Russia's actions causing a new cold war

[dukeh016]

Something tells me that you don't live very near to Russia. I can't say for sure because it does not tell in your bio. Did you ever thought that to some people Russia is a neighbouring country, which makes it very important to watch what they are doing. I live in Finland, and we have more than 1000 kilometres of joined border with Russia. If Russia is going to start something larger in Europe, Finland would be first in line, as well as in the fallout area if other countries would decide to use nuclear weapons.

Actually, Finland has already been designated as the "Weapons Calibration Zone." We bomb you guys first to make sure our missles are aiming correctly. Welcome to usefulness!

Russia gets its money from oil. Europe gets its oil from Russia. Oil make Europe happy. Money make Russia happy. Laws of Deduction = No Cold War. This is nothing more than a happy little round of phallic-waving activities used by Russia to establish its political dominance over its smaller neighbors.

And to the comments of bear-baiting. Well of course! You remember the cold war? Yea, the United States was awesome back then. Diplomacy is much easier when we are the only thing between you and nuclear winter. Perhaps I'm too cynical.

 

[Azhrarn-101]

Russia gets its money from oil. Europe gets its oil from Russia. Oil make Europe happy. Money make Russia happy. Laws of Deduction = No Cold War. This is nothing more than a happy little round of phallic-waving activities used by Russia to establish its political dominance over its smaller neighbours.

Ofcourse it is, but that doesn't mean the average european citizen has to like it.
It's mainly the natural gas and oil that Russia has that we can't really do without for more than a week or so that keeps the EU politicians out of the fight here.
My earlier post was mainly wishful thinking on my part, I am well aware that the EU can't do that because of that dependency.

 

[MurmurTwins]

Russia can do whatever they like. In the end, no matter what the situation is, it's somehow America's fault.

"Sorry, Georgia. No more aid and support from us. Since we're forcing Russia to rampage through your communities, we feel it's silly to also give you food and supplies."

"Well, maybe some other country can do something for you instead?"

"(...we'll cross our fingers, too.)"

 

[Death Magnetic]

Why do the west have to get involved with everything? It's just going to end in tears and nuclear warheads.

 

[anti_strunt]

One problem with this talk of "cold war", is that it would really just be "Russia vs. the World". China is happy with the status quo and won't get involved. Russia has few allies, and zero of any real strategic value (yay, Belorussia). They are no longer the centre of a world ideology, and while they might have the resources to bribe some third-world dictators, that won't bring them much.

All Russia can accomplish with belligerence is isolation...

Instead of looking at the passport issue in that maner, its more like the south Ossetians want the protection of Russia, and apply for Russian citizenship. As for intervening on behalf of Russian citizens, I'm pretty sure the US has done this more than enough times around the world and there was never this kind of outcry.

I wouldn't put the US above bombing some third-world country that had taken a party of tourists hostage, but that wasn't my point.

I generally support separatist movements, as I think all states should be based on the will of the people, and if some people want a separate state - fine. However, giving away citizenship to large numbers of foreign nationals while they are still living in another country is an utterly horrible way of solving things. The basic situation is not fixed; you're simply inviting more trouble, and I don't think Russia was ignorant of this.

So, if we assume that Russia acted primarily out of humanitarian concern (which I doubt), they did a very poor job of it. Instead of unilaterally declaring the separatist population to now be Russians, not just in spirit, but legally, while still living on what was technically Georgian soil they should have sought some form of permanent, diplomatic solution.

Right now Russia exports something over 40% of Germanys oil, and a great deal of other nations as well. (not sure on the exact numbers for the others.) Yes Russia can cut off oil supplies for europe, but thats a double edged sword, as where do you think that the majority of Russia's income comes from?

Obviously. But in a market with limited resources (and oil and gas are nothing if not limited!) the seller will have more market power than the buyer, so Russia still comes up on top.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

As a Canadian, I dislike seperatists, but our seperatists are like parasites, desperately wanting all the "advantages" of being their own nation while holding onto the "convenient" things like Infrastracture, Passports and Currency, oh yeah, not to mention our GNP... sorry, I'll stop the Quebec rant.

I don't think Russia CAN start a new cold war, and I don't think they REALLY want to, they just want to get back some of what they lost with the fall of the Soviet Union. And I don't think they would reconquor all of those countries if they could, it's not feasible to run an Empire that big with as few resources as Russia has.

 

[Gooble]

3 points:

1. The Georgians invaded South Ossetia, which is populated by Russian citizens-Russia had a duty to protect them

2. A missile defence system next to any country is dangerous-it gets rid of mutually assured destruction in a nuclear war, and even if America didnt want to go to war with Russia now, it could be incredibly important in the future

3. For those saying that Russia can't afford a Cold War, America and Britain can't really either. They can't afford an arms race, due to the current economic downturn, nor a stand off in Europe, due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (can't afford to send troops elsewhere). And for those saying about trade isolation for Russia, remember China is a strong Russian ally.

 

[anti_strunt]

3 points:

1. The Georgians invaded South Ossetia, which is populated by Russian citizens-Russia had a duty to protect them

South Ossetia was a part (autonomous oblast?) of the Georgian SSR, which was the entity that declared indepedence from the Soviet Union. Not being a lawyer I'm not sure of the specifics, but I have never seen anything to indicate that South Ossetia was ever, legally anything else than a part of Georgia. Georgia was thus not invading anything; it was acting against a separatist movement within its territory.
(A separatist movement which I theoretically support, although South Ossetia should really be joined with North Ossetia - the division is nothing more than a relic of Tsarist/Soviet administration.)

The citizenship issue I've already mentioned. Suffice to say, they were only "Russian citizens" because Russia made them citizens.
Making a large number of foreign nationals citizens, and then invading the country they live in to protect them is, in my humble opinio not acceptable international behaviour. If Russia wanted to intervene for humanitarian reasons, there were always other, better options.
The fact that these options were not pursued might hint at ulterior motives.

3. For those saying that Russia can't afford a Cold War, America and Britain can't really either. They can't afford an arms race, due to the current economic downturn, nor a stand off in Europe, due to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (can't afford to send troops elsewhere). And for those saying about trade isolation for Russia, remember China is a strong Russian ally.

Again: China wouldn't halt their stellar economic rise just for the sake of Russia. No.

China is strong enough not to need Russia; and Russia has precious little to offer in exchange for such a commitment.

China currently wants peace, trade, and possibly Taiwan...

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Landwise China wants what China has always wanted "The Borders of Traditional China" which includes Taiwan and Tibet, they don't want NEW territory, they're having enough trouble with what they've got.

 

[fulano]

Ehm, I'm not sure if people have read the official statements by countries around the world regarding the matter, but one thing stands out a lot:

QUOTING:

China is "concerned of the latest development in South Ossetia and Abkhazia". He also said "We have a knowledge of the complicated history and reality of the South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues. In accordance with China's consistent and principled stance on issues of this kind, we hope the relevant parties can resolve the issue through dialogue and consultation."

/END QUOTE

I find it odd that while the western world is lambasting Russia for this darn daring move, the Chinese are seemingly calm, resting in their laurels.

Make no mistake, Russia IS starting something, and so far that something seems to be, for now, limiting access to NATO, and they are using the whole Kosovo breakaway to make that point. I'm not sure what they are after, but to me it seems like they are vying for more control over the ex-soviet republics on the long haul.

Also, someone mentioned Russia being pure realpolitik, and yes, you are right, but let's not forget that the U.S is too, It did go to war unilaterally against Iraq while the U.N was still delivering on the matter and people let that stuff fly. Well, I'm sure the Russians still remember that, and now they are behaving in that exact way as a bargaining tool. Now we have a rising superpower being just as belligerent as the current one.
Whatever is gonna happen, Russia doesn't need Europe's vote of confidence on anything to launch whatever they want. Today is getting into Georgia and making them shit bricks, tomorrow who knows.

Now, if I'm wrong, please correct me, but to me it seems that Russia is so big and so loaded with natural resources that if anyone tries to force sanctions on it there won't be much of an impact, and what's worse, they are organized now. If they get really belligerent they can just cut trading with Europe and then gas prices will soar through the roof. If push comes to shove I don't want to be in the middle. Right now the U.S isn't really in shape to call Russia on anything (war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, shaky economy as of right now), and the E.U isn't in better shape either. The Chinese are keeping mum, of course, and everyone else is whining, and somehow, still, people don't seem to mention that Georgia was looking into getting NATO involved in there for a while now, which in turn would have destabilized the region just the same. My money is on the russkies looking after their interests while actually trying hard to send a message to the world. I mean, you don't just blitzkrieg an entire army just for the ?lulz?, or do you?

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Despite being a Russian, I am as far from what happens in my country as my ass is from the dark side of... Pluto. I just know that I'm with Russia on this (call it instinct, or retarded patriotism). I really wouldn't want a war, because if the war between USA and Russia is reanimated than maybe Greece (and the other countries I guess) might be caught in the crossfire. I hope the conflict settles down before the shit hits the fan :S

 

[MaybeTroll]

I'd be glad to see another cold war. It'd keep things interesting.

 

[Ionait]

Poof

 

[fulano]

I'd be glad to see another cold war. It'd keep things interesting.

Are you nuts? My country is just south of the U.S, I'd hate to be involved in that.

So far, I'm with the russkies on this one, the lesser of many evils I guess, but I'm hoping for diplomatic resolutions nonetheless.

 

[anti_strunt]

Also, someone mentioned Russia being pure realpolitik, and yes, you are right, but let's not forget that the U.S is too, It did go to war unilaterally against Iraq while the U.N was still delivering on the matter and people let that stuff fly. Well, I'm sure the Russians still remember that, and now they are behaving in that exact way as a bargaining tool. Now we have a rising superpower being just as belligerent as the current one.

People let it fly? Maybe it's just me, but as far as I remember most countries were pretty darn upset by it... I don't recall the diplomatic repercussions (not that it's easy to put pressure on the US), but no-one I knew at the time supported the war, or even saw any logical reason for waging it (and don't say oil!).

Now, if I'm wrong, please correct me, but to me it seems that Russia is so big and so loaded with natural resources that if anyone tries to force sanctions on it there won't be much of an impact, and what's worse, they are organized now. If they get really belligerent they can just cut trading with Europe and then gas prices will soar through the roof.

While she has impressive natural resources (being the largest country in the world will do that for you...), her economy is still very, very weak by western standards. A modern economy can't run on steel and coal (that's where the communists were mistaken, after all), and economic sanctions will hurt, as long as they can be enforced etc. etc.

The European dependence on Russian energy is rightly seen as a weakness.

If push comes to shove I don't want to be in the middle. Right now the U.S isn't really in shape to call Russia on anything (war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, shaky economy as of right now), and the E.U isn't in better shape either. The Chinese are keeping mum, of course, and everyone else is whining, and somehow, still, people don't seem to mention that Georgia was looking into getting NATO involved in there for a while now, which in turn would have destabilized the region just the same. My money is on the russkies looking after their interests while actually trying hard to send a message to the world. I mean, you don't just blitzkrieg an entire army just for the ?lulz?, or do you?

Aside from the nukes, Russia is currently not a real military threat to the west - her army could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else.

 

[anti_strunt]

Yes, the current situation with Russia is pretty fucked up. But what pisses me off is the hypocrisy people spout when commenting on the situation. I mean, Russia isn't the only country with a dodgy human rights record.

Hmh, is this really a road we want to go down? ;-)

Nearly every single country in the western world is guilty of human rights abuse, espionage, starting fights where they shouldn't, and other illegal shit. Last I heard, America was still shipping undesirables of to Guantanamo to have the shit waterboarded out of them. Heck, half of Europe has still got troops in Iraq, and we know for a fact that we were lied to in order toget us there in the first place!

I've never understood how trying to help keep the peace after the clusterfuck which was the original invasion should be seen as collusion with said invasion? The only people who get hurt are the Iraqis, and they've suffered enough.

 

[fulano]

Also, someone mentioned Russia being pure realpolitik, and yes, you are right, but let's not forget that the U.S is too, It did go to war unilaterally against Iraq while the U.N was still delivering on the matter and people let that stuff fly. Well, I'm sure the Russians still remember that, and now they are behaving in that exact way as a bargaining tool. Now we have a rising superpower being just as belligerent as the current one.

People let it fly? Maybe it's just me, but as far as I remember most countries were pretty darn upset by it... I don't recall the diplomatic repercussions (not that it's easy to put pressure on the US), but no-one I knew at the time supported the war, or even saw any logical reason for waging it (and don't say oil!).

Now, if I'm wrong, please correct me, but to me it seems that Russia is so big and so loaded with natural resources that if anyone tries to force sanctions on it there won't be much of an impact, and what's worse, they are organized now. If they get really belligerent they can just cut trading with Europe and then gas prices will soar through the roof.

While she has impressive natural resources (being the largest country in the world will do that for you...), her economy is still very, very weak by western standards. A modern economy can't run on steel and coal (that's where the communists were mistaken, after all), and economic sanctions will hurt, as long as they can be enforced etc. etc.

The European dependence on Russian energy is rightly seen as a weakness.

If push comes to shove I don't want to be in the middle. Right now the U.S isn't really in shape to call Russia on anything (war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, shaky economy as of right now), and the E.U isn't in better shape either. The Chinese are keeping mum, of course, and everyone else is whining, and somehow, still, people don't seem to mention that Georgia was looking into getting NATO involved in there for a while now, which in turn would have destabilized the region just the same. My money is on the russkies looking after their interests while actually trying hard to send a message to the world. I mean, you don't just blitzkrieg an entire army just for the ?lulz?, or do you?

Aside from the nukes, Russia is currently not a real military threat to the west - her army could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else.

First of all, Thanks for answering.

Now, to the meaty stuff:

I do not agree with you, people DID let it fly when the U.S attacked Iraq. Everyone complained and opposed the war, but nobody did a real tangible thing. You could argue that people opposed the U.S diplomatically, but not one country even went as far as to even try to enforce sanctions on it.

I agree with you that a modern nation's economy can't run on steel and coal, but you forget that mama Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and is number eight on oil reserves. As far as I can see, the russkies have plenty to go by. Please explain what you mean by Russia's economy being weak by western standards.

Maybe you have some gnarly history books I don't know about, but as far as I've read; today Russia has modern nukes enough to carpet bomb the better part of Europe, and modern missiles, and a modern air force(maybe not up to snuff with Israel but who knows), and modern army equipment. What I'm really saying is that I don't really want to find out. I'm not talking about mama Russia being a threat to the west or not, but so far, we can't really comment on the real state of its army in a full scale war, even less now, after having it do a massive blitzkrieg on a neighboring country. What we can tell is that they are no pushovers. We can't really say in any informed manner that the Russian army ?could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else,? I feel we could at least agree to that.

EDIT: Someone asked for this

http://www.russiatoday.com/en
http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok

two very opposing sides of the same coin.

 

[BardSeed]

You forgot to mention that Russia has a shit-load of chemical and biological weapons. They were supposed to dispose of them but I don't think they got around to it..
Sources: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/cw.htm
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/bw.htm

 

[anti_strunt]

First of all, Thanks for answering.

No problem. Trying to have a decent political discussion in the Age of Conan chats proved somewhat difficult, so I'm taking the opportunity.

Now, to the meaty stuff:

I do not agree with you, people DID let it fly when the U.S attacked Iraq. Everyone complained and opposed the war, but nobody did a real tangible thing. You could argue that people opposed the U.S diplomatically, but not one country even went as far as to even try to enforce sanctions on it.

Well, so far the same could be said for the current conflict... I doubt any sanctions will actually be put in place unless things get much nastier, and then we'll have far greater problems anyway...

As for the Iraqi conflict, I certainly don't think the lesson we should learn from that is not to take action when large countries run amok...

I agree with you that a modern nation's economy can't run on steel and coal, but you forget that mama Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, the second largest coal reserves, and is number eight on oil reserves. As far as I can see, the russkies have plenty to go by. Please explain what you mean by Russia's economy being weak by western standards.

By "western standards", I primarily mean a economy producing high-level consumer goods and services for a wealthy internal and external market. A "post-industrial" economy as it's sometimes called. While Russia has some good industrial capacity, the people is simply too poor to provide a market, and Russia has very, very little experience in producing consumer goods (another Soviet leftover).

I could expand, but it's getting very late were I live. Tomorrow perhaps...

Maybe you have some gnarly history books I don't know about, but as far as I've read; today Russia has modern nukes enough to carpet bomb the better part of Europe, and modern missiles, and a modern air force(maybe not up to snuff with Israel but who knows), and modern army equipment. What I'm really saying is that I don't really want to find out. I'm not talking about mama Russia being a threat to the west or not, but so far, we can't really comment on the real state of its army in a full scale war, even less now, after having it do a massive blitzkrieg on a neighboring country. What we can tell is that they are no pushovers. We can't really say in any informed manner that the Russian army ?could be compared with the pre-WW2 Soviet army: a complete mess, fit for pushing around her tiny neighbours, but not much else,? I feel we could at least agree to that.

Russian Nukes are indeed to be feared. As for conventional equipment, Russia certainly has some interesting pieces of kit, but again economics are a factor. While the very best Russian equipment is often on par with Western equipment; the Russian standard equipment, the "meat", is decidedly inferior on a 1-to-1 basis. This is of course nothing strange; Russian/Soviet doctrine has never called for 1-to-1 engagements.

Whereas Western militaries have focused on quality; Russia has her sights set squarely on quantity. (Yes, an oversimplification, but still relevant.)

That goes for both hard factors (equipment) as well as soft (training etc.), but since the end of the Soviet Union training in particular has gone down the drain. The problems go deep, very deep. The officer and NCO corps are largely eroded and have a long way to go to reach Western standards; training is often abysmal (sometimes non-existant), and recruitment is more reminiscent of conscription than anything else. Logistics are often mostly notable for their absence - in Chechnya senior officers would make big money selling their own supplies; often to the very rebels they were supposed to be fighting!
That is not to say that there are not well-trained forces within Russia, but again the majority is ill-trained, ill-led, ill-supplied...

I'll recommend some reading on the Chechen war tomorrow...