial moment in history. The U.S. should take visible steps to bolster Georgia, including the dispatch of supplies, materials, and other manifestations of our determination not to let this nation be invaded.


Russia's goal in this imperialism is to intimidate any nation on its borders into rejecting overtures from the west and to try to prove that the west will offer no real protection against Russian military designs.

NATO should speed consideration of Georgia's application for admission and should extend its security umbrella to include the struggling democracy.


If the United States appeases Russia now, it will pay the same price British Prime Minister Nevelle Chamberlain paid in the 1930s. This invasion must not be allowed to stand or, at the very least, it must be contained to South Ossetia and not allowed to lap over into the rest of Georgia.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 16:33

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/New ... 95e945.htm

Statement by John McCain on the Crisis in Georgia

ARLINGTON, VA -- Today, in Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following statement regarding the current conflict between Georgia and Russia:

"Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia. Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world. And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.

"Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world's first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion. After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922. As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.

"Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms. I've met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia.

"What the people of Georgia have accomplished in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform is nothing short of remarkable. That makes Russia's recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming. In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia and the survival of its democratically-elected government are at stake.

"In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia. Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast. Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow's path of violent aggression. Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.

"The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics.

The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors. We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.

"Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire. The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia's capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia. This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia. This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.

"Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government's actions will have for Russia's relationship with the U.S. and Europe. It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

"NATO's North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO's future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation. NATO's decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.

"The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia. With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis. The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.

"Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence. This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia's base in the Ukrainian Crimea.
"The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

"The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia.
"Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia's leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity's progress toward respecting the values and security of free people.

"Thank you."
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 16:34

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03365.html

How to Stop Putin
By Charles Krauthammer

Thursday, August 14, 2008; A17

The Russia-Georgia cease-fire brokered by France's president is less than meets the eye. Its terms keep moving as the Russian army keeps moving. Russia has since occupied Gori (appropriately, Stalin's birthplace), effectively cutting Georgia in two. The road to the capital, Tbilisi, is open, but apparently Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has temporarily chosen to seek his objectives through military pressure and Western acquiescence rather than by naked occupation.

His objectives are clear. They go beyond detaching South Ossetia and Abkhazia from Georgia and absorbing them into Russia. They go beyond destroying the Georgian army, leaving the country at Russia's mercy.

The real objective is the Finlandization of Georgia through the removal of President Mikheil Saakashvili and his replacement by a Russian puppet.

Which explains Putin stopping the Russian army (for now) short of Tbilisi. What everyone overlooks in the cease-fire terms is that all future steps -- troop withdrawals, territorial arrangements, peacekeeping forces -- will have to be negotiated between Russia and Georgia. But Russia says it will not talk to Saakashvili. Thus regime change becomes the first requirement for any movement on any front. This will be Putin's refrain in the coming days. He is counting on Europe to pressure Saakashvili to resign and/or flee to "give peace a chance."

The Finlandization of Georgia would give Russia control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which is the only significant westbound route for Caspian Sea oil and gas that does not go through Russia. Pipelines are the economic lifelines of such former Soviet republics as Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan that live off energy exports. Moscow would become master of the Caspian basin.

Subduing Georgia has an additional effect. It warns Russia's former Baltic and East European satellites what happens if you get too close to the West. It is the first step to reestablishing Russian hegemony in the region.

What is to be done? Let's be real. There's nothing to be done militarily. What we can do is alter Putin's cost-benefit calculations.

We are not without resources. There are a range of measures to be deployed if Russia does not live up to its cease-fire commitments:

1. Suspend the NATO-Russia Council established in 2002 to help bring Russia closer to the West. Make clear that dissolution will follow suspension. The council gives Russia a seat at the NATO table. Message: Invading neighboring democracies forfeits the seat.

2. Bar Russian entry to the World Trade Organization.

3. Dissolve the G-8. Putin's dictatorship long made Russia's presence in this group of industrial democracies a farce, but no one wanted to upset the bear by expelling it. No need to. The seven democracies simply withdraw. (And if Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, who has been sympathetic to Putin's Georgia adventure, wants to stay, he can have an annual G-2 dinner with Putin.) Then immediately announce the reconstitution of the original G-7.

4. Announce a U.S.-European boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics at Sochi. To do otherwise would be obscene. Sochi is 15 miles from Abkhazia, the other Georgian province just invaded by Russia. The Games will become a riveting contest between the Russian, Belarusan and Jamaican bobsled teams.

All of these steps (except dissolution of the G-8, which should be irreversible) would be subject to reconsideration depending upon Russian action -- most importantly and minimally, its withdrawal of troops from Georgia proper to South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

The most crucial and unconditional measure, however, is this: Reaffirm support for the Saakashvili government and declare that its removal by the Russians would lead to recognition of a government-in-exile. This would instantly be understood as providing us the legal basis for supplying and supporting a Georgian resistance to any Russian-installed regime.

President Bush could cash in on his close personal relationship with Putin by sending him a copy of the highly entertaining (and highly fictionalized) film "Charlie Wilson's War" to remind Vlad of our capacity to make Russia bleed. Putin would need no reminders of the Georgians' capacity and long history of doing likewise to invaders.

Bush needs to make up for his mini-Katrina moment when he lingered in Beijing yukking it up with our beach volleyball team while Putin flew to North Ossetia to direct the invasion of a neighboring country. Bush is dispatching Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to France and Georgia. Not a moment too soon. Her task must be to present these sanctions, get European agreement on as many as possible and begin imposing them, calibrated to Russian behavior. And most important of all, to prevent any Euro-wobbliness on the survival of Georgia's democratically elected government.

We have cards. We should play them. Much is at stake.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 16:34

Commentary by Robert Tracinski


1.
The more I look at the crisis in Georgia, the more I realize how important it is to American interests. It is not just the moral imperative of supporting a free nation against an authoritarian aggressor, and it is not just reassuring the other nations of Eastern Europe that we will support their independence from Moscow. Above all of that, it is important to recognize that the invasion of Georgia is Vladimir Putin's war for oil.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Innlegg Vegard Martinsen 27 Aug 2008, 16:36

Stalin Lite Meets Hitler Lite 

by Robert Tracinski

The West in now in a two-front war. The War on Terrorism continues in the Middle East—and now we find ourselves in a renewed Cold War with Russia.

The first battle of this new Cold War is Russia's invasion on Friday of the small pro-Western nation of Georgia. Russian troops entered Georgia ostensibly to protect Russian nationals in the separatist province of South Ossetia. But Russian warplanes have bombed targets across Georgia, and Russian tanks have already crossed through South Ossetia into central Georgia. There are reports that they may have taken the city of Gori, cutting off the Georgian capital of Tbilisi from the sea. At this rate, Russian tanks may be laying siege to Tbilisi by the time this article reaches its readers.

The Russians—and some Western advocates of appeasement—claim that the conflict can be blamed on Georgia's "provocation," but the real story here is about Russian provocation. For years, the government of Russia has supported ethnic Russian separatists in Georgia and has posted Russian "peacekeeping" troops inside South Ossetia—troops who are there to keep the peace only on Russia's terms. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili explains this slow-motion Russian invasion of Georgia in a powerfully written Wall Street Journal op-ed pleading for the West's support.

If you look at a map of Georgia, you see that South Ossetia is a dagger aimed into the heart of central Georgia, nearly cutting the country in half. Thus, Georgia's attempt to reassert its control of South Ossetia was not an act of "provocation." It was a desperate, last-ditch attempt to push back a creeping Russian takeover.

Georgia is too small to hope to defeat the Russian army in an all-out war. President Saakashvili apparently hoped that a military action against the separatists in South Ossetia would serve as a warning to the Russian government, which might be afraid of inviting the world's condemnation by escalating the conflict.

Instead, the Russians have shown no shame. Like Al Capone at the height of Prohibition, Russia's new gangster nomenklatura is flush with cash—from oil instead of alcohol—and drunk with a sense of regained geopolitical power. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, still openly wielding the full power of the state, despite his supposed replacement by figurehead President Dimitri Medvedev, gave a brazen speech in which he accused us of having a "Cold War mentality" and declared: "The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing—the attempt to turn white into black, black into white and to adeptly portray victims of aggression as aggressors and place the responsibility for the consequences of the aggression on the victims." If ever there were a study in psychological projection—attributing your own vices to others—this is it.

In fact, all of the statements from Russian commanders or political leaders give no sense that they genuinely regard themselves as victims somehow forced into a conflict they wanted to avoid. The actual character of Russian statements about Georgia is a conspicuous gloating. They are invading Georgia because they can. They are the larger country with the bigger army, so who is going to stop them?

This is a crude return to Soviet-era foreign policy. The old Brezhnev Doctrine asserted that it was the Soviet Union's prerogative to send in the tanks to restore Communist rule in any of its Eastern European satellites. The new Putin Doctrine asserts that it is Russia's prerogative to send in the tanks to maintain de facto Kremlin control over the former Soviet republics.

But if this new doctrine seems familiar, it is not just because it reminds us of what the Soviets did to Czechoslovakia in 1968. Just as ominously, it is reminiscent of what the Nazis did to Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Putin is following the playbook of the Sudetenland crisis that Hitler engineered in 1938 as a pretext to invade Czechoslovakia. Hitler armed and supported ethnic Germans in a separatist province on the Czech border with Germany, then he used the alleged need to defend these ethnic Germans as a pretext to annex the Sudetenland. Having breached Czechoslovakia's borders and rendered the country indefensible, Hitler simply swallowed it whole.

In Georgia, Putin has armed and supported ethnic Russian separatists, going so far as to grant Russian citizenship to ethnic Russians living inside Georgia—which then conveniently allows Putin to send in the tanks on the pretext of defending Russian citizens. In effect, Putin annexed Georgia's citizens as a prelude to annexing Georgia. Having already swallowed two Georgian provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Putin is now demanding that Georgia disarm its police in provinces bordering these two enclaves, in order to give Russian separatists free reign there as well. It is a prelude to swallowing Georgia whole, reducing it once against to a Russian vassal state.

Brezhnev imposed his doctrine of rule by force in the name of defending the global march of socialism. While the Putin Doctrine is essentially the same in practice—send in the tanks—it is being imposed in the name of Nazi-style ethnic nationalism. What's Russian for "lebensraum"?
Putin's increasingly authoritarian rule at home has been called Stalin Lite. His policy toward the former Soviet republics can now be called Hitler Lite. This marks the completion of Russia's journey from one form of aggressive dictatorship to another, from Communism to Fascism.
What can the United States do? It may be too late for Georgia. Russia seems intent on using its military superiority to depose Saakashvili and install a compliant puppet government. In truth, Georgia may be too small and too far away for the US to offer it much in effective aid, beyond the moral support of ejecting Russia from the G-8 and other organizations of civilized nations. In this respect, the best response to the crisis has been the one proposed by John McCain.

While our options in Georgia may be limited, we should immediately prepare to counter the next big Russian threat. The invasion of Georgia is a warning about Russia's designs on Ukraine, a much larger and more strategically important country, closer to the heart of Europe, which also has a large ethnic Russian population that Putin would like to draw under his control.

In response to this crisis, we must immediate speed up Ukraine's absorption into NATO, including plans for placing NATO bases and other Western military assets there as a direct deterrent to a Russian takeover. The nations Russia regards as the "near abroad" it wants to dominate, we should regard as the West's buffer zone to protect us from Russian aggression.

Above all, this crisis is a warning that we have to stop treating Russia as a civilized nation, a "partner" that recognizes common interests. We have to realize that Russia is once again our enemy, though thankfully a smaller and less dangerous enemy than in the 20th century. We are in a new Cold War with Russia—call it Cold War Lite—and we need to recognize that fact.
Vegard Martinsen
 
Innlegg: 7867
Registrert: 07 Sep 2003, 12:07

Re: Russland og NATO

Innlegg QIQrrr 27 Aug 2008, 16:52

simon skrev:...det forsvinner (på en kritikkverdig måte) det enkle faktum at Georgia angrep Sør-Ossetia.

Georgia releases footage of 'Russian jet attack' - 21 Apr 08 - forøvrig er jeg helt på linje med VM i denne saken.

Se også denne:

World renown scholar of Russian politics Edward Lucas delivers a ground breaking speech about current situation in Russia and its relations with NATO, Georgia, and the Baltic States - Video
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Innlegg simon 27 Aug 2008, 19:38

Ja, det er delvis skrevet med Vegards kommentarer i tankene, men først og fremst CapMag, HBL og mainstream media.
Jeg kjenner godt til Vegards meninger og jeg deler dem, nemlig at det essensielle er hvilket regime som er det mest frie, og at formalia ikke spiller stor rolle.

Men, det kom ikke veldig klart frem i kommentarene (som er beregnet på et videre publikum enn oss selv). Det er derfor nærliggende å trekke den slutningen at Georgias territoriale integritet er viktigere enn det faktum at Georgia er friere enn Russland. Vår konklusjon er at Georgia har rett til å _angripe_ Russland, hvis de så ønsker, fordi det vil føre til mer frihet. Men det er viktig da å ikke blande inn påstander om at Russland angrep Georgia, fordi det skjedde faktisk ikke. De benyttet anledningen, sant og visst, men Georgia startet kampene. Det var antagelig rettmessig, men vi bør rapportere og argumentere presist.

Dernest er det sammenligningen med Kosovo (og i mindre grad Bosnia). Situasjonen er nøyaktig speilvendt, og jeg mener at NATO var sterkt å klandre for sitt angrep på Jugoslavia. Denne speilvendingen kan ikke oversees uten å argumementere for at det er viktige moralske forskjeller. NATOs uvenner overser ikke forskjellen, og klandrer "oss" med rette for å være hyklerske og dobbeltmoralske. Når Vesten velger å snakke om territorial integritet nå, men valgte å gå til krig for å ødelegge et annet lands territoriale integritet, har vi problemer, såsant argumentene henger på slike formalia.

En helt annen sak er at Vesten har opptrådt tåpelig i forhold til Russland, og ydmyket dem unødig gang på gang. Det ville kreves en usedvanlig dårlig kjennskap til russisk lynne for å tro at det ikke ville slå tilbake når Russland igjen ble sterkt. Det er upraktisk å terge en hund i bånd, hvis man ikke er forberedt på at hunden kan slite seg. Og det er vi visst ikke. Som Vegard påpekte, vi har gitt dem håp og løfter, men vi vil ikke stå ved dem.

If you look at a map of Georgia, you see that South Ossetia is a dagger aimed into the heart of central Georgia, nearly cutting the country in half. Thus, Georgia's attempt to reassert its control of South Ossetia was not an act of "provocation." It was a desperate, last-ditch attempt to push back a creeping Russian takeover.


If you look at a map of Serbia, you see that Kosovo is a dagger aimed into the heart of central Serbia, nearly cutting the country in half. Thus, Serbia's attempt to reassert its control of Kosovo was not an act of "provocation." It was a desperate, last-ditch attempt to push back a creeping Albanian takeover.
simon
 
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Innlegg QIQrrr 27 Aug 2008, 20:27

Jeg er selvfølgelig ikke uenig med simon hvis utdypning er meget presis. La meg også legge til at Russland muligens har bidratt til å egge til konflikt. Et forsøk på statskupp ble avslørt i november i fjor. Mer her og her. Å dele ut pass til innbyggere i andre land er eksempevis noe spesielt. I slike saker er det vanskelig å skaffe total oversikt over de faktiske forhold, så noe slingringsmonn må man påregne.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Innlegg simon 27 Aug 2008, 20:37

En annen viktig presisering, ja. Jeg kjenner ikke forholdene i Kaukasus så godt som i FRY, så all vurdering baserer seg på det som er fremkommet i media, bøker og øvrig annenhånds kunnskap.

Men, en bok som gir god og grundig bakgrunnskunnskap om Kaukasus er
Orientalisten av Tom Reiss. Anbefales.
simon
 
Innlegg: 1750
Registrert: 08 Sep 2003, 14:11
Bosted: Oslo

Re: Russland og NATO

Innlegg Per Anton Rønning 27 Aug 2008, 22:45

simon skrev:Jeg må si at jeg er ukomfortabel med endel av nyhetsreportasjene og noen av kommentarene fra våre egne rekker ifb krigen i Kaukasus.

Selv om tolkningen av Russlands motiver og adferd forøvrig er riktig, så synes jeg det forsvinner (på en kritikkverdig måte) det enkle faktum at Georgia angrep Sør-Ossetia. Russland responderte så etter at deres egne styrker der var angrepet. Det er et faktum. Troverdige analyser av situasjonen bør gjenspeile dette.


"Georgia angrep Sør-Osetia" - hva er Sør-Osetia?? Sist jeg sjekket var dette området en internasjonalt anerkjent legitim del av Georgia. Så det var slett ikke dette som skjedde:
Det som skjedde var at Georgia rykket inn for å forhindre separatiseter søttet av Russland i å løsrive regionen (ikke landet!) Sør-Osetia fra Georgia. Jeg kan vanskelig se at dette er illegitimt. Det må være tillatt å forsøke å forhindre separatister i å løsrvive en del av et område fra en statsdannelse som i seg selv er legitim.
Det som skjedde her var at Russland angrep Georgia for å stoppe landet fra å
nå sitt mål, som er å holde Georgia samlet. Russland vil marginalisere Georgia, og vise verden at NATO helst bør holde seg unna.

Agressoren her er åpenbart Russland, Sør-Osetia (og Abkhasia!) er anerkjente deler av Georgia., så Russlands aksjoner er rene krigshandlinger.
Dette er en troverdig analyse av situasjonen. Påstander om at "Georgia tross alt angrep først" er rent tankespinn (jeg har støtt på dette før og lurer på hva slags tenkning dette egentlig representerer), hvem var det i så fall de angrep? Iallfall ikke Russland! Og heller ikke noen annen stat i nærheten.
Det de foretok seg var et legitimt forsøk på å rydde opp i eget hus for å holde på sitt eget territrorium.

Siden agressoren Russland var sterkere og feige "old Europe" ikke til nå har våget å tilby Georgia Nato-medlemskap, var dette lett match for Russland.
Neste mann ut er vel Ukraina. Ut fra dette resonnementet må vel Ukraina bare være fritt vilt for Russland.
Makan!
I've always found that the speed of the boss is the speed of the team.
Lee Iacocca
Per Anton Rønning
 
Innlegg: 3322
Registrert: 09 Sep 2003, 08:54
Bosted: Oslo

Innlegg QIQrrr 27 Aug 2008, 23:38

I virkeligheten var det Georgia som fysisk gikk til angrep. Ingen er uenige om legitimiteten i dette angrepet. Russland forsøker sannsynligvis å kuppe Sør-Ossetia som er en region. At Russland har egget opp til dette er svært sannsynlig. Simon forsvarer ikke Russland eller separatistene. Jeg ser ingen reelle meningsmotsetninger her.
Børge Svanstrøm Amundsen

"Atlas was permitted the opinion that he was at liberty, if he wished, to drop the Earth and creep away; but this opinion was all that he was permitted" - Franz Kafka
Brukerens avatar
QIQrrr
 
Innlegg: 4439
Registrert: 20 Mai 2004, 23:33

Neste

Gå til Utenrikspolitikk

Hvem er i forumet

Brukere som leser i dette forumet: Ingen registrerte brukere og 1 gjest

cron