[

I just read around at different websites and wow, Russia is getting all the blame. All the ignorant people are going to follow the news sources...

Theres always an agenda with the US. The BTC pipeline runs through georgia, and pretty close to s. ossetia. Any sort of destabilisation obviously isnt going to be good for the old oil price sadly.

Interesting how you bring up oil prices when in the midst of this early fighting Oil prices drop 4 bucks for no reason and the US stock market gains 300 points, yet when a Nigerian pipeline or even the threat of war with Iran happens prices shoot up and stocks go down. All highly deceptive imo.

All the news stories I've read so far have stated that Georgia started the attacks. It doesn't seem like they expected Russia to defend S. Ossetia, which is kind of stupid.

So Russia's best idea to stop the war is to attack Georgia proper? Yeah, OK.

This is a classic case of "a plague on both their houses". Russia has been supporting the puppet regime in South Ossetia for years to (in part) antagonize Georgia, while Georgia miscalculated in its gamble to attack now. In the end only innocent people suffer.

It's Georgia's fault for being so damn antagonized. South Ossetia's sovereignty is a matter of how it originally seceded from the USSR. Georgia wishes they own S.O. the same way China wishes they own Taiwan.

On what grounds is this association with Taiwan warranted? It seems to me these are fundamentally different cases.


At any rate, this seems to be something of a publicity coup for Georgia at the moment, but I don't think this is going to matter much in the end. There's nothing any country can do to go against Russia, and I'm not sure what reason they could find to do so.

Pretty dismal situation for all sides.

There is a difference between why Russia supports S. Ossetia vs. why the U.S. supports Taiwan - Russia's reasons are very much Machiavellian.

I don't see the difference. The U.S. support for Taiwan is also "Machiavellian" by your standard. Imperial hegemony, that's the desire in both situations. I dare China arm Cuba with state-of-the-art equipment; station 200,000 troops and ten squadrons in Mexico; send a full naval battle group to the Gulf; and land a spy plane in California, then blame the Americans for that fact.

[

It has nothing to do with weakness or strength.

Other nations tend to not to trust Russia because throughout its history it has been a powerful, imperialist state. It's dangerous, because it likes to expand its territories. Naturally the trust for a nation like that is low.

In the early 90's Russia was liked not because it was weak, but because the world thought that Russia might join the west and become a true democratic nation - Something it had never been.

Unfortunately for the last 10 years Russia has taken more and more steps towards totalitarism and is currently a semi-totalitarian state with the idea of returning to its former glory: Imperialism and expanding its territories.

That's why it's not trusted.

The worldwide community always tends to dislike such thing, that's why USA has become so unpopular in the last years.

BTW, on a sidenote: Are you aware of the fact that your country doesn't follow the principles of free press anymore? That your press essentially can't be trusted, because it has become a tool for propaganda? I'm asking this, because I hope you are not basing your opinions on your country and its policies on Russian press.

I am sorry 90% of historians in this country would disagree with you. Also I was a history major and I studied western European history. Every professor I had on the subject said Russia was not on the level of France or Britain. They were also below Prussia, and Spain until the 19th century. Russia was on the level of Austria and the Ottoman Empire and by the 19th century neither one of those powers were feared either. Russia was always second tier at best during the 18th and 19th centuries. Just because they had a lot of land didn't put them on the level of France or Britian. And where is this evidence about invading forces? The only army that invaded Russia before Napoleon were the Mongols and they conquered Russia for a couple of centuries. So, don't say I haven't done my homework, I am going by what the historians have said in this country and in western Europe. They all feel Russia didn't become a superpower util after WW I.

It's worth noting that Russia has always been a powerful nation in the eyes of its neighbor countries. It didn't provide a threat to West-Europe until post WW2, but the great majority of nations it shared a border with were always much smaller and weaker than Russia.

They were a threat to the Poles and some other nations in Eastern Europe. The Hapsburgs though didn't see them as a threat till the late 19th century. The even bested them a few times in some minor battles in the 18th century. That was part of the reason WW I happened. Austria feared Russia coming closer to its borders (The Austrian Empire was also growing a lot weaker by then) and decided to make a deal with the much stronger Germany.

To be more precise: Eastern Europe, Northern Europe, South Caucasus. Dozens of countries all in all. Russia has conquered massive land areas since 16th century. Sure, they mostly conquered 2nd rate nations and while it's true Russia wasn't a "worldpower" per se before post WW2, it still was a very powerful local power that had larger land area than any other nation in the world.

So while from an American and West-European perspective it wasn't necessarily a superpower, it certainly was one for Russia itself and it's neighboring countries.

I'm just trying to point out why there are two equally justifiable viewpoints here.

[

You are right out here. They were also a threat to the Turks who by the late 18th century began to weaken. By the late 18th century France and England began using Russia in their own power struggles over Europe. Russia changed sides a lot from 1740-1810. Their power grew in the 19th century and they started pushing on Austria before WW I started.

[

[

1. What is "western media"?

Because that assumes that countries that belong to the "west" have the same media reporting. That there are no differences between the medias in different western countries. Say, the USA media reports things from the same angle as French media. Obviously this is not the case, as western countries have a great diversity in their cultural and political bakgrounds.

2. I live in Finland, which since the 80's has traditionally been ranked very high for its freedom of press and political independency (In the 70's and before there was self-censorship and sometimes even government censorship to not publish anything too critical of USSR, in order to not to upset Soviet relations. That's what you get for being the only democratic nation in the world to share a ground border with USSR).

3. Along with local press, I also follow Russian and international press.

4. As anyone with any knowledge of history knows, being a citizen of a nation doesn't automatically mean that one is automatically more knowledgeable of the policies of the said nation than someone who lives in another nation. For example a great percentage of North-Koreans are less knowledgeable of their nation than many non-Koreans, thanks to decades of effective brainwashing.

...So your argument is invalid in several ways.




You are a russian and yet you don't know when "that" happened? You must have been skipping classes, I know they teach these things in Russia as well.

Here are some examples:

Great Northern War and the following invasions.

Partition of Poland.

Several invasions of Finland.

Invasion of Poland in WW2.

Invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in WW2.

Invasion of Afganistan in 1979.

...Do you need more? And yes, i'm very familiar with the politics surround each of those invasions, in case you want to debate them further.



...Why are you claiming that I don't read Russian press? I haven't made any claims about what you do, or you don't. Making factually incorrect claims about the other debater is a bad debate tactic



... Again, you claim that there is some "western media" which thinks alike, and doesn't have different variations due to different cultural and political backgrounds. There is no such thing, as anyone who reads press from different western countries can point out.



...Let's take an example: How much *personal* experience you have living in Georgia? How often do you see Georgia with your own eyes? Are you following the current conflict with your own eyes, and not through press?

In my understanding you don't live in the area of the current Georgia conflict. If that is correct, then obviously you are not seeing the conflict with your very own eyes, and you are not personally experiencing the conflict in Georgia... And since you don't use press to understand the conflict... You are unable to form an informed opinion on the conflict.

As for most of us on this board, we do base opinions on information we get from press, and therefore we are able to to comment on issues without first-hand experience.

This is also very important for every other member of this forum to note:

According to himself, Rumpelschtiltzchen doesn't base his opinions on information he gets from press, instead he forms opinions based on his immediate surroundings that he can see with his own eyes, and his own personal life history, no matter how far removed both are from the subject at hand. And perhaps more importantly: He bases his opinions primarily on two extremely subjective viewpoints, which are heavily biased by default: Immediate surroundings and personal history. Obviously neither is of any use when analyzing a political conflict of which we can receive information only from the press and (maybe) highly subjective accounts of people who we know personally, and who live in the area of said conflict.

It's also worth noting that this principle of basing opinions of worldwide political issues on your personal history and your immediate surroundings also means that you have to ignore second-hand information not only from press, but also from history books.

I'm not saying that his approach to receiving information is necessarily right or wrong, but it's worth noting where he comes from.

His lack of need for press maybe also makes it understandable why the freedom of press in Russia doesn't seem to be an issue for him - At least he didn't address the problem despite my attempts to bring it up.

.....

That sounds like pretty heavy revisionist history.

But in case you think you have proof to back up that statement, you could start by adressing the invasions I mentioned in my previous post. You don't have to go through all of them, but some of them would be nice.

You could start with Finland and the several Russian invasions Finland has faced. I'll gladly respond to you.

What standard? The only reason Putin's Russia supports South Ossetia is because it is a thorn in Georgia's side. There's no thought given about them having a democracy, market economy, etc.

It's the same reason they get all worked up Ukraine, Estonia, etc. It's never about the Russian-speaking population there, as they like to claim; it's always about trying to return to its former glory.