Comments on "Stuck in Georgia"

Opinion
All NYT
Wednesday, August 27, 2008


readers' comments
Stuck in GeorgiaBack to Article »
When the Europeans meet next week, they should agree to put on hold a trade and security deal with Moscow so long as it continues to occupy Georgia.
Comments are no longer being accepted.
Post a Comment
Editors' Selections
RSSAll Comments - Oldest First
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
1 - 25 of 118Show:
Oldest First Newest First Readers' Recommendations Editors' Selections Replies
1.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
The problem with Georgia is that Russia has abundant oil and gas resources within its borders while the U.S., which has effectively none, has spent billions building oil pipelines that traverse Georgia, half a world away, and is securing those facilities with an arms buildup on Russia's Caucasian flank that poses by any definition an unacceptable threat to Russia.Anti-Russia propaganda in the U.S. is meant to obfuscate this simple fact: the U.S. is not entitled to threaten any country, especially a major power this way.The correct solution to the U.S.'s lack of adequate domestic fossil fuels is to apply its capital and ingenuity to developing technological alternatives. Dabbling in failed 19th Century geostrategic power politics is dangerous in the first place and inherently doomed to fail as a consequence of geography.
— Bill Appledorf, San Francisco
Recommend Recommended by 63 Readers
2.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
If Russia made it a national goal and election issue to direct outcomes and affect control miles from our border, in Tijuana, I'm sure Americans would be upset and deeply concerned. McCain, in attempting to do so (with the help of the usual suspects) is twisting common sense in an attempt to create an election issue, where we are certain to create trouble for ourselves. The GOP is ignoring good midwesten common-sense regarding alliances that kept this nation wise. Americans must reject these entanglements. They are illusions of industry and elections with very real and dangerous potential consequences.
— John, St. Louis
Recommend Recommended by 31 Readers
3.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
All right then. They should also agree to put a hold on any trade or security agreements with any nations occupying Iraq or Afghanistan, Kosovo, Palestine, any part of Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia... This way, we'll finally get rid of NATO, put some pressure on Israel, and freeze basically all world trade.
— christian h., Chicago
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
4.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Since Communism is gone, this distinction between "West" and "East" is a lot of oil-related baloney. Putin's party United Russia fills the space between libertarian and Communist. In other words, he's the Russian equivalent of a centrist Republicrat. This is not the rebirth of Communism. This is a resource competition, nothing more. This is a competition over oil.
— Patricia, Pasadena, CA
Recommend Recommended by 34 Readers
5.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Could it be that Vice President Dick Cheney and his associates encouraged Mr. Saakashvili to take Tskhinvali by force? If yes, it makes sense for him to go to Georgia and pat Mr. Saakashvili on the back. No doubts that Mr. Putin and his associates did a good job provoking Mr. Saakashvili. People enjoy doing what they know how to do. Cold war warriors need a cold war to fight.
— MB, Mountain View, CA
Recommend Recommended by 17 Readers
6.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
As we assess this debacle it is legitimate to ask whether in having a senior foreign policy advisor to John McCain on its payroll the Georgian government believed it had information and leverage. The issue is not whether that perception was accurate, only that we may assume it was not paying $200,000 monthly for cooking tips. Certainly Senator McCain´s response to the Russian invasion was exactly what Georgia could have asked for. Even if that reflects knee-jerk militarism rather vulnerability to influence peddling it still raises questions about his judgement and reveals enormous gaps in his understanding of the geopolitical realities between the Black and Caspian Sea.
— Jack, Portland, OR
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
7.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Instead of just complaining about Russia's actions in Georgia, the West should coolly think why they have lost Russia? After the break up of Soviet Union, a democratic Russia was emerging after thousand years of authoritarian rule, except that the Yelstin's era was a period of anarchy and kleptocracy. The choice for Putin was to allow the anarchy to continue leading to a break up of Russia herself or establish order and stability. However instead of supporting the new state, the West in general and Europe in particular kept lecturing Russia, continued playing the cold war politics and has pushed Russia too hard.The West is seeing the consequences of this intellectually bankrupt policy. What is the basis of West's recognition of Kosovo as an independent country? Russia is only copying West's action in the Balkan and Kosovo in Georgia. Instead of falling in the trap of just criticizing Russia, the United States should take the lead to bring Russia back in our fold as a democratic ally. This will require a change in mindset on the part of the West including a change of cold war thinking and a mutually agreed approach to solve the international problems. It is time that we start treating Russia with respect otherwise we will only push her in to the waiting arms of communist and fascist China.
— Krishna, USA
Recommend Recommended by 37 Readers
8.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
Your editorial says Georgia's president has learned nothing from the past two weeks. To the contrary, Mr. Saakashvili has learned that the international political consequences of his having ordered a massive night-time shelling of one of his own provincial capitols are predominantly favorable to him -- praise from his main foreign backer, the Bush Administration; pledges of continued support from both "major" US presidential candidates; widespread backing by our Congress; condemnation by "the international community" of Russia for responding with military force to his prior exercise of military force; and the prospects of more financial and military support from the US and other "civilized" nations who apparently have no problem with shelling their own civilian populations when "territorial integrity" is in play. I'd say Mr. Saakashvili has learned well that crime pays when the criminal is the president of a small "democracy" whose "bad judgments" invite retaliatory action by a large democracy that the "international community" deems untrustworthy because of an undemocratic history. It is of course somewhat odd to this Korean War veteran who grew up during the Great Depression and World War II to see Germany prominent among the "international community" who distrust Russia because of its undemocratic history. But then our Government's backing of Georgia's "sneak attack" on one of its own cities is somewhat odd, since this American remembers Pearl Harbor.
— Richard Young, Bayfield, Colo.
Recommend Recommended by 59 Readers
9.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
One thing a lot of folks do not seem to realize is that the War has never ended. We just dropped the word Cold. Soviet Union lost the first round, which did not result in peace. To the contrary, The US and NATO responded by pushing deeper and deeper into the old Soviet sphere of influence. Even though Russia become a democratic nation under Yeltzin, has the NATO ever believed that the Russia is not a threat anymore? The Russians may have naively believed that the West will build a true partnership with Russia. A lot have happened to prove them wrong. Why place the missile shield systems in those countries? Are we truly believing that the Russians will continue to be fooled into accepting our spin that they are aimed at Iran? This is where we seem to disconnect from the reality. The Russians have awakened to the brutal reality and they responded brutally.The Cold War has transformed into a Warm 'n Fuzzy War. We talk nicely but act nasty. Well, it is in your own interest if we stick our fingers in your eyes. We are not really against you, you know, just don't feel threatened if we armed your neighbors. You have nothing to fear whatsoever. Well, fear it is!!!This whole thing should be looked at in this context.The West has one choice to make. It is time to drop the Cold War mentality and treat Russia as a true partner. If you want to include the former Eastern European countries into NATO, accept Russia as NATO member as well. Why not if Russia is not an enemy? Russia suggested that they join NATO. What was the response they got? Enough said.There is a funny argument going around saying that Russia will lose dearly if they do this or that. No, they've lost enough already and they will lose more if they don't react. Now, they are actually gaining by turning the tables. All the perceived losses are only pies in the sky.This War will continue and another balance will be reached. In the short term, Russia will score a few points. Face it and live with it.
— JD, California
Recommend Recommended by 30 Readers
10.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
As far as I can recall the matter, it was Georgia who invaded first. In my opinion Europe should work even closer with Russia. Russia is our trade partner, we depend on their deliveries and they are purchase our manufactured goods.Why should we spend a cold winter, only because the USA can't access so easily to the Caspian oil with the aid of the New York lawyer and today president of Georgia?Why don't we stop instead the trade with the USA, who after all invaded ilegally a country and brought us the terrible present of a "free" Kosovo?Sorry but I find the attitude of this article not honest and not neutral at all.
— Bandidita, Germany
Recommend Recommended by 56 Readers
11.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
In apportioning the blame in this debacle, the NYT is, unfortunately, once again parroting the Bush administration.One, Russia did not attack Georgia, it was the other way around. Georgia, not Russia, was the aggressor.Two, while Russia's support for the independence of Abkhazia and Ossetia is against international law, the USA and Europe set precedents that Mr. Putin is only following. The situation is identical with Kosovo. There, a region that wanted independence from its nation was supported in her intent by the USA and Europe, to the cost of 1 billion € a year, several thousand NATO and now European troops, an almost one month of indiscriminate bombing of Serbian targets. It was the USA and Europe that flaunted international law then.Three, as soon as Georgia attacked, Russia called an urgent meeting of the Security Council, it did the right thing by international law. The USA and UK refused to have the Security Council call for an immediate ceasefire, because then Georgia was winning. The USA and the UK prevented the UN doing what it was built for.Fourth, Russia's security concerns have being all but ignored by NATO after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It was the West, particularly the USA, that was giddy, blind be her success in the cold war. Why, otherwise, arm Georgians to the teeth (70% of Georgia's budget was spent on weapons supplied by the USA and Israel) and encouraging them to attack? This blustering, imperial attitude of the USA does nothing for peace and security.Let's hope that the new President will change course -- with the help of the press that used to be objective and free of this poisonous chavinism. I also hope our European leaders will finally stop taking their clue from the Pentagon and develop a unitary foreign and military policy that serves our European interests and not the American ones. Power less concentrated in one country would be good for everyone.
— Garlo Geneletti, Italy
Recommend Recommended by 75 Readers
12.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
I wish I could see the guiding principle.There are times we staunchly support small provinces breaking away from dominant neighbors, such as Kosovo vs. Serbia. Other times we staunchly oppose it, telling Ossetians they must obediently bow to the violent rule of Georgia.Do we support a breakup when it weakens an adversary (Serbia), and do we oppose it when it splinters an ally (Georgia)?I hope I'm wrong.Finally, I wonder how much weight our outrage carries, given the moral hole we're speaking from. Yesterday the UN confirmed 60 children were wiped out by a single NATO raid in Afghanistan. I won't rattle off the depressingly long list of atrocities we've committed in the name of good the last seven years, but I challenge anyone, including the Times, to make their own "who has killed more civilians in this millennium"-list, before they call the kettle black.
— erik harrison, mountain view, ca
Recommend Recommended by 58 Readers
13.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
To put some real short-term pressure on Putin, the West should move past largely symbolic gestures like rescinding G8 or blocking WTO memberships, of which Putin could care a wit, and focus on a few truly nasty actions that can raise his temperature without raising the chances of military confrontation. Here's one: how about putting some pressure on the Russian oligarchs that have ensconced themselves in thoroughly Western places like London's Billionaire Row and the French Riviera, not to mention NYC towers, LA beaches, San Francisco hilltops and Miami waterways right here at home. These "titans" of Russian industry and finance are to a one variously guilty of money laundering, tax evasion, corruption, fraud and often murder. How about going after some of these guys to let them know that life for them changes, if Putin doesn't. They might be able to get to Putin in ways that others and standard diplomacy cannot, so hound them until they understand that they might actually have to live in Russia, rather than the comfortable West, unless they do something about Putin. Now, Putin is a Russian nationalist while the oligarchs are primarily the soulless children of Soviet apparatchiks that enriched themselves in the least admirable ways, so they may very well buckle long before Putin begins to feel any heat, but no reason not to try. No moral quandary at all in putting the screws to a few less than holy Russian oligarchs and seeing what turns out.
— Bob Paje, CA
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
14.
August 27th, 2008 6:12 am
Link
American journalists continue to invent their own reality. Can anybody tell, what kind of rebellion the recognition of the SO&AB can inspire in Transdniestria and Karabakh? Both have long seceded from their former countries and I really fail to see what they may rebel about.As for Russia's own ethnic enclaves, it should be understood that Ossetia and Abkhazia's independence is a move to join Russia, in all practical terms. What happened greatly improved Moscow's standing with the peoples of the North Caucusus, not the other way around. By the way, Chechen units participated in this war alongside the Russian Army, and, reportedly, were good. As for Tatarstan, it does not have a really strong secessionist movement but it is O.K. for an NYT journalist to be unaware of this. Not misspelling the place's name is already a kind of achievement.
— DDF, Moscow
Recommend Recommended by 23 Readers
15.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
The situation between the United States and Russia is becoming very dangerous and tensions are moving up quickly and I hope the United States and Russia will come to a sensible conclusion soon before we head down toward another cold war which I think would be bad for both Russia and the United States and both countries have much to loose if they don't resolve this situation quickly. The Bush administration and John McCain approached have failed to resolve this situation quickly and has created a tension that should has been resolve quickly. Bush and McCain have offered strong rhetoric and no actions to back up their words. Bush and McCain destroyed America's credibility when we invaded a sovereign country, Iraq, we don't have credibility to stop Russia from doing likewise.The facts are, Russians understand that the United States and NATO have much to loose if they try to isolate them. First, the United States is fighting two wars, both in Iraq and Afghanistan, we will need the Russians help on intelligence, cooperation, and counter insurgency tactics to battle the Taliban. If we isolate the Russians, they can easily supplies our enemies will weapons. Second, we will need the Russian to help stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The Russians can easily hinder us in both the UN security council and supplies Iran with weapons if we try to isolate them. Third, most of Europe receive their natural gas and oil from Russia. If Europe isolate Russia, it can easily stop the flow of gas and oil which will be detriment to their economies. Fourth, we will need Russia to deal with our enemies in the Asia - pacific like North Korea. If North Korea and Iran see that there is division between Russia and the United States, they will exploit it. Lastly, Russia has more nuclear weapons which most countries that are enemies of the United and terrorists need, if any of these nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists, we are all doom. So it is important that United States try to build a relationship between Georgia and Russia. After all, they are neighbors and relatives. We should stop the aggressive approach and lambasted statements from Georgian president and try to bring these parties together to solve the crisis quickly. It is not in anybody interest if the United States and Russia are fighting among themselves.
— D. Johnson, New York City
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
16.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Oh, it is so easy to be hawkish on that side of Atlantic...ps. Just in case, I will be buying some extra warm mittens and scarfs for the coming winter...
— Nick M, Landshut, Germany
Recommend Recommended by 19 Readers
17.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
It seems that the Times is on its way to recognize the realities of the situation in Georgia. Its advice to, essentially, 'take it easy' is commendable. It is ironic for me to, in effect, defend the Russians almost exactly 40 years after I had to leave my native Czechoslovakia after their arrival in Prague on August 21. Well, personally I have to be grateful to them: their action forced me to overcome my hesitation to come to this wonderful country where I have spent the best years of my life. Maybe this is coloring my rejection of the US and western overreaction towards the Russian assertion of initiative in the disputed areas of Georgia. The 'recognitions' of the breakaway regions as independent states is, in my opinion, quite equivalent to the unilateral recognition of the independence of Kosovo, as the Russian like to remind us.Violation of international law? Perhaps in both instances. Yugoslavia used to be one 'sovereign' country before it started to disintegrate following Tito's death. Are there any provisions in the 'international law' for that? And what about Clinton's bombardement of Serbia that did the job of removing Milosevic but was it completely kosher? I do not think so.Moscow has been patient for a long time but the real, not imaginery humiliation was taking its toll. Good that the Times at least mentions 'real' humiliation along with an imaginary one. President Gorbachev explained their point of view very clearly in this paper a few days ago.International politics apparently depends, to some extent, on meaningless rituals we are now indulging ourselves in. They are harmless unless some immature leaders of small nations take them seriously and cause more violence and suffering of their own people.Soviets were satified for decades with a neutral Finnish government that was very careful not to irritate them during their superpower years. Onion has a wonderful piece describing Rice advising all nations strongly not to have borders with Russia. 'We will not be able to defend if you insist on those borders' Onion Rice says. Seems to me that Onion is bit ahead of the Times in their analysis of the situation.Still, Cheyney's bluster (a trademark of his destructive behavior) may be quite harmful. No chance, of course, that he will listen to theTimes - he probably never reads the paper. He probably does not read, period.Fortunately, 40 years ago and now the military movements did not result in too many casualties. In Czechoslovakia the Russian casualties were mostly because of accidents - precursor of Carter's great Persian debacle?I am not sure whether a summary of Russian and Georgian losses are available - each side will, of course, adjust its numbers up or down without much respect for reality. But there was some fighting and the Times should make its point about foolish plans continue with it to the Georgian president stronger.
— Ladislav Nemec, CA
Recommend Recommended by 15 Readers
18.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Without european dependence on russian oil, russia would have neither the means to support its expansionaist policy nor the possibility of energy blackmailof europe. The only reasonable decision that can be made is to free europe as quickly as possible from the need of russian energy. This should be done in a two-step program: first, invest massively in nuclear energy, aiming for a >80% electricity production from nuclear energy within 5 years; second, a massive investment in R&D in renewable energy. This would not only rapidly diminish our dependence of russia, but would as an added bonus diminish world oil prices, diminishing the leverage of the arab states.
— Erik De Koster, Brussels
Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers
19.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
VP Cheney is far savvier defender of US interests than the NYT editorial board. With its record of imbecilities, hysteria and hyperbole, it still speaks of catastrophic and intolerable casualties in Iraq, it has no right to sneer at anyone's judgment.The editorial speaks of Russia's vast oil wealth when in fact her oil production, as in her huge west Siberian fields, is declining. Her move against Georgia can be understood as an effort to inch towards the pipeline that runs across that country and links Europe to Central Asia's 200 billion barrels of oil. With that in her grasp Russia could pipe the tune which Europe would have to dance to. That the bear has such ambitions and seeks to revive his lost empire is in no way the fault of Bush or Cheney, no matter how often NYT ideologues say it is.It is not Putin's resentment him that is the problem, as the NYT suggests, its the reverse. He has too little fear and respect for the US, in part due to his contempt for our NYT mentality.One forgets that the only western country to ever have the real respect and devoted friendship of post tsarist Russia was Nazi Germany. Thus, across the first 3 years of WWII Stalin's Russia delivered daily trainloads of petroleum and strategic metal ores to the Reich, even as the Wehrmacht was devouring the Continent and the Luftwaffe was blitzing Britain.Russia, like all aggressive bullies, has always only understood strength.What she now would understand would be a US base in Georgia. We could station there our 35,000 men now in Afghanistan, who could be replaced by NATO forces. Stopping a recrudescing Russian empire is a vital European interest. If that 26 nation alliance, which includes Turkey's million man military, cannot supply another 35,000 combat troops, it is useless in any event.If Europe refused then the loss of Afghanistan to the Taliban would be her fault and shame. It would not diminish us. We have no strategic interests there, though the NYT, Obama and the Left have since 2002 sought to make Afghanistan the focus of our principal military effort. Whether Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda have their HQ in Afghanistan as against some nook in Pakistan, Sudan, Yemen, Lebanon, etc., does not make the US any more or less safe. But stopping Russia in its tracks, before it gets started lassoing in its lost dominions, and intimidating Europe, is in our vital interests.Cheney is quite right to go see what can be done. The NYT editorial board in sum hasn't half his brains.
— nacl, Herndon, Virginia
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
20.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
First of all, congratulations and good luck to the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, Ossetia, and Abkhazia who have successfully, so far, shaken off the oppressive yokes of Azerbaijan and Georgia respectively. These enclaves/hostage populations were deliberately and cynically created by Stalin in the 1920s to divide and rule the region. How the NYT, not to mention the West, can deem such provocative, and recent, borders sacrosanct is ironic and hypocritical.Secondly, please note that for the Caucasian leg of his trip, Dick Cheney is visiting Azerbaijan and Georgia - both countries with breakaway enclaves and strategic oil interests - but not Armenia, who is aligned with the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in neighboring Azerbaijan. Why is Armenia undeserving of his somber presence? Could it have anything to do with oil?
— riddley walker, inland
Recommend Recommended by 8 Readers
21.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
I applaud your accurate characterization of Russian dictator Vladimir Putin as a "dark hand" and of the country he rules as "poorly developed, corrupt and fragile." I also applaud your call for Europe to stand up to naked Russian aggression against a defenseless neighbor ruled by a democratically elected leader.It has now been revealed that the Russian government lied brazenly about the damage done by Georgian troops when they invaded the breakaway region of Ossetia after rebels there launched an unprovoked assault on Georgian forces (following months of violations of Georgian air space by Russian war planes, acts which were condemned by an offician UN finding). Days into the war Russia claimed 2,000 civilians had been killed in Ossetia by the Georgians. This week, Russia admitted the actual total was a mere 133.But there are two serious problems with your analysis.First, your gratuitous and partisan attack on the Bush administration will be seen by Putin as a sign of weakness. Indeed, it might even be used by him as justification for further aggression. The least you could do is wait until they actually make a mistake before attacking them. You can't seem to forsake any opportunity for a cheap pot shot at Bush, seemingly unable to see how good he looks compared to the monster that governs Russia.Second, you have totally failed to recognize your own past mistakes on Russia. You published an editorial on March 26, 2000, just after Putin was "elected" to his first term, in which you called him a "democrat" who was "impressed by the benefits of liberty and free markets" and noted that "a steady hand in the Kremlin would be welcome." It stated that "Mr. Putin helped build the beginnings of a capitalist economy in the early 1990's" -- a ridiculous falsehood, because Putin, who holds no economics or business credentials whatsoever, was in those years nothing more than the clueless lackey of a corrupt local politician who used to be his professor -- and speculated that he might choose "to advance reform while protecting the newly won liberties of the Russian people" and make "government an effective, honest and compassionate agent of change."You were wrong, needless to say. Your line on Russia has for too long been misleadingly soft and inaccurate, and you've not owned up to that. Hard to see how you can demand the Bush administration admit its own mistakes and change if you are unable to do so.
— Kim Zigfeld, New York
Recommend Recommended by 3 Readers
22.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
When the Europeans meet next week, they should agree to put on hold a trade and security deal with Washington so long as it continues to occupy Iraq and to build missile sites around Russia. Stop the hypocrisy please.
— iconoclast3, canada
Recommend Recommended by 35 Readers
23.
All Editors' Selections » EDITORS' SELECTIONS (what's this?)
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Dear Sir,Let me say first I have been for all my life a staunch supporter of US policy in world affairs: Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Desert Storm, the Iraqi war of 2003, you name it and I rooted for the US. One of the reasons I never forget, apart from being imbued with Western culture, is that in the aftermath of World War II Italy and Western Europe were saved from the bleak prospect of hunger and above all the terrifying perspective ofStalin-styled Communist rule by the Marshall Plan, Nato and the US resolve and military might.I had doubts when the US and Western Europe, Italy included, bombed and strafed Serbia for more than 80 days over the Kosovo crisis in 1999, but convinced myself that was a humanitarian intervention, as so it was depicted at that time.Then the Russo-Georgian crisis came and now the picture has become clear to me.I believe the US and Western Europe have been making the same short sighted mistakes in respect of the Russian Federation that France and the UK made towards Germany in the aftermath of World War I: in short, we have been humiliating a great and proud nation in every possible way.We need Russia's support, inter alia, in the fight against islamist terrorism and in preventing the spread of nuclear weaponry. Yet the US and Western Europe recognised Kosovo's independence disregarding Serbian and Russian protests and making short shrift of international commitments, history, logic and, I believe, our long term best interests.We violated the cardinal principle of no unilateral modification of the European borders as redrawn after World War II.Besides, the US and Western Europe have been pushing Nato membership closer and closer to Russian borders and encouranging rashly nationalistic leaders in their seek of aggrandisement, thus playing havoc with the Russians' deeply ingrained fear of encirclement and invasion, rooted as it is both in Russian history and the Russians' mentality owing to the ongoing invasions of the Mongols, Poles, Lithuanians, Swedes, the Emperor Napoleon's Grande Armée, the Austro-Germans in World War I and, lastly, the Axis Powers in World War II. On top of all that the US did not renew a missile limitation agreement with Russia.In short, we have been practicing a policy of 'roll back' with respect to the Russian Federation.Now somebody marvels that the Russian Federation is retaliating in Georgia, in respect of which Mr. Putin's warnings during the Sochi meeting with Mr. Bush were not heeded by the US President.I only hope the Georgian imbroglio does not develop in a major confrontation.E.S., Italy
— E.S., Italy
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
24.
August 27th, 2008 6:21 am
Link
Why is it that Politicians of all people have the dubious ability to 'not' learn from history? My dog has more foresight.
— AER, Cambridge, England
Recommend Recommended by 11 Readers
25.
August 27th, 2008 6:22 am
Link
If it is any consolation, Russia was repeatedly humiliated by the West as events events unfolded in Kosovo, Serbia, Abrogation of Treaties, NATO encroachment etc... So its a two way street. West lost a golden opportunity after the cold war to bring Russia into the fold rather than continuing to treat it as rogue nation of sorts.On the other hand, you need to look at the Russian point of view. Did you really expect them to do nothing. I'd say had the Russians gone on a massive bombing spree, like Israel did in Lebanon - 2006, or rounded up Saakashvilli and executed him, like US did in Iraq, then you could call that disproportionate.
— S Z, Atlanta
Recommend Recommended by 41 Readers
1 2 3 4 5 Next »
1 - 25 of 118