Forums | MacLife

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I don't know how useful maps are in this case. Georgia itself was once part of Russia -- does that mean Russia has a legitimate claim in annexing the place? Not to mention the Soviets were real smurf about playing with borders. Crimea wasn't a part of Ukraine for example until Khruschev made the change in the early 60s.

I personally tend to support independence movements; certainly I think a people should be allowed to be independent if they choose to be. And yes, that includes Quebec.

Theoretically if the people of South Ossetia wanted to be independent or a part of Russia, I think they should be afforded that right.

Though in truth there has been no democratic referendum in either of these breakaway regions, that I know of, so it's hard to say it's what the people there want.

Agreed on each part.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Though in truth there has been no democratic referendum in either of these breakaway regions, that I know of, so it's hard to say it's what the people there want.

Not sure about the other regions but for South Ossetia one referendum in 1992 and another in 2006.  Both returned yes votes.

http://www.caucaz.com/home_eng/breve_contenu.php?id=279

Man that place is a mess and a large chunk of the population hates them.  I am not sure why Georgia even wants it.

Two (prewar) articles from Slate attracted my attention

Travels in the Former Soviet Union]

What's Going on in Abkhazia?

Last edited by jerwin (2008-08-13 2:34 am)

oil sand! YESS! thankyou thankyou thankyou

Tallgeese wrote:

I find it hard to believe that Russia wiped out Georgia's military and wants to replace their president because they thought Georgia was playing too rough with their own territory. I find it a lot easier to believe that Russia wants to re-assert itself in its former satellite nations.

Oh puhleez.

I suppose it has nothing to do with the Georgians shelling a city that not only housed both their peacekeepers and a large population of people Russia considers it's citizens (the majority of the population hold Russian Passports).  It certainly makes a heck of a lot more sense then some conspiracy that requires Georgia to play into.

Meanwhile, they've broken their own truce and started the tanks rolling again.

An AP reporter saw several dozen Russian military trucks and armored vehicles speeding out of Gori and heading south, further from the breakaway province of South Ossetia.

Soldiers waved at journalists and one soldier shouted to a photographer takning shots of the convoy: "Come with us, beauty, we're going to Tbilisi." Gori is about a 90-minute drive from the Georgian capital.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Let me acquaint you with a useful word: "pretext."

That road is a two way street.  It's pretty clear Georgia is trying to push US and Israeli involvement in the region. 

ShnickyShnack wrote:

If that "shelling" really did cause all this, how frigging disproportionate was the Russian response?

One upmanship is the name of the game.  How disproportionate is shelling and bombarding urban areas for what small skirmishes and alleged mortar attacks?  Don't get me wrong Russia certainly doesn't come from this smelling like roses but it's not unreasonable to want the smurf at their doorstep to stop pretty fast.

ShnickyShnack wrote:

It's very clear the Russians have been preparing for this for a long time, moving their troops into place. Had a clerk in a Georgian dog catcher's office farted in Russia's general direction, the soldiers would have gotten the go code.

I suppose that has nothing to do with a country in an relatively unstable region moving from spending about $200 million in defense to a billion two years later.  That is 5.6% of their GDP.  One would have to be foolish to not move assets to the region when something like that is going on.

RatFink wrote:

Then Russia certainly is playing the long game.  The Russians have been issuing passports to S.O. since 1992.

...and you don't recognize the pretext it provides?  You yourself made that very argument for them in this thread.

The Quebecers don't want to be French.

bratboy wrote:

RatFink wrote:

Then Russia certainly is playing the long game.  The Russians have been issuing passports to S.O. since 1992.

...and you don't recognize the pretext it provides?  You yourself made that very argument for them in this thread.

Oh pretexting is going on on both sides, don't get me wrong.  But I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that Russia enacting a law allowing people in the soviet breakaway countries the ability to apply for Russian passports over 16 years ago and 3 presidents ago is a pretext for this war.  Conspiracies at that scale pretty much require clairvoyance.

RatFink wrote:

Oh pretexting is going on on both sides, don't get me wrong.  But I think it's a pretty big stretch to say that Russia enacting a law allowing people in the soviet breakaway countries the ability to apply for Russian passports over 16 years ago and 3 presidents ago is a pretext for this war.  Conspiracies at that scale pretty much require clairvoyance.

I don't get why you keep referring to this as a "conspiracy," or why you would assert that it has to represent a  "pretext" for "this war" in particular and not for a general attempt to maintain influence over bordering regions.

bratboy wrote:

I don't get why you keep referring to this as a "conspiracy," or why you would assert that it has to represent a  "pretext" for "this war" in particular and not for a general attempt to maintain influence over bordering regions.

That might have something to do with the last few posts we were talking about pretexting of the war.

Russia is a lot of things but one thing it's never been is subtle about it's influence on it's border regions and in particular those ex-soviet states.   As for the passports, Russia wasn't forcing them down people's neck.  The fact that such a high number of people applied for them (currently 90%) clearly shows Russia has considerable influence within the region and probably would without the passports.