a_person, Russia had nothing to gain from a destabilized region. You even agreed on this earlier. Russia and Europe are the losers, on the longer term. Georgia will become closer to the west - so they also gain. However, the civilians suffered. The ones who were to gain the most, in geopolitical terms, were the US. Like I've been consistently pointing out, the "real war" is in the media for "the hearts and minds" - providing political capital and diplomatic leverage for the various geopolitical goals. It has been extremely obvious since the start of the conflict, and I've been saying this all the time.
Why don't you tell that to the Poles, Ukrainians, the Baltic states etc. They've lived side by side with Russia for thousands of years but no doubt you know better what to expect from those peace-loving, non-imperialistic Russians than they ever will. And btw while you're at it you might also try to calm down those Georgians and Chechens. Tell them that despite hundreds of years (including the last 20 years) of Russian invasions, occupations, massacres and bombings they have nothing to worry about. I am sure they'll listen to you. LOL
It's a sad fact that the Bush era will be carried into the future with the recent acts. The old strategy of "split & conquer" is tried and proven - over and over again. Geopolitically, increasing tensions led by US strategic deployments strengthening the GIUK-line (Greenland, UK and not Iceland in this instance - but still part of the central NATO defense doctrine for US defense against the former Soviet union) and forward positions in Europe (Poland and Czech republic), as well as other states increasing their military capabilities are manifesting themselves all around the world. The asian front seems more or less lost by the US facing China and the issue of Taiwan, while a number of asian nations turn their attention to China for increased stimuli to the economic growth. In South-America, Venezuela is the one poised to increasing their influence the most as they are transformed by the economic boom in energy, while Brazil and Argentina take on renewed importance as agricultural producers and economic strength and independence from the IMF and World Bank. Brazil, India and Russia are collaborating on the next generation fighter jet - the Sukhoi PAK-FA. On the european front, the recent turn of events are obviously stemming any russian growth - both economically and militarily as well as in diplomatic terms. With regards to Afhganistan and Iraq, the US will probably reap the rewards of higher NATO attention to their needs and wants. However, there are serious issues with Pakistan - where the US has stopped several projects for funding military capabilities, the leadership is in trouble, all while it seems tensions are again rising between Pakistan and India - and probably the most dangerous zone on the planet with Kashmir. On the Iran issue, we might see complications - although this is not in Russia's interests with the Chechen conflict still looming. And as Israel have toned down some of the provocations, there are signs that Syria, Iran are strengthening diplomatic and economic ties - also to other neighbours in the region. Better prepare for economic contraction that the openness we have enjoyed the last couple of decades now have seen other nations gaining importance, and the US once again asserting control for geopolitical goals. The new US presidency could perhaps see this as a gift, or a curse - depending on what kind of political stance one adheres to. Russia has certainly changed a lot and been through some transitions since the end of the Soviet union - while the US has seemingly remained the same, and still employ the same tactics as seen throughout history with destabilized regions and conflict for asserting strategic control. I wonder if the world have been changing so much, that the old mass media controls that were previously enjoyed by the superpowers now is void and economic progress around the world has taken on a growth that spurs the forerunners into economic territory where they become virtually untouchable by the US. It certainly seems the case with Brazil, India, China - and Russia as well. While Europe seems stuck between growing alongside the US and Russia - or rather - between the two -- I wonder what is best for Europe? Fundamentally, I don't perceive Russia as a threat in the near/medium term for Europe - and I think the developing democracy is what is important - not the entrenchment encouraged by the latest conflict and geopolitical bigwig game. For those who are supporters of global Laissez-faire and straight capitalism - this is a sad turn of events, but for those clinging to protectionism - it's probably too late for changing opinions in the US and the run-up for this election - as media is no doubt very negative towards any growth potential or economic ties with Russia - seen as potentially dangerous and now "a potent enemy ready to strike against liberty itself". Well, accountability is one thing that is sadly lacking in today's democracies. Maybe we can figure it out some day - hopefully.
Deafening is the sound of scales falling from Western eyes, though it's worth noting how few commentaries about the post-Georgia reality have mentioned the wolves already inside the West -- the terror brigades of radical Islam. Iran's mullahs watch and wait; they'll grab the Gulf once it is clear the West won't resist. Soon? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/putins_rules_or_ours_1.html Good for you. As I pointed out in my previous post all Russian neighbors (every one of them) disagree with you, all of them are terrified of Russia, all of them are enraged by what Russia is doing in Georgia. But what do they know? Funny that you said that as I was just about to address this very issue: After Mikheil Saakashvili was elected president of Georgia in 2004 at age 36, he and his young colleagues began a crash program to integrate their nation into the global world order. Georgia has tried to become both a democracy and free-market economy. It's worth noting that like Mr. Saakashvili, a Columbia Law graduate who came to the U.S. from Georgia on a State Department Muskie Fellowship, many of his young ministers were schooled at places like Duke, Southern Methodist, Indiana or in Tel Aviv, Israel. They returned to Tbilisi and with Mr. Saakashvili began to erect, piece by piece, a political, economic and financial system that could plug itself smoothly into the ones already running in the West. On balance, they've succeeded. Growth last year was about 12%. Foreign investment flows have been high...They passed laws to enhance property rights. They joined international conventions and institutions affecting arbitration, accounting and ownership. They changed their securities law so corporate insiders couldn't expropriate minority investors. They have pursued free-trade agreements with their regional trading partners. Naturally they want to join NATO. Georgia isn't John Locke's England yet -- the judicial system is notably weak -- but the trajectory is set. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/putins_rules_or_ours_1.html
Seemingly, the biased or sometimes naive reporting - seen from the russian perspective - from the area is becoming increasingly dangerous for reporters encountering russian soldiers. That is something that will not work out well for Russia, unless they can withdraw soon - as the aftermath and fighting for political rewards is mostly happening through the media.
BTW, this is your opinion only, besides the fact that no Russian neighbor agrees with you as I mentioned earlier, here is an opinion of an expert - Dr. Brenda Shaffer is a faculty member at the University of Haifa, specializing in the politics of the Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran and energy issues. Moscow's support of these groups' secession provided leverage for Russia in these new states during the Soviet breakup and until today. Minority groups in Georgia were especially enticing objects for support: Georgia is the key to the land-locked Caspian region. If you control Georgia, or it is unstable, there is no need for Russia to muscle the rest of the Caucasus and Central Asia: all these land-locked states need Georgia to access the sea and to export their energy resources to Europe without transiting Russia. ... this spring Georgia asked to join NATO. Despite Washington's unequivocal support for Tbilisi, European states expressed reservations about accepting Georgia before it resolved its border conflicts with Russia. The re-firing of the conflict will surely increase the potency of that concern and push Georgia's NATO membership beyond the horizon. ... Russia wants to retain its domination of the European natural gas market. Europe's energy dependence on Russia is growing from day to day, and this endows Moscow with significant income and political clout. A large part of the natural gas that Russia markets to Europe is actually from Central Asia, and Moscow coerces those states to sell it to Russia at half the price for which it then resells it to Europe. In recent months, Central Asian states have explored circumventing Russia and transporting their gas resources directly to Europe via Georgia. The present conflict clearly upsets these plans. http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710367279&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull So Moscow is not interested in destabilizing the region, huh? Check mate my friend.
a_person, if you weigh up the rewards and risks for any realistic outcome and geopolitical strategy - from a conflict in Georgia - the russians would have been mad to play all of this into the hands of the US. And that is a crucial point - they had no incentive to start this conflict, nor did they in fact start this conflict. So, check your sense of critical thinking first.
My critical thinking tells me to side with a pro-democratic, pro-free market Columbia educated human rights activist Saakashvili rather than former KGB officer with the record of totalitarian and anti-democratic reforms. My critical thinking also tells me that an anonymous blogger like you is likely to have no idea what he's talking about and is likely driven by pure anti-american hatred while an expert specializing in Caucasus, Central Asia, Iran and energy issues and a dozen Russian neighbors can't all be wrong. They miscalculated, overplayed their hand. Happens to the best of us. They took a side in a conflict that had nothing to do with them and thought they could get away with it but Georgia found a way to turn the table on them and put the Russians in a lose-lose situation. And who can blame them if the only way to deal with Russia is to beat them at their own game.
a_person, so - the russians initiated the conflict? It's a irrefutable fact that it was Georgia who attacked South Ossetia. You are back to your sabotaging tactics again.