Jump to content

Home

Uh Oh! Georgia 2-0 Russia


jonathan7

Recommended Posts

 

Because eastern bloc countries tend to side with either Russia, or the west/US. If Georgia loose, expect to see a lot of countries becoming Russian satelites.

 

But why would they do that? Because Russia flexes its military muscle? Or is it because Georgia is backed by NATO, and if Georgia loses, NATO somehow isn't capable of defending other nations, so they go to Russia?

 

 

True, but I wouldn't be surprised if they intervene to prevent Russia from grabing a lot of it's former satelites. Heck, they might even say that result would threaten member states, and do some preemptive striking.

 

Intervene as in...FULL military intervention? That would be very problematic for the world. I hope you mean diplomatic talks instead for a preemptive strike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply
But why would they do that? Because Russia flexes its military muscle? Or is it because Georgia is backed by NATO, and if Georgia loses, NATO somehow isn't capable of defending other nations, so they go to Russia?

 

Mainly the later.

 

Intervene as in...FULL military intervention? That would be very problematic for the world. I hope you mean diplomatic talks instead for a preemptive strike.

 

Hopefully it'll be resolved diplomatically, but Dima is sounding more more and more like Putin, so I don't have very high hopes. And by preemtive strike, I mean strike before Russia strikes a NATO country (not likely to happen, but it could work as an excuse) by defending Georgia, not striking Russia itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remeber that Putin showed fond reminiscence for the Soviet era on more than one occasion. While Medvedev is now President, many (here, anyway) still believe that Vlad is pulling the strings. If he is the puppet master, Russia moving to retake old Soviet territory doesn't seem too far-fetched...

...and we will all regret it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right about Vlads power, at least for now. However the longer Dima remains president, the more power he'll gain, and if Vlad dosen't decide to take another term as president, he'll get to run Russia one day. As for Vlads aims, it all depends on wether or not he'll seek a second term as president. If yes, then he'll at least try to make the neighbours satelites, if not, he'll probably soon be busy protecting his supporters wealth and let Dima set foreign policy. As for Vlads fondness for the Soviet era, unfourtantely a lot russians share that fondness (a very popular TV show is asking russians to vote for their gratest leader, so far, Stalin is winning:()

 

As for what Dima wants, he apears to not want a war, his guys where trying to reasure the outside world of Russias peacefull intentions untill all hell broke loose, then he startet sounding like Vlad. However, don't think that Dima is going to be much easier to deal with than Vlad, there is a reason why Vlad gave him the throne.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if Vlad dosen't decide to take another term as president

 

I didn't know he could take another term as President - how many are permitted?

 

As for Vlads fondness for the Soviet era' date=' unfourtantely a lot russians share that fondness (a very popular TV show is asking russians to vote for their gratest leader, so far, Stalin is winning)[/quote']

 

That is very surprising. I thought the Russian people were pleased to see him go as much as the rest of us. I would have thought Lenin or Khruschev before Stalin!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very surprising. I thought the Russian people were pleased to see him go as much as the rest of us. I would have thought Lenin or Khruschev before Stalin!

 

What on earth made you think that?

 

To understand a culture, you must first understand what your culture teaches your mode of thinking. Then you can begin to understand other cultures.

 

Enculturation is insidious, it influences every human being on the planet, whether they know it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You Sir' date=' are massively underestimating Russian military might[/Quote']

 

How so? I was just using Anchorage as an example, not trying to say that only if you live there you're screwed.

 

Things seem to be taking a turn for the worse[/Quote]

 

Yeah... now I'm going to have to find a list of all who're involved in the "Protect Georgia" thing...

 

EDIT:

“I want to make very clear that the U.S. commitment to Georgia’s territorial integrity is strong.”[/Quote]

 

Source It's in the lower section of the article on something entirely different.

 

Hmmm.... Looks like something might be brewing for the US sometime soon...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is very surprising. I thought the Russian people were pleased to see him go as much as the rest of us. I would have thought Lenin or Khruschev before Stalin!

 

They were, at first, but as time when on and the Soviet Bloc nations fell apart and Russia fell into recession, people began to long for the old days. A lot of Russians and ex-Soviet bloc nations will tell you they'd gladly trade the current situation of their own country to be part of something big and grand like the Soviet Union.

 

People liked feeling like they were important in the world, not impotent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^An economic colapse is not a pretty sight, my grandfather by a river with a Russian city on the opposite bank, they where instructed how to react if the towns population fled across the ice. However that longing for the old days is fading as Russias wealth increase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of Russians and ex-Soviet bloc nations will tell you they'd gladly trade the current situation of their own country to be part of something big and grand like the Soviet Union.

 

I suppose that is one of the reasons that many of those states are angling to join the EU and NATO.

 

I can see the positive points of Stalin's reign/presidency (depends how you look at it.) The five-year plans brought economic growth, not to mention his defence of the Soviet Union in the Second World War.

 

Out of interest, who are the other runners in that TV poll?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see the positive points of Stalin's reign/presidency (depends how you look at it.) The five-year plans brought economic growth, not to mention his defence of the Soviet Union in the Second World War.

 

The defence worked, but I wouldn't give him much credit for it (look up Soviet warcrimes during WW2). As for the economy, an old Russian joke goes like this: "How do you get rid of the mice in the Kremlin? You put up a sign saying 'collective farm'. Then half the mice will starve, and the others flee".

 

Out of interest, who are the other runners in that TV poll?

 

Lenin, the last tsar (he's in second place), and anyone else that can be decribed as great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lenin' date=' the last tsar (he's in second place), and anyone else that can be decribed as great.[/quote']

 

Hmmm...Josef Stalin is 1st, Tsar Nicholas II is 2nd - the Russians don't seem enamoured with democracy, do they? I suppose they look back and see a world power that inspired fear and respect throughout the world, with enough of a rose-tint to ignore the poverty and brutality.

 

Actually...not so much different from the rest of us!

 

EDIT: I just read this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7551595.stm

Seems both sides are digging their heels in. Russia has said negotiation is impossible until Georgian forces return to positions outside S. Ossetia, and PM (Prime Minister, or Puppet Master) Vlad has moved down to N. Ossetia. Casualty reports are very confusing - Russia says 1400, mostly civilians (as does SO), Georgia says 82-130, the minority being civilians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lenin' date=' the last tsar (he's in second place), and anyone else that can be decribed as great.[/quote']

 

Lenin was not a Tsar.

 

I don't think so. I live in a country that was occupied by the sovs in 1940 and we hated the SU, still do.

 

Which one is that?

 

Wasn't Nicholas II the last tsar?

that is correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SW01: Well' date=' it's not like they have a huge number of nice democratic folks to pick from.[/quote']

 

True, if it came down to a choice between Romanov, Yeltsin or Putin, I'd probably go with Romanov too!

 

Web Rider & Talak - mur'phon meant Lenin AND the last tsar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...