View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, I'll actually make a post of substance this time around, but I won't bother delving into slippery slopes.
Russia knows everything that you just said regarding what NATO will be forced to do if they decide to take this pipeline and others. Russia also knows that it cannot possibly win this conflict, which is why they won't make that move.
Also, I never said that NATO would sit back and let Russia forcibly take control of this region. I don't see where that was implied in any of my posts, but if it was, then I apologize.
Well, we'll never know if the Soviet Union was prepared to fight a third world war, but the fact remains that it never happened, and it's not worth delving into the realm of historical fiction.
Tullaryx wrote: |
Also, the Soviet Union was never aversed to going to war with NATO. They always saw their superior numbers in men and tanks as an advantage NATO could never match. What always held them back from rolling through the Berlin Wall and into Western Europe was a clause in NATO's mission statement. A clause which the European's endorsed and which said that if West Germany ever fell to a Soviet ground advance and the rest of NATO was threatened of being pushed to the sea then the US will be authorized to use battlefield tactical nuclear assets to stop the Soviet advance. Such an act would then force the Soviets to respond in kind which then snowballs into both sides using citykillers on strategic targets which also happens to be close to major metropolitan areas.
So, if it looked like the Soviet Union didn't want to go to war with NATO it wasn't because they were afraid of NATO and its military forces but the consequence of what a Soviet success through the Fulda Gap and West Germany would force. |
At first you say that the Soviet Union wasn't afraid of facing NATO, but then turn around and say that a clause in NATO's mission statement forced them to stand down. Wouldn't that be because of NATO? Please explain. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tullaryx
Custodiae Corvi
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, to clarify. The Soviet Union was never afraid of NATO's conventional force that it had to defend Western Europe. In a non-nuclear fight they believed they could sweep through NATO's defenses in West Germany even the most heavily defended area known as the Fulda Gap. But they were afraid that the US may actually go through with the clause to use battlefield nuclear weapons to halt their advance.
While it never did happen there's been enough times when the Soviet Union were close to massing forces to do just that. The best example being the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1961 when several Soviet armored divisions moved west from the Ukraine into Poland then into East Germany. The other times was during the late 70's and early 80's when the US made the decision to base intermediate ballistic missiles in West Germany. While it's not history that's commonly available it is there if one dug deep enough. US Army War College has volumes on it.
But to reiterate what you need clarifying on. Soviet Union didn't fear NATO but instead feared the US response against them if they succeeded in defeating NATO on the battlefield. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was actually just attempting to be ironic with the "please explain" thing. The US is a member of NATO, so if the Soviet Union feared America's response to an outright invasion of Europe, then they fear NATO. You can't really "defeat NATO on the battlefield" without defeating the United States. The United States isn't in some "special relationship" with NATO, it's a member of NATO. You never said that the United States wasn't a member of NATO, but your logic seems to imply that.
I'm not saying there hasn't been a history of build-ups and cool downs, so I won't debate something I don't agree with. To take out all the negatives, I agree that there was a Cold War, and the two superpowers took the appropriate actions as the situation developed. But, that's an obvious point.
But, I've realized my mistake from the discussion of the Iraq War (letting the topic eventually lead to a discussion of South Korea), so if you really want to discuss the Cold War, why not make a new topic about it? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Starslasher
Chunks of Chaco-late.
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, it seems that right now you guys can somewhat agree that war between Russia and NATO isn't likely to happen, but are arguing on how the hypothetical battles would be conducted. Let's just leave that aside and talk about an issues that Jowy mentioned that is of some importance nowadays.
That issue is Russia recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign nations. I agree that this is probably in retaliation of the Western European countries recognising the independance of Kosovo, but the question i'm wondering is why make such a statement as this when the conflict is tense as it is? Isn't this simply goading Georgia into a response? _________________ Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan
Bork! Bork! Bork! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
John Layfield
Last Literature D-Line
Joined: 22 Jan 2005
Post Count: 6231
Location: Saint Dragon
509933 Potch
9300 Soldiers
3525 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
What would Georgia's response be? An attempted attack and another quick slap around the head?
The US won't go to war over Georgia, especially if this is as far as Russia pushes it. _________________ One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
All the cards are in Russia's hands. They can use whatever justification they want, but they deserve whatever comes their way if they keep on pressing this. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ezekiel
Mediocre Archer
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Post Count: 1430
Location: North Gouran
119921 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 4:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Let me just add...I saw on Yahoo Questions that someone was asking about this conflict, because they lived in the state of Georgia. They were shocked, worried, and frightened...yet didn't know why they weren't seeing tanks or hearing gunfire. Just some humour, because my knowledge on the conflict itself is next to zilch at the moment. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Starslasher
Chunks of Chaco-late.
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Post Count: 6482
Location: Dunan Delta
1177790 Potch
300 Soldiers
35 Nation Points
|
Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm interested in the side issue about banning US poultry in Russia. First the banning of US beef in South Korea, and now this! I wonder who else picked up on this?
Overall, i find the finger pointing from both the US and Russia itself ludicrous.
And i feel that the article has been exaggerating when it writes that Russia's hopes for international support were "dashed" when the SCO expresssed concern about the tensions in the region. Sure, it does not explicitly mean that those countries support Russia, but it also doesn't mean that they oppose its actions. _________________ Guardian of Greenhill & Devoted Protector of Oulan
Bork! Bork! Bork! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Jowy Atreides
Joined: 13 Jul 2004
Post Count: 265
486378 Potch
0 Soldiers
0 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/04/cheney.georgia.tour/index.ht ml
A slight update to the situation. Cheney has personally visited Georgia, and said that Georgia will be in NATO. He also took a pretty strong stance against Russia, it seems.
Of course, there's also the development that Russia recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, with the latter hoping to become a part of North Ossetia (a part of Russia). Nicaragua has also declared its intent to recognize both countries/regions, along with Belarus, Tajikistan, and Venezuela.
Nicaragua still recognizes the Republic of China (Taiwan) as the sole legitimate government of all China, so their input isn't particularly important. Belarus is in a union with Russia (they are the only two members), and its leader eventually wants to see the country unified with Russia, so, wherever Russia treads, Belarus is right behind. Tajikistan tends to be more concerned with its domestic problems, but usually supports Russia, so that explains that. Venezuela's recognition of typical of Chavez: do whatever's possible to antagonize America. In his statement supporting Russia, he viewed it as Russia's attempt to defend itself from foreign aggressors, whom Chavez insists are attempting to surround Russia.
It's similar to Kosovo, except that 46 countries recognize Kosovo, and, as of right now, only 2 recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ViktorFan
Shalimar
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Post Count: 6565
Location: Mar-Uruk
1825501 Potch
200 Soldiers
4195 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 2:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link, Jowy. It lightens up the real motivation of the US involvement in this region. ^^ Didn't Cheney work for an oil company before he got Vice President? And didn't get Halliburton some lucrative orders after the war in the Balcan region and didn't they participate in the "Oil for food" program in Iraq for example? I wonder if Halliburton wasn't a company who accidentally helps "to rebuild Georgia".
You mention that 46 countries recognize Kosovo, most of them are NATO and EU members, what about the other around 160 governments in the world? It seems not every government agrees with this policy. And these 46 countries didn't recognize Kosovo immediately. Since you mention Kosovo: don't you think it's very mendacious to recognize Kosovo and judge Russia for doing the same with South-Ossetia and Abkhazia? As long as the western governments acts that mendacious I can't take them serious. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Tullaryx
Custodiae Corvi
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Post Count: 5577
Location: Apacheta
4092785 Potch
200 Soldiers
20 Nation Points
|
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldn't be surprised if Halliburton or a subsidiary of theirs ends up doing some of the rebuilding in Georgia. It's not a guarantee once Bush-Cheney are out of office. Obama or McCain may go their own way in who will end up doing the rebuilding. If Obama wins the Presidency then I can see him promising humanitarian and rebuilding aid but nothing else. If McCain wins I can actually see him reminding the rest of NATO and the EU to pitch in with more money and material to help rebuild Georgia's infrastructure.
The US doesn't get oil or gas from the region. Europe does gets a large percentage of its oil and gas from that region so they have more to lose if they let Georgia continue with little or no help in rebuilding not just its infrastructure but its military as well. _________________
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
ViktorFan
Shalimar
Joined: 23 Nov 2006
Post Count: 6565
Location: Mar-Uruk
1825501 Potch
200 Soldiers
4195 Nation Points
|
Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 6:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
It doesn't matter if Obama or McCain may go their own way. Cheney was in Georgia now and used his contacts to work out a deal. So it doesn't matter who will be president when the orders "spread out". It's a matter of money and nothing else. And that's how it always works, not only in Georgia. I highly doubt that Obama will promise only humanitarian and rebuilding aid (what to rebuild? The houses of the poor people?). Like I said: it's always a matter of money, influence and power. Since the aim of the US-government is not to help the Georgian people but to get their foot into the caucasian region and to "form a belt" around Russia with governments who do what the US-government want them to do you can be sure that there will be more than only humanitarian and rebuilding aid. No matter if the President is Obama or McCain or whoever it will be the next time.
Here's an article from 2002:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/may/12/nickpatonwalsh.theobserver
Georgia's army got help a long time ago so I wouldn't be surprised that this conflict between Georgia and Russia was planned since a long time. I've read the entry about Saakashvili at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Saakashvili
and found it very interesting that he hired Mr. Randy Scheuneman as a lobbyist back in 2003 (and that he lived in USA for a longer time). Mr. Scheuneman is now McCain's foreign-policy adviser. So I wouldn't be surprised if McCain (if he was elected as the new president) asked NATO and EU to give more money for Georgia. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|