South Ossetia-Georgian war

[Uncle_Vanya]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

The war with Georgia was a pawn in a bigger game; the area around Russia is becoming more and more pro-western, something that is not in the interests of Russia. In the perspective of expanding Russian political power and influence, a move had to be made and the international isolation that resulted from that move being the war with Georgia only hurt that. International isolation makes it much more favorable for a country to be with the rest of the world rather than Russia for the sake of their economic prosperity and political influence.

Economically Georgia is dependent on Russia 100%. Spheres of influence aren't established with handshakes, they're established with military and economic domination, our leadership will now get much more bold and will come back to the proven tactics of fulfilling our national interests, no more of this unnecessary politeness with the enemy.

And you say ending this 'charade' is in the best interest of Russia? How exactly is world powers poking each other in the eye with sticks in the interest of any country? How is moving towards provoking aggression between countries that have the power to destroy the world in any country's best interest?

Two toughest kids on the block are always going to end up fighting, might as well get it over it. My country has a destiny, whats going on right now is a part of it, I want to see the destiny fulfilled within my lifetime. Provoking? We're not going to play your game by your rules like we have been for the past decade, we're going to play by our own rules now and what you will make of it is your decision, it does not concern us in the least bit. This charade being over is a good thing, it will accelerate revival of Russia, the reaction from the West has sent a clear message to the Russian people, the West is our enemy, the West is not interested in a partnership with us, this shall keep all the liberal crazies like Kasparov quiet. Its a good thing.

You bring up the growth of Russian military might; that's a laughable joke. We live in a nuclear age where fighting a major war is not measured in relative terms but where there is an absolute threshold that can be met with nuclear weapons. Russia can have as many men, tanks, planes, ships, or anything else in its armed forces, but it's nothing more than a joke in a nuclear age where nuclear weapons can destroy entire countries.

If Russia conventionally takes back all of Europe up to the Rhine river will US, UK and France use their nukes against Russia knowing full well that there will be a retaliation in kind? I don't see anyone launching nukes over Iraq.

All in all though, I'd probably say the biggest loss for the Russian people was veering off the road to being a liberal democracy. A country can be as powerful as possible, but, in my opinion, it amounts to nothing if its people aren't free.

Please don't tell me you believe in all the ideological bull**** the ignorant American liberals push on us about how the 90s was the Golden Age of Russian democracy. I've been there, if thats democracy I want no part of it, reduction in human worth and dignity is a more correct statement while describing that period in my countries history. People were happy in USSR and "liberal democracy" is but a myth, a cruel joke played on the ignorant masses who believe that it exists, nothing more. My people chose this path of their free will, the approval ratings aren't lying Putin really is popular.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Economically Georgia is dependent on Russia 100%. Spheres of influence aren't established with handshakes, they're established with military and economic domination, our leadership will now get much more bold and will come back to the proven tactics of fulfilling our national interests, no more of this unnecessary politeness with the enemy.

Yet you somehow claim that pushing Russia into political isolation and it's neighbors towards the west benefits Russia? If Georgia or Ukraine join NATO Russia loses all military domination whatsoever because the countries will have a mutual defense pact with the west. Economically, using economic force against nations the west view as important (Ukraine and Georgia for example) will result in 'humanitarian missions' which may allow Russia to cause short term harm to small nations, but in the long term only furthers its isolation. Face it, the war with Russia as carried out was a tactical blunder.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Two toughest kids on the block are always going to end up fighting, might as well get it over it. My country has a destiny, whats going on right now is a part of it, I want to see the destiny fulfilled within my lifetime. Provoking? We're not going to play your game by your rules like we have been for the past decade, we're going to play by our own rules now and what you will make of it is your decision, it does not concern us in the least bit. This charade being over is a good thing, it will accelerate revival of Russia, the reaction from the West has sent a clear message to the Russian people, the West is our enemy, the West is not interested in a partnership with us, this shall keep all the liberal crazies like Kasparov quiet. Its a good thing.

So in other words you want war and believe peace is impossible? You also fail to deal with the point of how exactly two countries provoking each other into aggression is in either of their interest.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

If Russia conventionally takes back all of Europe up to the Rhine river will US, UK and France use their nukes against Russia knowing full well that there will be a retaliation in kind? I don't see anyone launching nukes over Iraq.

The problem of use of small scale nuclear weapons was considered and solved during the Cold War, tactical nuclear devices (see here). The western strategy in the Cold War for such a situation was to use tactical nuclear devices to engage in limited nuclear war to either force the USSR to back off or force a Russian first-strike in a total nuclear war. Point being, conventional warfare is a joke in a nuclear age.

Second, no one launched nuclear weapons over Iraq because Iraq wasn't part of any mutual defense pact, something many of the former Soviet republics are considering. It is reasonable to consider that mutual defense pacts will only expand.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Please don't tell me you believe in all the ideological bull**** the ignorant American liberals push on us about how the 90s was the Golden Age of Russian democracy. I've been there, if thats democracy I want no part of it, reduction in human worth and dignity is a more correct statement while describing that period in my countries history. People were happy in USSR and "liberal democracy" is but a myth, a cruel joke played on the ignorant masses who believe that it exists, nothing more. My people chose this path of their free will, the approval ratings aren't lying Putin really is popular.

Academics have never considered Russia a free nation; the best score it was ever given was partially free; since 2005 it has reverted back to not free. Sadly, the Russian people have never been free. The sad truth is that Russia has revoked the little freedom it gave it's citizens.

The man who has degraded the worth and dignity of the Russian people the most is Putin. He's decided Russians have no right to make decisions for themselves and is forcing them into a cycle of poverty. As for him being popular, cheering for a driver who is going to drive you off is cliff is still going over a cliff.

Politcal Rights and Civil Liberties [in Russia]

Russia is not an electoral democracy. The December 2007 State Duma elections were carefully engineered by the administration, handing pro-Kremlin parties a supermajority in the lower house. In the presidential election of March 2004, state dominance of the media was on full display, debate was absent, and incumbent Vladimir Putin won a first-round victory with 71.4 percent of the vote, more than five times that of his closest rival.

The 1993 constitution established a strong presidency with the power to dismiss and appoint, pending parliamentary confirmation, the prime minister. How Putin’s planned shift from president to prime minister would affect these institutions remained unclear at the end of 2007. The Federal Assembly consists of a lower chamber, the 450-seat State Duma, and an upper chamber, the 176-seat Federation Council. Beginning with the December 2007 elections, all Duma seats, rather than just half, were elected on the basis of party-list proportional representation. Parties must gain at least 7 percent of the vote, rather than the previous 5 percent, to enter the Duma. Parties cannot form electoral coalitions, and would-be parties must have at least 50,000 members and organizations in half of the federation’s 85 administrative units to register. In practice, these changes make it extremely difficult for opposition parties to win representation in the Duma. The upper chamber is made up of members appointed by governors and regional legislatures. Although the governors were previously elected, a 2004 reform gave the president the power to appoint them, meaning he heavily influences the appointment of half of the members of the upper house. The president and members of parliament serve four-year terms, and the president is limited to two consecutive terms.

Corruption in the government and business world is pervasive, and Putin has identified his lack of progress on this issue as one of his greatest failures. In fact, Putin’s anticorruption efforts are selectively applied and have often targeted critics and potential political adversaries. The size of the bureaucracy has grown rapidly during the last few years, adding to the difficulty of doing business and creating opportunities for graft and bribery. Russia was ranked 143 out of 180 countries surveyed in Transparency International’s 2007 Corruption Perceptions Index.

Although the constitution provides for freedom of speech, the government continues to put pressure on the dwindling number of media outlets that are still critical of the Kremlin. Since 2003, the government has controlled, directly or through state-owned companies, all of the national television networks. While the independent Ekho Moskvy radio station airs a wide range of viewpoints, it is vulnerable because it is owned by the state-controlled natural gas conglomerate OAO Gazprom. The gas monopoly has an extensive media empire that includes the newspapers Kommersant and Izvestiya, and the gazeta.ru website. Some independent outlets remain in the regional media markets. Discussion on the internet is free, though there are frequent calls for the government to rein it in. The October 2006 murder of well-known investigative reporter Anna Politkovskaya, who had covered Chechnya extensively, highlighted the physical danger and intimidation faced by many Russian journalists, in addition to threats of libel suits and other pressures.

Freedom of religion is respected unevenly. A 1997 law on religion gives the state extensive control and requires churches to prove that they have existed for at least 15 years before they are permitted to register. As registration is necessary for a religious group to conduct many of its activities, the operations of new and independent congregations are restricted. Orthodox Christianity has a privileged position in Russian society, and the Church leadership has introduced Christian instruction into many of the country’s schools. Regional authorities continue to harass nontraditional groups, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons.

Academic freedom is generally respected, although the academic system is marred by corruption at the higher levels and by very low salaries for educators. The arrest and prosecution of scientists and researchers on charges of treason, usually for discussing sensitive technology with foreigners, has engendered a climate in some research institutes that is restrictive of international contacts. In October 2007, Putin signed a law replacing Russia’s traditional five-year university system with Western-style four-year bachelor’s degree and two-year master’s degree programs, to be implemented by 2009. The move is part of an effort to join the Bologna Declaration on Higher Education. The Russian Academy of Sciences is planning to nearly double the salaries of its scientists, but at the cost of numerous jobs.

The government has consistently reduced the space for freedom of assembly and association. The NGO Legal Team claims that the authorities banned or dispersed almost every public protest held across Russia during 2007. At the beginning of 2006, Putin signed a new law on NGOs that gave government bureaucrats extensive discretion in deciding which organizations could register. The law imposes onerous reporting requirements on the organizations that hampers their ability to operate effectively. The Moscow Federal Registration Service directorate announced in November 2007 that it had denied registration to 1,380 NGOs because of violations of the legislation, 11 percent of the 13,014 that had sought to register. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the problem is much greater, and the Duma was considering amendments to the legislation at the end of the year. The diverse NGO sector is composed of thousands of groups, many of them dependent on funding from foreign sources. The new law places extensive controls on the use of these foreign funds. The Russian state has sought to provide alternative sources of funding, but such support naturally limits what recipient groups can do.

While trade union rights are legally protected, they are limited in practice. Strikes and worker protests occur, but antiunion discrimination and reprisals for strikes are not uncommon, and employers often ignore collective bargaining rights. With the economy continuing to change rapidly after emerging from Soviet-era state controls, unions have been unable to establish a significant presence in much of the private sector. The largest labor federation works in close cooperation with the Kremlin.

The judiciary suffers from corruption, inadequate funding, and a lack of qualified personnel. After judicial reforms in 2002, the government has made progress in implementing due process and holding timely trials. The legislation also authorizes courts rather than prosecutors to issue arrest and search warrants. Although the 2002 law abolished trials in absentia, the practice was revived in 2006 for suspected terrorists. Since January 2003, Russia’s reformed criminal procedure code has allowed jury trials in most of the country. While juries are more likely than judges to find defendants not guilty, these verdicts are frequently overturned by a higher court, which can send a case back for retrial as many times as necessary to achieve the desired outcome. Russian citizens often believe that domestic courts do not provide a fair hearing and have increasingly turned to the European Court of Human Rights.

Critics charge that Russia has failed to address ongoing criminal justice problems, such as poor prison conditions and the widespread use of torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials to extract confessions. Many of the reported abuses originate in the turbulent North Caucasus region. Although suppressed in Chechnya in recent years, rebels have moved into surrounding Russian republics, including Ingushetia, Dagestan, and Kabardino-Balkaria. During the second half of 2007, they focused their activities on Ingushetia, targeting local security forces, federal troops, and civilians. The Kremlin in turn sent 2,500 reinforcements to carry out counterterrorist operations, which have been marred by numerous cases of illegal detention, torture, extrajudicial killing, and other acts of violence.

The government cracked down on Georgians in 2006 as Russia’s relations with Georgia deteriorated, but immigrants and ethnic minorities—particularly those who appear to be from the Caucasus or Central Asia—were already subject to governmental and societal discrimination and harassment. Local observers fear that racially motivated attacks by skinheads and other extremist groups are increasing. Crimes inspired by ethnic hatred led to 48 murders and 388 injuries during the first nine months of 2007, according to Sova, a group that tracks ultranationalist activity in the country. During the same period in 2006, 44 people were murdered in such attacks.

The government places some restrictions on freedom of movement and residence. All adults are legally required to carry internal passports while traveling, documents that they also need to obtain many government services. Some regional authorities impose residential registration rules that limit the right of citizens to choose their place of residence.

Property rights remain precarious. State takeovers of key industries, coupled with large tax liens on select companies, have reinforced perceptions that property rights are being eroded and that the rule of law is subordinated to political considerations.

Women in Russia have particular difficulty achieving political representation; they won 14 percent of the seats in the carefully controlled 2007 parliamentary elections, up slightly from 10 percent in 2003. Women have had more success in the economic sphere, according to a 2007 report by the World Economic Forum. Domestic violence continues to be a serious problem, and police are often reluctant to intervene in what they regard as internal family matters. Economic hardships contribute to widespread trafficking of women abroad for prostitution.

Freedom House

[Uncle_Vanya]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Yet you somehow claim that pushing Russia into political isolation and it's neighbors towards the west benefits Russia? If Georgia or Ukraine join NATO Russia loses all military domination whatsoever because the countries will have a mutual defense pact with the west. Economically, using economic force against nations the west view as important (Ukraine and Georgia for example) will result in 'humanitarian missions' which may allow Russia to cause short term harm to small nations, but in the long term only furthers its isolation. Face it, the war with Russia as carried out was a tactical blunder.

Nonsense, the war was a complete and utter success. What else were we supposed to do? Fear the west? Not act because of the west? The west is our enemy, that one thing is clear, these developments have cut up the grey area, there is no grey area now and that is good. Isolation? Russia will revise its policy towards NATO all on its own after these happenings regardless of what the west might do. The point is, this was bound to happen at some point, Russia was never going to be the west and the sooner we stopped playing the West's game, the better.

So in other words you want war and believe peace is impossible? You also fail to deal with the point of how exactly two countries provoking each other into aggression is in either of their interest.

Russia was only responding to aggression in Georgia, not provoking it. Russia is already provoked enough by NATO's expansion. Yes, peace is impossible or rather it was never possible, not after the West has failed to make Russia yet another one of its puppet states ripe for exploitation as they tried in the 90s. This is in Russia's national interests, the only way for Russia to protect its sovereignty from the West is to oppose the West.

The problem of use of small scale nuclear weapons was considered and solved during the Cold War, tactical nuclear devices (see here). The western strategy in the Cold War for such a situation was to use tactical nuclear devices to engage in limited nuclear war to either force the USSR to back off or force a Russian first-strike in a total nuclear war. Point being, conventional warfare is a joke in a nuclear age.

I doubt your side will have the guts to push the button, tactical nuclear warfare is a joke, the moment anything nuclear explodes on the battlefield you know humanity is getting wiped out in the next hour or so. In addition you underestimate us, your arrogance will be your own undoing. Russia will build up its conventional force and it will act to protect its national interests.

Second, no one launched nuclear weapons over Iraq because Iraq wasn't part of any mutual defense pact, something many of the former Soviet republics are considering. It is reasonable to consider that mutual defense pacts will only expand.

NATO expansion was a problem long before Georgia-Ossetia conflict, it still remains the same problem, nothing changed. There are many smart people seating in Kremlin, they'll figure something out, Georgia has shown that Russia has the guts to back up its words with action and we won't stop here.

Academics have never considered Russia a free nation; the best score it was ever given was partially free; since 2005 it has reverted back to not free. Sadly, the Russian people have never been free. The sad truth is that Russia has revoked the little freedom it gave it's citizens.

The sad truth is that you have no clue what so ever what you are talking about. Your 'academics' have a tendency to see what they want, somehow they overlooked the 2000 presidential election in US that basically proved that US is an oligarchy, also this whole "free" press nonsense is a joke, the recent conflict with Georgia has shown clearly how politically biased the so called "free" media truly is. Nothing from the West can be seen as unbiased in relation to Russia.

The man who has degraded the worth and dignity of the Russian people the most is Putin. He's decided Russians have no right to make decisions for themselves and is forcing them into a cycle of poverty. As for him being popular, cheering for a driver who is going to drive you off is cliff is still going over a cliff.

Once again, don't talk about what you do not know. Life in Russia has improved greatly under Putin, salaries grew, life expectancy grew, we're currently in a babyboom. Whats not to like? His ability to put Russia's interests above those of the West is a plus, not a minus. Russia will not be absorbed by you, and that is all there is to that. Btw, there is no one disputing the fact that Putin would have won all the elections he wanted even if those elections were super-duper democratic, the Russian people have made their choice. Putin is a great leader not just in words but in action and we have learned to treasure that.

If US wants to go as far as using nukes, so be it, Russia standing by while the West encircles us is a non-option. Speeding along a conclusion to the current situation is in Russia's interests, its kill or be killed, there is no third option.

But aside from Russia reestablishing its former possessions through military strength, Russia will remove all caps on its weapons supplies to nations unfriendly to the west and then we'll see how you like terrorists running around not with old RPG-7s and worn out Chinese rip-offs of AK-47s but AK-103s with recoil canceling mechanism and RPG-29s that are able to pierce through the side armor of any western tank (even got through the front armor of a Challenger 2 in Iraq a couple of years back, blew the drivers foot off), and of course Kornet-E ATGM that can destroy any tank you have in your arsenal, and Igla-M MANPADs to wipe out your helicopters and CAS aircraft, and GPS and radar jamming equipment and of course an advanced integrated SAM network incorporating S-400, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M1/M2 and other goodies. You have a lot to loose by making Russia your enemy, but for some reason you do not realize this, oh well, whatever happens next you brought it upon yourselves.

In recent news I heard that Russia will most likely be placing a permanent military base in South Ossetia. Russia IS NOT required to care what the West thinks of its actions, we're not going to accept the double standards you place upon us, especially since you are the ones who've been starting wars all over the world for the past decade and have been spreading your influence through military means.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Nonsense, the war was a complete and utter success. What else were we supposed to do? Fear the west? Not act because of the west? The west is our enemy, that one thing is clear, these developments have cut up the grey area, there is no grey area now and that is good. Isolation? Russia will revise its policy towards NATO all on its own after these happenings regardless of what the west might do. The point is, this was bound to happen at some point, Russia was never going to be the west and the sooner we stopped playing the West's game, the better.


Russia was only responding to aggression in Georgia, not provoking it. Russia is already provoked enough by NATO's expansion. Yes, peace is impossible or rather it was never possible, not after the West has failed to make Russia yet another one of its puppet states ripe for exploitation as they tried in the 90s. This is in Russia's national interests, the only way for Russia to protect its sovereignty from the West is to oppose the West.

...

If US wants to go as far as using nukes, so be it, Russia standing by while the West encircles us is a non-option. Speeding along a conclusion to the current situation is in Russia's interests, its kill or be killed, there is no third option.

But aside from Russia reestablishing its former possessions through military strength, Russia will remove all caps on its weapons supplies to nations unfriendly to the west and then we'll see how you like terrorists running around not with old RPG-7s and worn out Chinese rip-offs of AK-47s but AK-103s with recoil canceling mechanism and RPG-29s that are able to pierce through the side armor of any western tank (even got through the front armor of a Challenger 2 in Iraq a couple of years back, blew the drivers foot off), and of course Kornet-E ATGM that can destroy any tank you have in your arsenal, and Igla-M MANPADs to wipe out your helicopters and CAS aircraft, and GPS and radar jamming equipment and of course an advanced integrated SAM network incorporating S-400, Pantsir-S1, Tor-M1/M2 and other goodies. You have a lot to loose by making Russia your enemy, but for some reason you do not realize this, oh well, whatever happens next you brought it upon yourselves.

...

In recent news I heard that Russia will most likely be placing a permanent military base in South Ossetia. Russia IS NOT required to care what the West thinks of its actions, we're not going to accept the double standards you place upon us, especially since you are the ones who've been starting wars all over the world for the past decade and have been spreading your influence through military means.

I already stated what both Russia and the west should do in my first post in this thread:

"Spheres of influence all over again; US is pushing into what is perceived as the Russian sphere of influence (Estonia, Latvia, etc in NATO + missile defense) and Russia is trying to reach out into the Caribbean, the 'American sphere of influence'. It's just mind boggling as to how adding Georgia into NATO is in the interest of the US and how Russia strengthening ties with Cuba and Venezuela is in theirs. It's nothing but the two counties acting like children and it's going to push us into another Cold War. Spheres of influence is an outdated concept that both countries need to get over."

Please explain to me how the concept of spheres of influence is relevant in a world becoming ever more connected in globalization. This is no more than clinging to a concept that is completely out of date and no longer applies to the modern world. At one point in history standing in a line and shooting rifles while wearing bright colored uniforms was a proven tactic - the world evolves and people need to get with it.

And make Russia a puppet state... lol? I'd like to see you show any international document that doesn't recognize Russia as a sovereign nation. Making it a puppet state by adding it to the G8? Make it a puppet state by putting it on the UNSC and give it a veto power? Can you say paranoid?

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

I doubt your side will have the guts to push the button, tactical nuclear warfare is a joke, the moment anything nuclear explodes on the battlefield you know humanity is getting wiped out in the next hour or so. In addition you underestimate us, your arrogance will be your own undoing. Russia will build up its conventional force and it will act to protect its national interests.

First, don't for a second call it my side; I am a military non-interventionist, hence I wouldn't support military intervention. Second, jokes don't tend to work in practice - the threat of tactical nuclear warfare did in the Cold War.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

NATO expansion was a problem long before Georgia-Ossetia conflict, it still remains the same problem, nothing changed. There are many smart people seating in Kremlin, they'll figure something out, Georgia has shown that Russia has the guts to back up its words with action and we won't stop here.

Like cause the chainganging effect that caused WWI by accident? Except this time with nuclear weapons? (Despite how terrible it would be, there have been IR papers written on it since the Cold War started and they're a pretty interesting read you should look into since you seem interested in this kind of stuff.)

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

The sad truth is that you have no clue what so ever what you are talking about. Your 'academics' have a tendency to see what they want, somehow they overlooked the 2000 presidential election in US that basically proved that US is an oligarchy, also this whole "free" press nonsense is a joke, the recent conflict with Georgia has shown clearly how politically biased the so called "free" media truly is. Nothing from the West can be seen as unbiased in relation to Russia.

They overlooked the 2000 election in the United States in an examination of Russia in 2008? 'My academics'? Freedomhouse is an international organization. Free press nonsense is a joke? Feel free to discredit this:

"The United States has a free, diverse, and constitutionally protected press. In recent years, though, a debate has arisen over the impact of ownership consolidation, either by sprawling media companies with outlets in many states and formats or by corporate conglomerates with little or no previous interest in journalism. At the same time, internet journalists and bloggers play a growing role in the coverage of political news, and internet access is widespread in the country.

Controversy has also arisen over attempts by federal prosecutors to compel journalists to divulge the names of confidential sources. In 2007, a federal judge threatened two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle with imprisonment for refusing to reveal the source of information leaked from a grand jury investigating steroid use by professional athletes. The case was resolved when the attorney responsible for the leak acknowledged his role. A bill to provide limited protection from demands for information about confidential sources in federal cases has passed the House. Such press shield laws already exist in 37 states."
Freedomhouse

Is it not a fair analysis? and why?

Nothing in the west can be unbias to Russia? How about access to the Russian media? Is that anti-Russian too? Because ya know, we westerners do have access to it.

And feel free to make a thread on how the US is an oligarchy - then you can make on arguing that the world is flat, evolution isn't true, and the moon is made of cheese.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Once again, don't talk about what you do not know. Life in Russia has improved greatly under Putin, salaries grew, life expectancy grew, we're currently in a babyboom. Whats not to like? His ability to put Russia's interests above those of the West is a plus, not a minus. Russia will not be absorbed by you, and that is all there is to that. Btw, there is no one disputing the fact that Putin would have won all the elections he wanted even if those elections were super-duper democratic, the Russian people have made their choice. Putin is a great leader not just in words but in action and we have learned to treasure that.

What's not to like? He's taken the little freedom Russians have and stripped that little worth and dignity from the people he was suppose to be helping. Ya know, economies can be made better and leaders can listen to their citizens first without taking away their freedom. The Russian people didn't have a real choice. Read the facts I presented to you. His political opponents get no real debate or coverage (see the freedomhouse article you seem to have ignored). And just because I'm presenting actual facts (in the form of academic sources) that clash with blind nationalism doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

And I ask this seriously - do you really want a war with the west that would probably end in a nuclear war? It seems as if you're desperately hoping and supporting the start of one.

[little-cheeze]

i just want world war 3

[Uncle_Vanya]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

I already stated what both Russia and the west should do in my first post in this thread:

"Spheres of influence all over again; US is pushing into what is perceived as the Russian sphere of influence (Estonia, Latvia, etc in NATO + missile defense) and Russia is trying to reach out into the Caribbean, the 'American sphere of influence'. It's just mind boggling as to how adding Georgia into NATO is in the interest of the US and how Russia strengthening ties with Cuba and Venezuela is in theirs. It's nothing but the two counties acting like children and it's going to push us into another Cold War. Spheres of influence is an outdated concept that both countries need to get over."

Please explain to me how the concept of spheres of influence is relevant in a world becoming ever more connected in globalization. This is no more than clinging to a concept that is completely out of date and no longer applies to the modern world. At one point in history standing in a line and shooting rifles while wearing bright colored uniforms was a proven tactic - the world evolves and people need to get with it.

Russia is not yet globalized and we can still reverse this trend. Spheres of influence are VERY relevant. Evolved? What changed exactly? Its not like Nazi Germany was economically isolated before WW2. Nothing changed, might makes right, that will always be the case. Russia has a choice, either stand by and let US police the world, or intervene, as I said, no third option.

And make Russia a puppet state... lol? I'd like to see you show any international document that doesn't recognize Russia as a sovereign nation. Making it a puppet state by adding it to the G8? Make it a puppet state by putting it on the UNSC and give it a veto power? Can you say paranoid?

Russia is not a puppet state, you weren't successful with making it a puppet state back in the 90s. Iraq is a US puppet state, Afghanistan is a US puppet state, Poland, current gov't of Ukraine, etc. are US puppet states, they don't usually announce that they are puppet states in writing but it is obvious.

First, don't for a second call it my side; I am a military non-interventionist, hence I wouldn't support military intervention. Second, jokes don't tend to work in practice - the threat of tactical nuclear warfare did in the Cold War.

In the Cold War the two sides had some what of a respect for each other, with Russia encircled like this there is no respect to be had so yes it may very likely end up in war this time about. Btw NATO has been divided this morning at their summit just like everyone expected, so no unified NATO sending a message to Russia about Georgia, thats not going to happen.

Like cause the chainganging effect that caused WWI by accident? Except this time with nuclear weapons? (Despite how terrible it would be, there have been IR papers written on it since the Cold War started and they're a pretty interesting read you should look into since you seem interested in this kind of stuff.)

I guess, ehm, this here is a powderkeg, all it needs is a match and there can be no stability until it blows up.

They overlooked the 2000 election in the United States in an examination of Russia in 2008? 'My academics'? Freedomhouse is an international organization. Free press nonsense is a joke? Feel free to discredit this:

I was talking about your 'academics' in general, they are very selective on what they want to see. Free press nonsense is a joke, glad you agree.

"The United States has a free, diverse, and constitutionally protected press. In recent years, though, a debate has arisen over the impact of ownership consolidation, either by sprawling media companies with outlets in many states and formats or by corporate conglomerates with little or no previous interest in journalism. At the same time, internet journalists and bloggers play a growing role in the coverage of political news, and internet access is widespread in the country.

Controversy has also arisen over attempts by federal prosecutors to compel journalists to divulge the names of confidential sources. In 2007, a federal judge threatened two reporters from the San Francisco Chronicle with imprisonment for refusing to reveal the source of information leaked from a grand jury investigating steroid use by professional athletes. The case was resolved when the attorney responsible for the leak acknowledged his role. A bill to provide limited protection from demands for information about confidential sources in federal cases has passed the House. Such press shield laws already exist in 37 states."
Freedomhouse

Lol, yeap still freedom house. Your press maybe owned by corporations rather then the government (which is what I claimed from the start) but that doesn't make it objective, thus it is a joke.

Is it not a fair analysis? and why?

Nothing in the west can be unbias to Russia? How about access to the Russian media? Is that anti-Russian too? Because ya know, we westerners do have access to it.

Hmm, you watch Russian media is that what you're getting at?

And feel free to make a thread on how the US is an oligarchy - then you can make on arguing that the world is flat, evolution isn't true, and the moon is made of cheese.

US is an oligarchy its a simple point really, I'll be sure to make a thread about it.

What's not to like? He's taken the little freedom Russians have and stripped that little worth and dignity from the people he was suppose to be helping. Ya know, economies can be made better and leaders can listen to their citizens first without taking away their freedom. The Russian people didn't have a real choice. Read the facts I presented to you. His political opponents get no real debate or coverage (see the freedomhouse article you seem to have ignored). And just because I'm presenting actual facts (in the form of academic sources) that clash with blind nationalism doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about.

People in Russia are proud again, their dignity was restored. You don't know what you're talking about. There was a televised debate before these presidential elections, there were commercials of all the candidates appearing on every Russian channel, what you're presenting isn't facts, just biased opinions of Russophobic liberal scum with an agenda. Russia would have elected Putin either way, because we support him and that is a fact. We always have a choice, unless you forget the Revolution of 1917.

And I ask this seriously - do you really want a war with the west that would probably end in a nuclear war? It seems as if you're desperately hoping and supporting the start of one.

Something needs to happen to fix the current world order.

[Renzokuken]

Vanya stfu and gtfo out of Georgia.

[Uncle_Vanya]

Originally Posted by Renzokuken

Vanya stfu and gtfo out of Georgia.

Nah, thx. Georgia still has lots to pay. Infact we maybe building a permanent military base in South Ossetia. We've won a great victory here, not just a military one against Georgia but also a political one against NATO. Even now cracks are beginning to appear, Turkey will not allow USN ships into the Black Sea and NATO can't come to a consensus on its response to Russia, they are split on the issue.

[Tipsy]

I've cited sources for my argument, now its your turn.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Russia is not yet globalized and we can still reverse this trend.

Please cite any academic evidence that Russia can do this and that it won't drastically harm their economy if it does.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Spheres of influence are VERY relevant. Evolved? What changed exactly? Its not like Nazi Germany was economically isolated before WW2. Nothing changed, might makes right, that will always be the case. Russia has a choice, either stand by and let US police the world, or intervene, as I said, no third option.

Please cite any academic evidence that spheres of influence have not lost their power as globalization has risen.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Russia is not a puppet state, you weren't successful with making it a puppet state back in the 90s.

Please cite any academic evidence that there was an attempt to make Russia a puppet state.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Iraq is a US puppet state,

Please cite any academic evidence that Iraq is a puppet state.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Afghanistan is a US puppet state,

Please cite any academic evidence that Afghanistan is a puppet state.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Poland,

Please cite any academic evidence that Poland is a puppet state.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

current gov't of Ukraine,

Please cite any academic evidence that Ukraine is a puppet state.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

etc. are US puppet states, they don't usually announce that they are puppet states in writing but it is obvious.

...

I was talking about your 'academics' in general, they are very selective on what they want to see. Free press nonsense is a joke, glad you agree.

There are always academics that point these things out. Chomsky comes to mind.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

In the Cold War the two sides had some what of a respect for each other, with Russia encircled like this there is no respect to be had so yes it may very likely end up in war this time about. Btw NATO has been divided this morning at their summit just like everyone expected, so no unified NATO sending a message to Russia about Georgia, thats not going to happen.

And any of this is at all relevant in rebutting the effectiveness of tactical nuclear weapons how? The quote this responded to is:

"First, don't for a second call it my side; I am a military non-interventionist, hence I wouldn't support military intervention. Second, jokes don't tend to work in practice - the threat of tactical nuclear warfare did in the Cold War."

Please respond to it.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

I guess, ehm, this here is a powderkeg, all it needs is a match and there can be no stability until it blows up.

And you're the one arguing to throw the match onto the powderkeg.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Lol, yeap still freedom house. Your press maybe owned by corporations rather then the government (which is what I claimed from the start) but that doesn't make it objective, thus it is a joke.

Is it not a fair analysis? and why?

All I've claimed is western media isn't genuine propaganda that the government has the power to control as it is in Russia (as corroborated by the freedomhouse article).

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Hmm, you watch Russian media is that what you're getting at?

Most people interested in getting the news tend to get it from multiple sources (especially the world of academics you denounce)? For example, if I wanted to say that there has been no independent confirmation of genocide by the Georgians I could cite the Moscow Times (article here)? There are numerous other sources for Russian media as well. If I wanted to get information on Iraq, Israel, Iran, etc I could check Aljazeera? What I'm getting at is I, and anyone else with internet access has quite a bit of diversity in where they can get their information from.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

US is an oligarchy its a simple point really, I'll be sure to make a thread about it.

Please cite any academic evidence that the US is an oligarchy.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

People in Russia are proud again, their dignity was restored. You don't know what you're talking about.

People who have their right to choose taken away from them with their consent is losing their dignity.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

There was a televised debate before these presidential elections,

Please cite a transcript, video, etc where Putin debated someone (as I was talking about the Prime Minister).

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

there were commercials of all the candidates appearing on every Russian channel,

Please cite any evidence to refute that the election wasn't engineered by the current Russian leadership to provide a victory to pro-Kremlin parties as was stated and supported by my source earlier.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

what you're presenting isn't facts, just biased opinions of Russophobic liberal scum with an agenda.

Fact: a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true.
(Dictionary)

Evidence and observation made by academics seem to make what I'm claiming fact in that I'm actually citing my facts while your claims seem to be more of:

Opinion: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Russia would have elected Putin either way, because we support him and that is a fact.

I don't think it is possible to know what would have happened if there existed a competitive political environment in Russia because of how much of a lack there is now; that is unless, you have some sort of academic evidence to predict who could have run, on what platforms, etc if there existed a competitive political environment, but even that would be more art than science.

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

We always have a choice, unless you forget the Revolution of 1917.

What percentage of the current Russian population consented to the Revolution of 1917?

Originally Posted by Uncle_Vanya

Something needs to happen to fix the current world order.

I couldn't agree more; I just happen to think that it can happen without re-emerging the world in a Cold War or through a nuclear war, the two options you seem to be so keen on seeing happen.

[Darkmatter]

This sounds a lot like the Cold War to me...