Side 2 av 2

InnleggSkrevet: 27 Aug 2008, 23:55
Vi står fortsatt igjen med spørsmålet om hva som avgjør om et område er en nasjon eller ikke. PAR understreker at Sør-Ossetia er en del av Georgia. Hva da med Kosovo, Taiwan, Tibet eller Tsjetsjenia, for å nevne noen mer eller mindre omstridte områder?

Hva mener forsamlingen er nasjoner og hva er områder, og hva utgjør forskjellen? Er det en flertallsavgjørelse basert på "internasjonal anerkjennelse" fra flest mulig land, eller er det et objektivt prinsipp?

InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2008, 06:41
Vegard Martinsen
Rounin skrev:Vi står fortsatt igjen med spørsmålet om hva som avgjør om et område er en nasjon eller ikke. PAR understreker at Sør-Ossetia er en del av Georgia. Hva da med Kosovo, Taiwan, Tibet eller Tsjetsjenia, for å nevne noen mer eller mindre omstridte områder?

Hva mener forsamlingen er nasjoner og hva er områder, og hva utgjør forskjellen? Er det en flertallsavgjørelse basert på "internasjonal anerkjennelse" fra flest mulig land, eller er det et objektivt prinsipp?

Enhver har rett til å løsrive en del av et land hvis formålet er å opprette et friere regime i landet.

At dette som regel i praksis er umulig er en annen sak; ingen regimer vil like å miste en del av sitt område.

InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2008, 09:20
Vegard Martinsen
Jeg kjenner ikke skribenten, men...

Et utdrag av artikkelen for 26/8-08:

The Truth About Russia in Georgia

TBILISI, GEORGIA – Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported over the weekend in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

Regional expert, German native, and former European Commission official Patrick Worms was recently hired by the Georgian government as a media advisor, and he explained to me exactly what happened when I met him in downtown Tbilisi. You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is as friendly and democratic as Georgia's. I was lucky, though, that another regional expert, author and academic Thomas Goltz, was present during Worms' briefing to me and signed off on it as completely accurate aside from one tiny quibble.

Goltz has been writing about the Caucasus region for almost 20 years, and he isn't on Georgian government payroll. He earns his living from the University of Montana and from the sales of his books Azerbaijan Diary, Georgia Diary and Chechnya Diary. Goltz experienced these three Caucasus republics at their absolute worst, and he knows the players and the events better than just about anyone. Every journalist in Tbilisi seeks him out as the old hand who knows more than the rest of us put together, and he wanted to hear Patrick Worms' spiel to reporters in part to ensure its accuracy.

“You,” Worms said to Goltz just before he started to flesh out the real story to me, “are going to be bored because I'm going to give some back story that you know better than I do.”

“Go,” Goltz said. “Go.”

The back story began at least as early as the time of the Soviet Union.

InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2008, 12:36
Per Anton Rønning
Vegard Martinsen skrev:Enhver har rett til å løsrive en del av et land hvis formålet er å opprette et friere regime i landet.

Index of Economic Freedom viser (iflg opplysninger jeg har fått) at Georgia ligger FORAN Norge.
Russerne vil neppe "innkapsle" utbryterne med det formål å gjøre dem enda friere.
(de anerkjenner områdene som selvstendige stater, men siden befolkningen i stor grad er russisk regner de nok med betydelig innflytelse, og kanskje Anschluss på sikt)

Så formålet vil nok ikke bli oppfylt her.

Ut fra dette må man være motstander av utbruddet.

InnleggSkrevet: 28 Aug 2008, 16:01
Vegard Martinsen
Christopher Hitchens om Putin-regimets hykleri.

Now, overt Russian imperialism is back, after a very short absence from the scene, and it is no more amiable or benign from the many toxic resentments it acquired during its period of decline and impotence and eclipse. Its propaganda is no longer bureaucratic and collectivist and prosaic; it has been thickened and enriched by patriotic songs, old poems and ballads, and the hymns and incantations of priests. It is now we, sunk in the banalities of democratic discourse, who stammer to find an apt form of words in which to defend and justify ourselves and our once-again menaced friends to the east.

Great Moscow circus

The fans of moral equivalence may or may not have noticed this, but the obviously long-meditated and co-ordinated Russian military intervention in Georgia comes in the same month as explicit threats to the sovereignty of Poland and Ukraine, and hard on the heels of a Russian obstruction of any UN action in the case of Zimbabwe.

Those who like to describe Putin and President Dmitry Medvedev as reacting to an encirclement of Russia may wish to spill some geopolitical ink on explaining how Kosovo forms part of this menacing ring of steel or how the repression of the people of Zimbabwe can assist in Moscow's breakout strategy from it.

If it matters, I agree with the critics who say that the Bush administration garnered the worst of both worlds by giving the Georgians the impression of US support, then defaulting at the push-comes-to-shove moment.

The Clintonoids made exactly that mistake with Serbian aggression a decade and more ago, giving the Bosnians hope, then letting them be slaughtered until the position became untenable, and then astoundingly, and even after the Dayton accords, repeating the same series of dithering errors in the case of Kosovo. ... 83,00.html

Re: Russland og NATO

InnleggSkrevet: 22 Jun 2011, 00:08
Defense News, June 21, 2011: Ukraine is ramping up cooperation with NATO, dealing a blow to Moscow's hopes that its neighbor would align itself more closely to Russia under President Viktor Yanukovych, a report said Tuesday. The Kommersant Ukraine daily newspaper, citing a secret document on Ukraine's program with NATO for 2011, said Yanukovych sought closer ties with the bloc even more earnestly than his openly pro-Western predecessor, Viktor Yushchenko. The dramatic turnabout in Kiev's foreign policy comes despite Ukraine last year cementing in law its non-aligned status, and amid disappointment over terms and conditions of rapprochement with the Kremlin, the paper said. The confidential document approved earlier this year includes a schedule of 64 bilateral events, the newspaper said, adding that the two sides were set to discuss such sensitive issues as Ukraine's energy security, missile defense, and the future of Russia's Black Sea fleet based in Crimea - Ukraine Secretly Ramps Up Ties With NATO: Report

Re: Russland og NATO

InnleggSkrevet: 14 Sep 2011, 07:39
Reuters, September 13, 2011: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday signed an agreement to base anti-missile interceptors in Romania under a NATO missile defense plan that has angered Russia. Clinton signed the agreement with Romanian Foreign Minister Teodor Baconschi and said the United States expected to deploy the interceptor missiles at a Romanian air force base in approximately four years - U.S., Romania sign missile deal that irked Russia

Re: Russland og NATO

InnleggSkrevet: 23 Nov 2011, 03:01
The Cable, November 22, 2011: The State Department announced today that it would stop fulfilling its obligations under the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty with respect to Russia, in retaliation for Russia's 2007 decision to stop honoring that treaty altogether. "This announcement in the CFE Treaty's implementation group comes after the United States and NATO allies have tried over the past four years to find a diplomatic solution following Russia's decision in 2007 to cease implementation with respect to all other 29 CFE States," said State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland. "Since then, Russia has refused to accept inspections and ceased to provide information to other CFE Treaty parties on its military forces, as required by the treaty." The treaty, which was signed at the very end of the Cold War in 1990, was meant to impose limits on key categories of conventional weapons placed in Europe by NATO and Russia - Cracks in the reset? U.S. stops honoring arms treaty with Russia

Re: Russland og NATO

InnleggSkrevet: 23 Jul 2015, 05:34
Per Anton Rønning skrev:... feige "old Europe" ikke til nå har våget å tilby Georgia Nato-medlemskap ...

Jeg vet ikke om det hadde hjulpet Georgia med et Nato-medlemskap når mentaliteten innen Nato er som den er:
NATO to Award “Courageous Restraint”?

According to this story (hat tip to Bob Murphy), NATO is considering honoring soldiers who courageously . . . choose not to fight.
Most military awards in the past have been given for things like soldiers taking out a machine gun nest or saving their buddies in a firefight, said Command Sgt. Maj. Michael Hall, the senior NATO enlisted man in Afghanistan.

“We are now considering how we look at awards differently,” he said.

British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, the NATO commander of troops in southern Afghanistan, proposed the idea of awarding soldiers for “courageous restraint” during a visit by Hall to Kandahar Airfield in mid April. [NATO commander, Gen. Stanley] McChrystal is now reviewing the proposal to determine how it could be implemented, Hall said. . . .

“We routinely and systematically recognize valor, courage and effectiveness during kinetic combat operations,” said a statement recently posted on the NATO coalition’s website by the group, the Counterinsurgency Advisory and Assistance Team.

“In a [counterinsurgency] campaign, however, it is critical to also recognize that sometimes the most effective bullet is the bullet not fired,” it said. . . .

“There should be an opportunity to recognize and celebrate the troops who exhibit extraordinary courage and self-control by not using their weapons, but instead taking personal risk to de-escalate tense and potentially disastrous situations,” the statement said.

Of course, the “potentially disastrous situations” of which the NATO statement speaks are those involving the possibility of civilian casualties, because, as conventional wisdom and McChrystal would have us believe, “the war effort hinges on the ability to protect the population and win support away from the Taliban.” But, such “wisdom” notwithstanding, all wars have hinged and always will hinge on the ability to effectively fight and thus ultimately defeat the enemy, something that often necessitates attacking combatants and military assets in areas populated with civilians. Rather than diminish our military effectiveness by awarding soldiers for holding their fire, we should focus on using our overwhelming firepower to quickly destroy the Taliban with as little loss of life—American life—as possible, righteously recognizing that any civilians killed in the process are either guilty of sheltering our enemy or are genuine innocents whose tragic deaths were necessitated by Islamist aggression.

(For historical examples of effective war waging involving civilians, read John David Lewis’s TOS articles “William Tecumseh Sherman and the Moral Impetus for Victory” and “‘Gifts from Heaven’: The Meaning of the American Victory over Japan, 1945” or buy his new book, Nothing Less Than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History. As to why the aggressor in a war is the murderer of any innocents killed by either side in that war, read this post.) (med hyperlenker)

Per Anton Rønning skrev:Neste mann ut er vel Ukraina. Ut fra dette resonnementet må vel Ukraina bare være fritt vilt for Russland.


Ja, nettopp, makan ... til en treffsikker analyse - sett nå i ettertid.