August 25, 2008
All this
week, reason Associate Editor Michael C. Moynihan
takes the pages of The Los Angeles Times' Dust-Up section
to debate Russia expert Andrew Meier on the question "What
Does Putin Want?"
The first exchange centers on Russia's invasion of Georgia—and just how much Vladimir Putin wants to join "the civilized world."
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
OHHHHHHHHH so manly......he must want Russian Empire.
Is that how you spell manly?
From what I can gather from Russian web sites, if "civilised
world" includes US bombing of Serbia, Iraq war, support of
feeble-minded Nazi-lovers in Estonia, etc., etc., etc., then no,
Russia has no desire to join it.
Of course looking at the featured article that talks about "Russian
hegemony" over anything in 1979 it's pretty clear that authors are
as clueless as usual for "cremlenologists", "sovietologists" and
their ilk.
Just recently, the people of Afghanistan expressed outrage at
yet another U.S. air raid killing scores of women and
children.
If Russian continues its current behavior, it could, in time, kill
as many innocent people as U.S. and other forces have in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but they've got a lot of catching up to do.
I still give them a good score for their "disporportinate response"
as it brought a very swift end to the fighting and avoided
additional casualties.
Thanks
Is it time for Zombie Reagan!?!?!?!?
I apologize, all this Russia/Georgia hoopla is quite novel.
Disinformation is as disinformation does. To wit, "the first exchange centers on Russia's invasion of Georgia." Talk about propaganda masquerading as journalism.
Russia is actually trying to send a message to the world that she's back, and also the Russians want a fair share of that capitalism that they never got after the cold war. Instead of treating them like friends we treated them like pure shit, and now we are pointing missiles at them again. I think we have to listen to the bear again because thats what want, they want to be understood as clearly as possible.
This is Russia thumbing its noise at the US. Seeing how the US has f'd up in Iraq, it can get away with invading Georgia for the "sake of saving the S. Ossetians from its own government."
The american mainstream media has done its job well if Reason
writers buy the gibberish that Russia "invaded" Georgia.
A good libertarian journalist first must ask:
WHO INIATED THE USE OF FORCE? Every story about this "conflict"
should start with setting forth the basic facts such as:
1. Georgia iniated the use of force.
2. The united states and israel had special forces and other
military advisers on the ground in Georgia.
3. Georgia deliberately chose the opening of the Olympics to
maximize its chances of killing as many civilians as possible while
the world was not watching and to snatch south ossetia.
Knuttle-
Again, Georgia, with the backing of american and israeli boots on
the ground, killed over one thousand civilians, Georgia INITIATED
the use of force. Why should the Russians tolerate the murder of
its people? Why should Russia tolerate Georgian/American/Israeli
war crimes?
Really, it looks a lot like monkey see, monkey do to me.
Why argue over who started it (Georgia/The west...booga booga), and
enjoy Comrade Putin trying to kick butt. Or is it just kicking
butt.
Again, Georgia, with the backing of american and israeli
boots on the ground, killed over one thousand
civilians...
Put up or shut up. And no, Russian state news agencies don't
count.
it was teh joos!
No, but it was, in part, the Israelis, as noted by such
anti-Semitic venues as:
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3580136,00.html
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010187.html
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/08/did-israel-trai.html
Care for more?
oh noes, they use-a da links!
Yes. The "israelis orchestrated the georgian attack" = They had
military ties.
Even your linky links point out the obvious =
"But, by late 2007, Israeli analysts saw war and the horizon
for Russia and Georgia, Ha'Aretz observes. "The defense and foreign
ministries started ordering military exports to Georgia be cut last
year, thwarting a major deal for Israeli-made Merkava tanks...
Senior Israeli generals apparently felt a showdown was imminent,
and preferred not to get directly involved.""
...but, of course, this doesnt make any sense when you argue that
Israel *wanted* on intended to provoke conflict with Russia. Unless
you're just predisposed to a "the jews were involved!!" tinfoil
hat.
Hold on, aren't the Russians at least Muslim or some other
exotic religion? How will we be able to tell their dreams of a
military-backed petro empire from ours?
The moral equivalency is astounding.
GILMORE,
Who said "israelis orchestrated the georgian attack." I didn't see
that anywhere on the thread. I saw a comment about Georgia getting
military assistance from the US and Israel before the war.
So, Meier writes But what Putin wants, ultimately, in that
icy heart of his is for Russia to join what he and his compatriots
longingly call "the civilized world" -- shorthand for the
non-Slavic nations that boast strong cultural traditions, enduring
institutions and economies that don't collapse overnight.
China? Japan?
In other words, Europe and the U.S. He's just defining
"civilized" as "West." For the Russians. I'm not sure I'm buying
it. He could just as easily be looking at Beijing, and thinking
that Russia is starting even farther ahead economically.
Mad Ivan, is that "scratch a Tartar" thing considered racist?
libertymike | August 25, 2008, 6:56pm | #
The american mainstream media has done its job well if Reason
writers buy the gibberish that Russia "invaded" Georgia.
A good libertarian journalist first must ask:
WHO INIATED THE USE OF FORCE? Every story about this "conflict"
should start with setting forth the basic facts such as:
1. Georgia iniated the use of force.
If you are speaking about the August 7-8th time frame, then you are
way off. Georgia was responding to seperatist shellings. You can
argue it was an over-reaction, but a reaction it was. If you want
to go back before this time, you pretty much go back to the
beginning of history, following an endless string of tit-for-tats.
There is no "started it", as is often in these types of
situations.
However, this is a legitimate question of who escalated
it, and the answer is Russia all the way. They funded the
seperatists, provoked the Georgians, and massed troops on the
border who were waiting for the lamest whiff of an excuse to
over-react.
Russia is a third world nation.
Expect more instability, more failure, and more oligarchy.
Da!
Is that a cross he is wearing?
joe you can stop supporting Russia now, they are not
communists.
WHO INIATED THE USE OF FORCE? Every story about this
"conflict" should start with setting forth the basic facts such
as:
1. Georgia iniated the use of force.
After the FBI burned down the WAKO compound Canada really should
have invaded the US. 9 out of 10 libertarians agree.
Eh, the only people who ever explained anything about Russia to me that made any sense to my Western sensibilities were Dostoevsky and Nabokov. Somebody help?
joshua, you can keep supporting Georgia now. Cheney peeled your lips off his sphincter to hide out there during the convention.
"support of feeble-minded Nazi-lovers in Estonia"
A entire nation of people written off as Nazi lovers how convinent
for you.
Who said "israelis orchestrated the georgian attack." I
didn't see that anywhere on the thread. I saw a comment about
Georgia getting military assistance from the US and Israel before
the war.
Well joe, either such assistance was significant in some way that
makes it meaningful to bring it into the conversation, or it
wasn't. libertymmike obviously brought it up for some reason,
though he neglected to tell us what that reason is. If the
responses to him included some unsupported speculation regarding
why he brought that up, libertymike opened the door to that by
bringing up that stuff without telling us what was significant
about it. He still can, if he so chooses.
libertymike does make a good point about bearing in mind Georgia's
complicity, and Chad has a good response. But if it's difficult to
impossible to literally say who started it, perhaps it's fair to
say both sides escalated it unconscionably. And if Russia
retaliated by invading, it's still accurate to call it an
invasion.
Joshua, Canada didn't have peacekeepers at WACO. (There's a few
other differences too, but that's the one that can be expressed
succinctly.)
And libertymike, why the scare quotes around "conflict"? You think
this is all paddycakes?
Hasn't Russia been granting citizenship to Ossetians for quite some time despite the fact that it isn't considered a part of territorial Russia? Wouldn't that be considered a provocation of sorts?
If Russia really has balls, it would move some of the 2014 Winter Olympic events into Abkhazia. Let them have figure skating or curling.
Joe -- It's "scratch a Russian and you will find a Tartar" and
it's a classic and not really considered racist.
Travis -- did I say anything about _all_ Estonians? The official
government position is to recognize Nazi collaborators and Waffen
SS veterans as national heroes and "freedom fighters." You will
have to excuse me but but that strikes me as a sign of either
feeble mind or even feebler morals.
"support of feeble-minded Nazi-lovers in Estonia"
Ivan, that makes it sound like you're talking about the entire
nation. You made no distinction between the Estonian government
& the Estonian people.
I agree with you about the Estonian government.
Although you can stretch the "who started this" question back to
pre-history regarding the tribal/ethnic bullshit that has always
plagued the Balkans, from a modern perspective you only have to go
back as far as Kosovo in 1999. You all know what happened when
Yugoslavia dissolved, and the Western hand-wringing which
followed.
Anyway, when the Serbs started rubbing out ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo, NATO (which fundamentally means the USA) decided to throw
their weight around in the region. No UN sanction* because the
Russians and Chinese objected and would have vetoed a UN
resolution. NATO decided they were a defacto UN, and initiated a
bombing campaign, which the Russians objected to strenuously.
In their eyes,an anti-Russian alliance attacked a Russian ally
without sufficient provocation; and to their humiliation, they
didn't have the chops to do anything about it. When the bombing
didn't get the desired results, we (the West) looked to Yeltsin to
broker a truce involving a multi-national peace-keeping force
(which included Russia). We then gave Russia the back of our hand
on the peace-keeping mission.
After we pissed on Russia during their economic meltdown, these
were strikes two and three. Yeltsin loses face, and Putin's faction
rose to power.
*BTW, the UN can tongue-bathe my exit ramp.
Travis -- Well, US/NATO supports Estonian government, not people. Agreed that I could've phrazed it better...
Ivan,
I never said that I support Nato or American foreign policy. I
think President Washington was right when he warned America against
getting involved in european politics.
Now having said that I can see why the Estonian government has
acted the way they have. The Estonians didn't like being conquered
& colonized by Russia.
The Estonian governments racist policies against people of Russian
heritage are extremely short sighted & foolish for a country as
small as Estonia.
Travis,
True, I can understand that Estonians may not particularly like
Russians, although with the lack of historical precedence for
Estonian statehood, they could have been either under Russia or
Germany in either case. Still, even Polish, who hate Russia as much
as anyone, do not lower themselves to the level of gloryfying
Nazis.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245