I am Russian. I left a post in the next topic about Ossetia. I find this thread rather interesting but I would prefer to stay away from your discussion (in order not to spoil your pleasure, actually).

I’ve entered just to add some cultural streak (or cultural flavour) to some of your comments (and sorry for my rudimentary English:))

TO SMITTEN EAGLE –

Smitten Eagle Says:
August 9th, 2008 at 9:54 am
The Georgians, at a time when most countries were pulling their troops out of Iraq, increased their portion to 2000 troops (brigade strength), and they HAVE PROVEN FIERCE FIGHTERS.

My comment (I am sure the Russian ladies present in this thread would support me):

FIERCE FIGHTERS referring to Georgians (Gruzini) seems a rather funny (not to say sarcastic!) expression in the Russian cultural context. The great Russian poet (our second genius after Alexandre Pushkin) – Mikhail Lermontov who served as a military in the Caucasus in early 19th century left these verses:

THE BATTLE WAS SHORT.
AND TIMID GEORGIANS FLED…

In Russian:
НЕДОЛГО ПРОДОЛЖАЛСЯ БОЙ –
БЕЖАЛИ РОБКИЕ ГРУЗИНЫ.

If you type these words (in Russian) in any search engine (eg. in so much favoured by Russians Google :)) you will discover that these verses have gained immense popularity in these days, because… The Georgians lost. The timid Georgians fled. The war is over.

I think you would not accuse a Russian gentry Mikhail Lermontov in pro-Kremlin proparanda.

TO TATYANA

Tatyana, here in Moscow we saw on Russian TV the open sitting of Security Council (late Sunday night). Please do not mislead your American fellows by saying that Mr Churkin’s name is “fitting”. It is wrong from both realistic and cultural point of view.

Just a small clarification for Americans: “churka” (a small wooden butt) is a traditional Soviet nickname for national minority (with pejorative, dispreciative connotation). I do not think that any American brought up on political correctness would ever use it in public forum. Since Russians are more open (and you are Russian) they do not hesitate to use this term referring to any stupid or stubborn person. I fully disagree with you. Russian UNO Representative Mr Churkin looks intelligent and he behaved as a real stoic. Diplomats shall be tough, you know. (If I were in his shoes I would have given the whole bunch of hypocrites a good thrashing hasta la puta madre!). Moreover, my Russian colleages applied this pejorative word “churka” to the U.S. Representative who definitely does not look an anglo-saxon.

Tatyana, I think your comment about Mr Chukin was very much insulting. Anyway, I am not going to remind you how Russians (since the peacemaking operation in Kosovo) nickname Americans. I will be ashamed to repeat it (PINDOSTANI) but as a linguist I may reassure that this word has the same connotation as the old Russian term “churka”. So, as you may see, we Russians are as valemadristas and hilarious as Mexicans. :))

That’s all about the cultural context I wanted to bring along to you, gents and ladies.

For your reference:

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?s=536a005a9e7db4e87f43ea2d62640359&t=221429

All the best to you all,

Tarakihi
http://tetarakihi.livejournal.com/
(definitely not a KGB agent, but a Russian intelligentzia)

You can’t possibly approve of Schroeder

No, I don’t.

I’ll have to write some serious posts on the other issues

Maybe you, OK Germany does not want to incur those costs. It will have to go on paying political costs. Chancellor Merkel can wring her little hands all she likes – who cares what the German government says about Russia. Not the Russian government. Furthermore, as experience with BP and Shell show those deals that seem so good and so cheap will suddenly change when the Kremlin no longer finds them useful. You pays your money and you takes your choice.

Europe is hooked on Russian natural gas in the medium term until alternate pipelines from central Asia can be constructed. Reagan warned this would result in strategic dependency when the Euros signed their gas deals with the USSR back in the 1980’s

Well, we could do it, but the cost would be very high. Natural gas is tricky to transport by any other means than by pipeline.

According to the DOE, Germany produces 600 billion cubic feet of natural gas and imports 3 trillion cubic feet annually, half of which comes from Russia.

Europe is hooked on Russian natural gas in the medium term until alternate pipelines from central Asia can be constructed. Reagan warned this would result in strategic dependency when the Euros signed their gas deals with the USSR back in the 1980’s

It is really scraping the bottom of the barrel to say that the Schroeder deal was pushed through (with him getting a fat pay-off) because Poland hinted that they might conceivably do something silly in the future.

When the Ukraine quarreled with Russia, among other things about the size of the gas bill, the supply to Wesetrn Europe was shut off, too, and the Ukrainian government used that to get some leverage.

All because there is no imagination among politicians. I am happy to acknowledge that about ours. You seem to feel the need to defend German politicos.

I don’t feel the need to defend German policies vis-a-vis Russia, but I am feeling somewhat defensive because there is enough criticism coming from Anglophone countries, some of it pretty unfair. Besides, any criticism of European governments soon is transferred to Europeans in general, so the defensiveness is kind of personal.

<Ralph – I’m not so sure Russia would not do something stupid. Asking for “Regime Change” so bluntly falls into the category of hubris, and the Russians have been known to cut off their nose to spite their face before.

If they closed the pipelines, they would go broke and couldn’t afford their military any longer, so this problem would be self-containing.

In fact, Schroeder’s deal over that pipeline that will by-pass Poland and the Balts stands. I wonder what the reason for that is?

Poland and other countries have hinted that they might at some point interrupt the flow of oil and natural gas through the pipelines that run through their territories, to deprive Russia of the revenues, as a means to extert pressure. We wouldn’t like that, for it also would mean that we wouldn’t get the oil and gas.

You are right, Europe and Germany in particular, could buy oil and gas anywhere. Russia needs customers more than the other way round. But the fact remains that you don’t. In fact, Schroeder’s deal over that pipeline that will by-pass Poland and the Balts stands. I wonder what the reason for that is? Hmmm? And however you justify it, doing Russia’s bidding is exactly what Germany and France did at the last summit. Nothing to do with internal problems in Ukraine or Georgia. The question was about a long road to membership, which will come at some future date when the countries sorted themselves out. Russia stamped its foot and Germany, France and other jumped. Mind you, our own government behaved even worse – sat on the fence.

But protecting the pipeline? No way, that is France and Germany’s interest, and if they want the US to protect them, I’m not exactly in favor of rewarding their ingratitude, either.

A few years of having the Russians threaten to turn off the spigot might make Western Europe a little more ready to take up arms in its own defense. Or expose their governments for the cowards I suspect them to be.

We are not dependent on Russia. We can buy our oil and natuiral gas on the open market, as everybody else does. Russia on the other hand needs the revenue from us, for they need European money to maintain their oil infrastucture and to build new pipelines. Switching from the Russian supply to the open market would be expensive and disruptive for a time, but it would bankrupt the Russians. That’s why they won’t actually turn off the spigot, for it would be suicide. They have no other customer for natural gas, for there are no pipelines to the Asian markets. Even the new pipelines under construction to Europe are several times as expensive as expected, for prices for iron ore and subsequently steel have multiplied. Russian steel isn’t good enough for the pipelines /and we certainly wouldn’t want to rely on it for our energy supply), so they have to import it at huge cost. Even with oil prices at this level the haven’t got the capital for it.

Something else: The US has a special relationship with Saudi Arabia, and because odf the oil and political significance they get away with sponsoring terrorism and radical Islam all over the world. Guess what, Russia is, among other things, our Saudi Arabia.

A lot in what you say, John, but inside NATO or more firmly en route to it, Georgia or, rather, Saakashvili could have been controlled. The result of that Summit was terrible. On the one hand, France, Germany et al made it clear that they would do Russia’s bidding

Do Russia’s bidding? With all due respect, both the Ukraine and Georgia have considerable internal conflicts as well as ‘issues’ with other countries, and not just Russia. And that the Georgian President is a loose cannon has been obvious before the incursion into South Ossetia. Nato membership would have encouraged to go even further as he already did.

I have a general rule about analyzing events at the level of the state: I call it “risks assumed”. When you play for power, which is what Saakashvili was doing in Ossetia – he might be a better guy morally than Vladimir Putin and pro-Western but that’s irrelevant to outcomes – you assume certain risks. Which is why I scorn Leftist nitwits whining about Salvador Allende being bumped off – he was playing for power in Chile and caught it in the neck from the people he himself would have iced.

I’m not saying that the Georgians should be abandoned. Frankly, I’d rather they triumph over a bumbling, hamfisted, neo-Soviet army but wishes are not to be confused with reality. I’m saying they played their hand badly and there are limits as to what can be done at this point that will both help the Georgians and be consistent with American interests. Saakashvili’s error here was timing and not assessing the strategic variables he was up against accurately. Getting South Ossetia back was not impossible. Getting it back by running head on into the Russian Army probably was. Right now the objective should be salvaging Georgia’s current independence from Moscow, not worrying about Ossetia.

If we gave Saakashvili assurances that we or NATO would intervene militarily ( which I highly doubt – can anyone see Gates signing off on that one?) to fight Russian troops for him then we are insane; if he believed that nonsense, then he is a fool.

But protecting the pipeline? No way, that is France and Germany’s interest, and if they want the US to protect them, I’m not exactly in favor of rewarding their ingratitude, either.

A few years of having the Russians threaten to turn off the spigot might make Western Europe a little more ready to take up arms in its own defense. Or expose their governments for the cowards I suspect them to be.

But Tatyana, in this case US and Russian interests converge. Saakashvili is already on shaky ground domestically, although, as I’m sure you’ll be quick to point, out the Russians will try to influence the selection of the new leader. But yes, he has to go. There’s a reason NATO has not rushed to embrace him, and this is it. The bombing in Turkey was no pretext for Russia to invade Georgia or Kyrgizia, though. Saakashvili handed them a great excuse.

What “new regime”, JJ? Are you with Russian UN representative Churkin (what a fitting name, I must say) who declared at Security Council meeting that Saakishvili, legally elected president of independent country, “has to go”?

If you can think up ways to influence Russian behavior it must be 10 times easier to deal with Georgians – our ally, our partner, our brother in arms in Iraq.

Russian attack was deliberately planned. Nobody keeps their military that organized and their actions so coordinated on a small chance awaiting Georgian “provocation”.
What other atrocities you think Americans should wait for before helping Georgians? They have already bombed Tbilisi airport, port of Poti, they sunk Georgian ship, roused Abkhasians for another rebellion.

Russia had no pretext of doing so before Aug 7? On August 6 the Turkish part of the pipeline Baku-Tbilisi was bombed, said to be by Kurds. Now, with Russians bombing the Georgian stretch of it, there is only one pipeline that supplies Europe, and that is a Russian pipeline.

This is why Georgia is an unstable ally. Change “Georgia” to “USA”, that would be closer to truth.