Russian-Georgian war?!

[Boroda]

Today comrade Putin stated that if Georgia will not take serious measures against terrorist gangs invading Russia from Georgian border - Russia will plan an operation against them, invading Georgian territory...

Russian-speakers, please, read all the story at http://www.rtr-vesti.ru

I didn't find any coverage by Western media so far.

Some thoughts: Edward Shevardnadze, the Georgian president, former Party secretary of Georgia, former Georgian Republican KGB chairman, former USSR Foreign minister is obviously supporting Chechen terrorism, giving them shelter and any assistance.

In 1990 that bastard sold out Soviet economic zone in Bering sea to the US. It's only one of his crimes during so-called "democratisation" in late-80s. Now he gets all possible political and military assistance from US, and stated that Georgia wants to join NATO.

Such a statement by Russian President made on Sept. 11th is very serious.

I will hate to see the war between Russia and Georgia... And I wonder what will be the reaction from the US administration that is famous for "consulting" Chechen terrorist representatives and is rumoured to send them aid...

NB: Russia's problems with Georgia are much more serious then US problems with Iraq. Georigia openly hosts Chechen terrorists who invade Russian borders, and Shevardnadze have already stated that butchers like Ruslan Gelayev are "respected people". At the same time mr. Rumsfeld makes stupid statements supporting Georgians. Russian foreign ministry already said that from our point of view he's not authorized to make such statements by the US government...

Another cold war?... With "hot" war at our southern borders?...

[Ripsnort]

Another Cold war or would it be sufficient to say "Civil" war?

[Thrawn]

Crap.

[funkedup]

You can take the Bear out of the Cold War but you can't take the Cold War out of the Bear.
http://www.ncsj.org/AuxPages/022702Georgia.shtml

[Sikboy]

Uh Oh, sounds like it's time to support the Abkhazians! Oh dear.

-Sikboy

[Russian]

Well Russians do need to test out new weapons….USA test then in Afghanistan, Why can’t Russia test them in Georgia. (Lame joke brought to you by Russian)

[wulfie]

Well, rest assured that if Russia requires any assistance from the U.S.A. in such a situation they will get it. It doesn't make the news very much (because 'good news' doesn't sell copy, according to some 'experts') but Russia has been a great ally to the U.S.A. over the past year (and before that as well).

The Chechens had a somewhat valid point origionally (in terms of wanting to secede) - but the way they chose to argue that point and the foreign associates they associated with basically blew all of their credibility with the 'West'.

Just because you *may* be right doesn't give you the right to deliberately target women, children, and other innocents with bombs and such until others 'figure out that you are in the right'.

Let me rephrase that - in a global sense, anyone has the 'right' to do whatever they feel necessary. There is no worldwide authority on 'rights'. However, other Nations, groups, etc. retain the 'right' to scramble such people (the ones who deliberately target the innocent, etc.) so badly that it required DNA testing to make sure you are buried in the correct grave.

Mike/wulfie

[Animal]

.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by wulfie
Well, rest assured that if Russia requires any assistance from the U.S.A. in such a situation they will get it. It doesn't make the news very much (because 'good news' doesn't sell copy, according to some 'experts') but Russia has been a great ally to the U.S.A. over the past year (and before that as well).

Especially during that decades long cold war.  Sorry, did I say cold war?  I ment cool war  (tm).  Thanks for backing cuba and north vietam ex USSR!  

Let me rephrase that - in a global sense, anyone has the 'right' to do whatever they feel necessary.

wulfie, please take some time and collect your thoughts.  

As a personal favour to me.  Can you explain what 'right' you are talking about.  And trust me when I went looking for the definition I had no idea the word had so many meanings,

right   Pronunciation Key  (rt)
adj. right·er, right·est
Conforming with or conformable to justice, law, or morality: do the right thing and confess.
In accordance with fact, reason, or truth; correct: the right answer.
Fitting, proper, or appropriate: It is not right to leave the party without saying goodbye.
Most favorable, desirable, or convenient: the right time to act.
In or into a satisfactory state or condition: put things right.
In good mental or physical health or order.
Intended to be worn or positioned facing outward or toward an observer: the right side of the dress; made sure that the right side of the fabric was visible.

Of, belonging to, located on, or being the side of the body to the south when the subject is facing east.
Of, relating to, directed toward, or located on the right side.
Located on the right side of a person facing downstream: the right bank of a river.
often Right Of or belonging to the political or intellectual right.
Mathematics.
Formed by or in reference to a line or plane that is perpendicular to another line or plane.
Having the axis perpendicular to the base: right cone.
Having a right angle: a right triangle.
Straight; uncurved; direct: a right line.
Archaic. Not spurious; genuine.

n.
That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

The direction or position on the right side.
The right side.
The right hand.
A turn in the direction of the right hand or side.
often Right
The people and groups who advocate the adoption of conservative or reactionary measures, especially in government and politics. Also called right wing.
The opinion of those advocating such measures.
Sports. A blow delivered by a boxer's right hand.
Baseball. Right field.

Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature.
Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to animals by moral principle.
A just or legal claim or title.

A stockholder's privilege of buying additional stock in a corporation at a special price, usually at par or at a price below the current market value.
The negotiable certificate on which this privilege is indicated.
A privilege of subscribing for a particular stock or bond. Often used in the plural.

adv.
Toward or on the right.
In a straight line; directly: went right to school.
In the proper or desired manner; well: The jacket doesn't fit right.
Exactly; just: The accident happened right over there.
Immediately: called me right after dinner.
Completely; quite: The icy wind blew right through me.
According to law, morality, or justice.
Accurately; correctly: answered the question right.
Chiefly Southern U.S. Considerably; very: They have a right nice place.
Used as an intensive: kept right on going.
Used in titles: The Right Reverend Jane Smith.

[wulfie]

Thrawn,

When speaking of Russia as an 'ally' I of course meant 'post cold war'.

Having served in the U.S. armed forces during the 'tail-end' of the 'cold war'...I would always refer to Russia as 'the Soviet Union' if I was speaking of 'cold war' times.

My 'ally' statement was meant to include roughly the past 3-4 years for what it's worth.

As far as my 'right' statement, all I meant was this: literally speaking, it's folly for any Sovereign Nation to declare what another Sovereign Nation has the 'right' to do. To take such a statement (i.e. 'You have no right to invade xxxxxx') literally...

Basically, 'right' is determined by economic and military force, and such force is added to the force of allies and like minded Nations.

When the U.S., U.K., U.N., etc. declared that Iraq had no 'right' to invade Kuwait, the implication wasn't that Iraq was lacking some 'divine moral clearance' to do such a thing. If you break it down to it's base levels - the Governments of numerous Nations, thru the U.N., determined that such action was not acceptable, and force (economic, military, or other) would be applied until the effects of said actions were reversed.

Let me put it another way - Chechnya determined it wanted to secede from the Russian Federation. No one in their right mind could say 'they have no 'right' to demand such a thing'. Every body of people, technically, has the 'right' to chose any course of action they wish - but if that course of action is grossly out of line in the opinion of the relevant powers (other Nations, other groups, etc.) those other powers are going to counter such an action in some cases.

But there is no 'mystical, divine presence' that determines if a Nation or a group is 'acting within their rights'. In general, in history - what is 'right' is defined by the attitudes of the other peer Nations/groups/involved.

Take the tribes of Germania vs. the Romans.

The Romans didn't have the 'right' to invade and conquer said tribes and their territory.

At the same time, those tribes didn't fight back becuase 'they had the right to self defense'. They fought back because they didn't want to be conquered.

What I'm trying to say is when you hear a Nation say 'we have the right' it's generally a case of justification. It's political speak, part of diplomacy, etc.

If 90% of the world (in terms of economic power, military power, etc.) had no moral beliefs, and determined tomorrow that the U.S. and the U.K. (who in this case were not part of the 90% mentioned above) had to be eliminated to the last man, woman, and child - we could claim we had a 'right' to exist all we wanted...but if the majority of the world (in terms of exercisable power) didn't agree or care, our 'right to exist' wouldn't mean a damn thing. And we wouldn't die fighting because of a 'right to live freely' - we'd die fighting in an attempt to avoid being wiped out.

Am I making any sense (if not, it's from my lack of ability to explain properly).

So when Chechnya, as in the Chechen people, decide they want to become a sovereign Nation, under self-rule - in a real life situation like that saying the one side 'has no right' and/or the other side 'has a right' is a very simple and unworkable statement.

Chechnya has been part of Russia for many years. Who is anyone to say that all of a sudden Russia has no 'right' to govern said province?

Chechnya is a province with an ethnic group that has been brutally repressed and controlled for years. Who is anyone to say that the Chechens don't have the 'right' to self rule?

Both statements are correct to a certain degree. Sure, the U.S. could say 'Chechnya must be allowed self-rule' but it's always more complicated than that. Otherwise the Chinese could bankroll the Sioux Nation and demand that 1/20 of the U.S. become a sovereign Nation all of a sudden.

There's 'right' and there's 'what's currently feasible given the state of world affairs and interaction between Nations'.

The Chechens, in a pure 'fairybook' sense do have a right to self-rule. But the reality is that making such a thing happen would/will take alot of work over many years (Their now deceased origional President forming bonds with many other Nations, assurances to Russia regarding possible economic and security problems, etc.).

What happened was that the Chechens tried to do the difficult by using means that made the difficult become impossible (due to international politics, etc.). They may have had a 'right' to self-rule, but when they chose the means they did - and made their chance of success zero - they 'break the system'. It doesn't matter if they have a 'right' anymore. Because sometimes (most of the time) the world isn't fair - and no one is going to declare war against Russia to 'free Chechnya'.

They say that politeness is grounded in the threat of violence (back in the 1600s...insult my Wife - and face me in a rapier duel - say something stupid and by the rules of society you could wind up getting 'run thru').

'Right', in an international relations sense, is grounded in the beliefs of the most powerful (economic, military, etc.) grouping of Nations.

The Jews have a 'right' to live and practice their religion, etc. Chinese persons have a 'right' to live.

But if Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan had taken over the entire world (massively hypothetically speaking of course) - well, for all intensive 'real life' purposes - The Jews and the Chinese would have had no such 'rights'.

'Rights', in an international sense, exist because there is power and influence that support them. The U.S. claimed the 'right' to overthrow the Taliban because of the threat the Taliban posed to the U.S. and to innocent people everywhere who had a way of life or a very existence that the Taliban found intolerable.

Now in a real world, very literal sense - the U.S. had a 'right' to act because...

1. It wanted to.

2A. No other Nation was *able* to oppose the U.S. directly...

*and/or*

2B. Other Nations agreed with the reasoning of the U.S. ...

*and/or*

2C. No other Nation was willing to pay the consequences (for the sake of the Taliban) of opposing the U.S. directly...

...largely I'd say 2B, with alot of 2C thrown in. If certain Nations had nuclear weapons, and the U.S. did not - I gurantee that certain Nations would have shown no qualms about saying 'attack the Taliban and we nuke your butt'. That list of certain Nations is pretty short however. Most Nations are ruled by groups that understand that global stability is the preferred state. 2B applies (in part) because there are alot of non-U.S. troops in Afghanistan. They wouldn't be there if certain Nations weren't like minded and generally tried to help each other.

But there is no divine power that looked down and told the U.S. 'I now grant you the right to crater the Taliban, because I don't like them and everyone will have to let you do it however you want because I said so'.

In short (again, I know): 'right' is often 'in the eye of the beholder/declarer'.

Look at other types of 'rights'...500 years ago, in large parts of Europe, 3% of the people alive had 'rights' and no one else did. The reason the other 97% have 'rights' today is because the ruling groups of that area agree that such 'rights' are deserved by everyone. Using this reasoning, someone may say that the Chechens have the 'right' to pursue self-rule however they possibly can - but the someone saying that isn't correct. World opinion determined that at the point where the Chechens started employing mercenary terrorists to attack purely civilian targets to foment governmental discord via terror among the civilian population of Russia they (the Chechens) had lost their 'right to self-rule' at any cost.

But even that isn't totally correct. The 'right' existed while other Nations supported the action and the reasoning. In very literal and real terms - at the point where the other applicable Nations disagreed with the means and lost any admiration for the Chechens as 'freedom-fighters' the Chechen 'right' disappeared for all intensive purposes. They could claim it, but there was no longer any power (economic and political in this case) backing that 'right' up.

Strictly speaking, the Native Americans had a 'right' to live peacefully and retain their lands. Apparently though, they didn't really have these 'rights' when it mattered. They did, but no one cared (expansionism, etc.).

It's not fair, it's not nice, it's not anything to be proud of or happy about - but in many cases 'might' (economic, military, alliance with other powers/political) has/does make 'right'.

Fortunately, the vast majority of Nations are ruled by persons or groups who are not totally insane, fanatic, etc. The leadership of the Soviet Union was 'evil' when compared to the principles of individual freedom that are so important to the U.S., the U.K., and many other Nations. But at they same time, that leadership wasn't chaotic, insane, 'not living in the real world', etc. That leadership understoond that there was a protocol to be adhered to. They'd try to maneuver to 'beat the protocol' but there wasn't ever any risk of some 'Charlie Manson' like outburst such as 'No Americans must be allowed to live on the planet regardless of the cost to the Soviet people - launch all the missiles now!'.

Mike/wulfie

[Thrawn]

What a fandiddlyingtastasic answer!  I can honestly say I understand what you are trying to say.  I also happen to agree with it.  Thank you very much, for your consideration and taking the time to explain your point of view to me, it is really, really appreciated.

[Sikboy]

Nice post Wulfie, when does the movie come out?

I think Wulfie is right on in many respects. In the international community there aren't "Rights" so much as there are "Norms."

Norms are generally accepted forms of behaviour, which have been established through practice. They are not laws, they are not even written down. They are an implicit understanding between nations on how those nations will conduct themselves. This is one of the big reasons why international relations is such a pain in the ass. Most of the time it isn't like Criminal law, where you have a clear cut case of a person or party violating a stated law. Instead you have a nation or party violating an unspoken, implicit, fluid idea of what is right and what is wrong.

The Fluidity is great when you are a super-power. Look at the Cuban Missile crisis. At that time the Norm was (thanks to international treaty (hey, they wrote this one down!)) and established practice, that blockades were inhumane.  So instead the US implemented a "Quaranteen" around cuba. Nice job Johnny Cochran. And sit down Mr. Stevenson,  I'm not interested in your justifications. But what the US did during the crisis was to  remove what was a norm before.

Most of us don't even know what the norms governing international relations even are. And because they are abstract, we prefer to think in terms of "rights" where there is a moral stand in favor or against action. Our leaders know that we aren't going to accept things because "all the other kids are doing it" so they sell us policy in the language of morality. It's the only way most of us can keep everything straight.

-Sikboy

[Boroda]

Wulfie, thank you for detailed answer

Right now I try to concentrate my mind after some Dagestanian brany, so I'll answer as I read... Quotes are in bold.

Chechnya determined it wanted to secede from the Russian Federation.

When and how did it "determine" this? If it did - who was a "representative" do declare it?

But there is no 'mystical, divine presence' that determines if a Nation or a group is 'acting within their rights'.

Russian military operation in Chechnya isn't a matter of "supressing national liberation of Chechens". It's a matter of fighting gangs who practice slavery, murder, robbery and genocide. All that four things can NOT be considered "basic human rights", therefore I simply can't consider Chechen terrorists (look: I don't just say "Chechens") anything else but gangsters who must be stopped. The complete question of "right" or "wrong" in a "national" scale is absolutely senceless in this situation.

Chechnya has been part of Russia for many years. Who is anyone to say that all of a sudden Russia has no 'right' to govern said province?

The whole story of Caucasian wars is very complicated. Chechens (Vaynakhs) were forced into the mountains by Russian army because they practiced robbery on the roads to Georgia. The whole situation was impossible before the "heartly union" between Russia and Georgia in the end of XVIII century.

Your next paragraphs contain things that I don't agree. The problem is that terrorist "government" of Chechnya wants "independance", but doesn't have anything to live on then robbery of it's own people and neighbouring Cossak lands and Dagestan.

If you'll look at the story of the conflict in the 90s you'll understand what I mean.

[decided to erase the conflict story. It's too complicated for me to explain especially drinking brandy]

Russia will be happy to leave them alone and let them kill each other, but. We still have Russian population there, and in this case, unlike in fascist Baltic republics we can do something to help them without being accused in "genocide" and "agression". (hehe here you are right ). Second: when they eat all the food Russians left them - they invade Cossak lands and Dagestan, as they did in 1999. I hope you know that the second Chechen war was started by Chechen terrorist gangs invading into Dagestan, followed by apartment bombings after they were kicked back by Dagestan population with assistance of Russian army. Note: Russians armed Dagestanians and helped them with heavy weapons. Dagestanians are not happy to be robbed by terrorist gangs.

Now - back to the topic that I meant to discuss when I started this thread. Now - slowly

Georgia hosts (literaly - HOSTS) terrorists who constantly cross Russian border to rape and murder. They admit it, and don't do anything about it. Their president calls a well-known terrorist who is on the Interpol lists a "respectable person" and his aquaintance.

At the same time Georgia gets military aid from the US, including military advisors and weapons. US defence secretary states that Georgia is a souverign country that will get any possible support against "Russian agressors".

How are we supposed to understand this, knowing the fact that Georgian president is under investigation in Russia for selling USSR's natural resources to the US?...

[funkedup]

US defence secretary states that Georgia is a souverign country that will get any possible support against "Russian agressors".

I simply don't believe that.

[Sikboy]

here's a CDI brief on the US in Georgia

http://www.cdi.org/russia/209-8.cfm

-Sikboy