Quote:

Originally Posted by sbelew

So just to clarify...the US is behind all this, because we are an evil, scheming empire, and the valiant Russians are the victims.
That about sum it up?

Well, about 18 years ago, our govt (bush 41) agreed not to entice former pieces of the USSR into NATO. Starting with Clinton (twice), and then Bush (6, or 7? times) the US has broken that agreement. So while we may be the "standard bearers for Freedom, Democracy (and a littel torture on the side)" in our own eyes, to the Russians, our word isn't worth shinola.

Then, along the way, with one sentence, the Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia is cancelled.

Then we start looking to place anti-missile systems in countries that ring Russia. Our claim is that these are to protect the host countries from the evil that is Iran. Funny thing is:
A) None of these countries have any kind of beef with Iran, or vice versa.
B) Iran has absolutely no system for delivering any kind of payload to these countries.
C) Iran has no such payload to deliver.

Now, if y'all believe that then theres this'n.

we "helped install/grow/instill a democracy in Georgia. (if you believe that's a democracy, then I've got some real nice land down in Chile for sale. Recently owned by that great champion of democracy, Agusto Pinochet... hardly any bodies buried in it.)

Now the two provinces haven't really been part of Georgia since 1991. Never did want to be. What resulted was an area where both Georgia and Russia had "peace keepping troops", a sort of Mexican Standoff.

Some idiot gets a couple of bad ideas:
1. Accept Georgia into NATO.
2. Place more missiles based on a bad lie in Georgia.

As old fashioned as it sounds, the majority of the NATO members still see a treaty as a serious thing. The majority of NATO saw this as:

Accepting a dubious democracy, whose only redeeming feature was a pipeline both the US and Israel were eager to have protected, under their wing. It seemed a bit flimsy for them when what comes through this pipeline isn't going to come close to replacing the current supply they get from Russia, and is sure to piss them off.
Accepting Georgia into NATO as things stood meant taking into their midst a country with a disputed area. Said area currently occupied by both Georgian and Russian troops.
Accepting Georgia into NATO meant forswearing their troops to a war with Russia, should they invade this country or should some noise result from Russian troops already being there. Note again, there are already Russian troops there.
What means NATO then if they accept that situation?
Does it mean NATO is then required to expel these troops?
Accepting Georgia into NATO meant it would be their troops that would bear the front line of such action. What comfort there might be in the US saying, "We'll be right behind you" is also immediately offset with the thought of the nuclear war this might mean.
Was such a grumble between Georgia and Russia worth one of their cities?

What a suprise! NATO took a pass.

Next comes US trtoops, US advisors, US weapons, Israeli troops, Israeli advisors, Israeli weapons. In the midst of all this also comes talk of the US parking missiles here. This was all a bad idea for several reasons.

The fact we have been butt-scratchin' simple, and stupid about our own border, has evidently made us think every other country should hold the same attitude about theirs. Yes, Russia saw what was coming, and started preparing for what they did months ago.

What came was an attempt to remove two of NATO's larger objections to accepting Georgia, that being the disputed territories, and the presence of Russian troops. What came was a good old fashioned dose of ethnic cleansing. Russia knows one, and how effective it can be, when they see it, and so does our admin.

When you look at the earliest reports of how this conflict started, thats exactly what Georgia initiated. They began by leveling people's homes, meaning thered be nothing to return to. Then an attempt to drive them north, out of country, followed by the 2,000 or so Russian troops. And then, naturally a call for Cease Fire, and Status Quo.

All quickly done, followed by a lot of US condemnation of Russia's behavior, and the way would have been clear for another attempt at the US promised entrance into NATO.

Quote:

"Just because you don't have a plan (or just a really bad one), doesn't mean you aren't also part of someone else's."

First, whether good, evil, or benign, expecting Russia to just sit and do nothing while their troops are run off is monumentally foolish.
To expect them to stop because we say bad things about them, is more of the same.
A blind man with a seeing-eye turtle could have seen this coming, so Russia did what anyone with advance warning would do, they moved troops into the area. They also had a plan.

Striking back at Georgian troops who started this conflict gave them the opportunity to speak to several things.

The US's and NATO's promise not to add former soviet block nation into their midst.
That their patience ends when their former, and our future client states attack their troops.
That entertaining the placement of US missiles along their border would have consequences for countries who allow their territory to be used in this manner. and..
That NATO accepting these countries and missiles in their midst, can and will lead to NATO troops becoming involved, via treaty.

The nature and strength of their retaliation was intended to address all of these, and cause some doubts about the widom of more. Notice that Sec. Rice rushed to Poland to try and mitigate these doubts. Notice also that Europe did not rush troops into this.

Something else to consider here, and I would sure have fewer doubts if this was being seriously considered: We currently have a conflict going in Iraq (1). Another one going in Afghanistan (2). Congressional approval for, and supposedly several carrier groups on the way to blockade Iran, an act of war (3). And now, whether through backing a client state, or treaty obligation, by pressing this missile client into NATO, involve ourselves in a conflict with Russia (4).
Does anyone else see a near-bankrupt nation purposely involving itself in a four-front war which will put the US, and most of Europe, and the Middle East into financial chaos?

Who benefits from all this?

At what point along the way might not the rest of the world entertain the notion that it's us who are at least part of the nuisance?