NATO foreign ministers issue a warning to Russia

[justjohn]

NATO foreign ministers issue a warning to Russia, telling it to withdraw troops from Georgia

NATO foreign ministers gathered in Brussels on Tuesday August 19th for an emergency summit, called by America, to discuss what to do next about Georgia and Russia. The military alliance gave warning that “we cannot continue with business as usual” until Russia withdraws troops from Georgia. NATO also pledged to deepen ties with Georgia by setting up a NATO-Georgia Commission. Russia and America have cancelled plans for joint military exercises.

The facts on the ground are changing only slowly. Despite a promise by Russia’s president, Dmitry Medvedev, that Russian troops now deep inside Georgia would this week withdraw (presumably to the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia), only by the middle of the day on Tuesday were the first reports issued that some Russian units were beginning to pull back from the town of Gori. However this was a small gesture compared with the steady flow of troops and armour heading in the opposition direction in previous days. Also on Tuesday Russian troops detained 21 Georgian soldiers in another town, Poti.

A ceasefire is in place and some prisoners have been exchanged, but Russia continues to flex its substantial military muscle. Claiming a right to take additional security measures, Russian troops had continued to destroy and loot Georgian military bases. One Russian colonel had crowed that looted American rations were particularly tasty. In addition there were reports that economic targets—such as a railway line that runs east to west across the country—had been attacked. In South Ossetia itself, ethnic Georgian villages have been burned and homes destroyed.

The longer that Russian forces remain in Georgia proper, the greater the demonstration by Russia that it intends to assert its will over the small neighbour. Although Russia has apparently stopped short of trying to topple the pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili, it is stating that Georgia lies within its sphere of influence and that, for example, Georgian membership of NATO would not be tolerated. Despite the new commission, the prospect of further expansion of NATO has receded in the past two weeks.

Russia’s leaders are confident not only because of their local military superiority. They also know that Western leverage in Georgia and in the immediate region is hampered by sharp diplomatic divisions between NATO allies. On Tuesday at the summit Germany’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, appeared to play down the importance of Georgia to the West, noting that NATO’s involvement in the region is “very limited”.


America, which has the biggest political interest in the region, had endorsed Mr Saakashvili and retrained the Georgian army. It has been the most outspoken in support of Georgia, threatening for example to scrap regular ministerial meetings between NATO countries and Russia. On Monday Condoleezza Rice, on her way to Brussels, told reporters that NATO must “deny Russian strategic objectives, which are clearly to undermine Georgia's democracy, to use its military capability to damage and in some cases destroy Georgian infrastructure and to try and weaken the Georgian state.” Eastern European countries have largely followed America’s line, fearing that a resurgent Russia is once again a direct threat to their interests.

In contrast a group of west European countries, notably France, Germany and Italy, is anxious to avoid greater confrontation with Russia. Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, strongly criticised Russia’s actions this weekend, even as she stood beside Mr Medvedev in Sochi, a Russian coastal resort near to Georgia. She said that Russia’s response to Georgia’s (ill-considered) attack on South Ossetia was both “disproportionate” and “unreasonable.” But German dependence on energy from the east—roughly half of the 80 billion cubic metres of gas consumed in Germany each year are now piped from Russia—encourages others, such as her foreign minister and the former chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, to seek a more emollient line. Mr Schröder told Der Spiegel this week that Europe should “maintain a strong relationship with Russia”, adding that “there is not a single critical problem in world politics or the global economy that could be solved without Russia.”

Silvio Berlusconi, Italy’s prime minister who has a close relationship with Vladimir Putin (he once described himself as Mr Putin’s “defence lawyer”), has been similarly unwilling to confront Russia. Italy depends heavily, too, on Russian imports, which represent roughly a third of the gas that it consumes each year.

Attention may turn next to Ukraine, where another broadly pro-Western government that seeks membership of NATO faces domestic instability and fears of Russian intervention in some form. On Monday Ukraine’s president, Viktor Yushchenko, who has spoken out against Russia’s actions in Georgia, accused his ally-turned-rival, Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister, of seeking Russian support in a forthcoming presidential election. Ms Tymoshenko has, so far, remained silent on events in Georgia. Using a war in Georgia for narrow political ends will not help to solve the crisis.

[nathanael]

The Germans have a vested interest in dealing with Russia, since the times of Ribbentrop. They don't care what happens to Georgia or Poland. They have their Baltic pipeline. All this shows that NATO is a paper tiger of the worst kind. They did prostitute themselves with Russia for a time. They have now been told that the honeymoon is over. What is worse, the present situation shows that the people entrusted with our Russia relations have been brain dead for at least a decade! My feeling is that Russia is betraying the free world, itching for another world war!

[karl]

Aug 20, 2008 14:26:40 GMT -7 @Nathanael said:

The Germans have a vested interest in dealing with Russia, since the times of Ribbentrop. They don't care what happens to Georgia or Poland. They have their Baltic pipeline. All this shows that NATO is a paper tiger of the worst kind. They did prostitute themselves with Russia for a time. They have now been told that the honeymoon is over. What is worse, the present situation shows that the people entrusted with our Russia relations have been brain dead for at least a decade! My feeling is that Russia is betraying the free world, itching for another world war!

I am not so sure of your meaning with use of your post. Rather out of misconception of facts, or leaning upon some very out-dated Stereotypen and cliches. How ever, this is very misleading and inflammatory.

This pipe line, is/will be the most long of length of any undersea pipe line in history. It will begin from: Wyborg Russia, through the sea bottom of the Baltic through to the Öst-See {German side of Baltic} ending at Greifswald at distributional terminal.

The following url is more of explanation.

www.wingas.de/pi-08-10.html?&L=1

What sticks in the craw of Poland, is the by-pass of the very much economical land transit route. And, this would entail a very sizable income for transit fees, to place into the Polish coffers. Now with the undersea route, it is bye bye to these transit fee payments.

What is a problem but will be addressed. Is from a historical event of year 1715. This was the Great Northern War and event of the Swedish navy to ballast some 20 ships of each of length in the area of 15 metres. These they positioned and sunk on the seaward sill of the Bay of Greifswald. These waters are a shallow bottom of only about 2 metres below surface. This resulted defensive barrier formed a 980 metre defensive barrier for prevention of ship entry into the bay.

Now, these must be salvaged out by Nord Stream with some historical wrecks to be kept intact by relocation onto a prepared gravel sea bed.

Yes, you are correct though, my country has a very great vested interest in the pipe line. A very much is at stake in-as-much to needed supplies of gas {Earth Gas} for not just Germany, but for also many other customers of West Europe, and of Poland. Yes, there is provision for hook up for access by Poland to the pipe. But, Poland must build their own terminal, for this is not free.

I think perhaps it would be a very wise move for your Donald Tusk to place a gag on that idiot of his president to keep his mouth down.

Poland is very fortunate and undeserving, for their Mr. Donald Tusk. For once, they {Poland} have now a man of vision and ability to lead with knowledge.

There is no reason for the speculative non-sense of who will be next on the Russian chop block. There is no need for this. Georgia received exactly what it deserved for their deeds, and as consequence, now sufferer's the result. It is the people that suffer for this folly.

What is real and present, is this coming winter and the need for heat..So what and who will you lay the blame to as you turn on the cooking stove burner, and not even a smell excapes? Yes, then this will be reality, and Russia will no longer matter, just where is the gas?

Karl

[wayneprice]

Nathanael,

Great points! Russia, from time immemorial has needed a few things that it cannot get from Mother Russia itself. Natural resources being one, and a "window" on the west is another. In order to control, in the broadest sense, it's input and output of the natural resource of oil ( Oil/gas, it doesn't matter) it has to at least rattle the sabre in the Caucuses.

In the current Russian logic, they are NOT violating the terms of the cease-fire. In their minds, a buffer zone of 40 to 50 km is permitted. Now, none of the rest of the world thinks this is reasonable, but they do! And until the farce of Russian peacekeepers inside Georgia ends and is taken over by proper, neutral peacekeepers, they will have their day in the sun.

Of a more pressing issue, the 1000 pound gorilla sitting in the kitchen so to speak, is what about the Ukraine? The bread basket of Russia has always been Ukraine. The location of the main body of the old Red Banner Black Sea Fleet is Ukraine. now, what happens IF the wheat supply is denied the Russians, and if the units of the Black Sea Fleet that sortied out to engage the Georgian Navy are denied re-entry into the ports of Crimea? Will the Bear hope that the ethnic Russians in the Ukraine will want their "independence"
from the Ukraine? Will they move in "peacekeepers" to enforce their right to keep occupying forces in Ukraine ?

Just some issues to keep an eye on in the near future.


Wayne

[kaima]

Learning from Kennedy

By Gabor Steingart

These days Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is often compared -- unfairly -- with Stalin and Hitler. In truth, Putin is a Russian Kennedy. And Putin's Cuba is called Georgia.

Russia's invasion of Georgia has brought lovers of historical comparisons out of the woodwork. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, for one, compared Vladimir Putin with Hitler. And former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt reminded of Stalin's treatment of Finland.

But these analogies have more to say about the West's mood than about Putin. Although it may sound bold at first, and although the Americans won't like hearing it, the Vladimir Putin the world has experienced in recent days bears the strongest resemblance to former US President John F. Kennedy in the years 1961 and 1962.First, the youthful Kennedy was seen as the embodiment of a new America, just as the wiry Putin represents Russia's revival. Kennedy was and Putin is deeply popular among his own citizens.

Second, even Kennedy drew a distinction between first-class and second-class sovereign states. He assumed that residents of the main house ought to have something to say in the backyard, as in Cuba, for example. Putin shares the same view, in the case of Georgia, for example. In America's case we call such behavior dominant, and in Russia's case aggressive. But we mean the same thing.

Third, thinking in terms of spheres of influence had military consequences for Kennedy, as it does for Putin. In Cuba, Kennedy even took things a step further than the Russian prime minister has done in Georgia. In April 1961, the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) supported the landing of Cuban exiles in Playa Girón on Cuba's Bay of Pigs. Kennedy wanted to bring about regime change in Havana by force, a step Putin stopped short of in Georgia. Nevertheless, his desire to evict the Georgian president from the seat of government was undoubtedly as great as Kennedy's interest in overthrowing Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

The effort to bring about regime change in Havana failed, but Kennedy refused to recognized Cuba's sovereignty. When the Soviet Union began stationing nuclear warheads in Cuba, the US president threatened war. In October 1962, the world held its breath until Russia recognized America's claim to its own backyard and then Premier Nikita Khrushchev, on Sunday, Oct. 28, ordered the withdrawal of the missiles.

Now US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her president, George W. Bush, say that other laws apply today than in the 20th century. It sounds plausible, but it isn't true, as is clearly evident in the case of Cuba.

America still treats the Caribbean island, with its Stone Age communism, as a public enemy. American citizens can neither visit Cuba, a country with a gross domestic product a fraction the size of the US's, nor can they trade with it. Cuban cigars are considered contraband, and any American who smokes them is regarded as an enemy of state.

But the comforting message for Russians and Americans alike is this: The two nations are not as different as they would like to think. They think similarly, they act similarly and they even speak the same language -- namely that of power politics.

Europe's task is to prevent the current situation from escalating. At the present time, NATO expansion into Russia's front yard does not increase security -- it merely serves to heighten tensions in Europe. The Cuba crisis was followed by another 10 years of Cold War before a policy of détente came to prevail. Perhaps that road can be shortened this time around.

And what happens to Georgia? Respecting Russia's interests doesn't mean betraying democracy. Georgia's national integrity is not up for debate, but it would do the country good to tone down its pro-American rhetoric a bit.

A look to the Caribbean can also be comforting for the Georgian president. Kennedy is dead, but communism lives on.