Is GEORGIA a US- Putin "Deal" ?

[MegalosSkylaki]

Once upon a time, Norway and Sweden where one State. Norway decided to form its own Nation state --and Sweden allowed it.

Great Powers don't think like that.

Now with have a provacative invasion by a Georgia that has already applied for NATO membership chosing to invade areas of Russian -ethnic populations that were already de facto under Russian control.

Were they egged on to do this by the US CIA or the State Department?

Picture this scenario: Just as the USA has its Monrow Doctrine and wont alow foreign States to establish any further beach head in the Western Hemisphere, Russia may similarly feel the new States formed on its Southern flank from the collapse of the USSR are rightfully its own "sphere of influence.

This is not without precident. After the WWII the Powers met at Yalta and divided large parts of Eastern and Southeastern Eurpe into mathematically graded "spheres of influence" :Greece went 90% to Great Britain, Yugoslavia was to be 80% Soviet, Romania 90% Soviet --and Austria "nonalligned and neutral". The number may not be exact, but the principle is.

Now Poland is indefensible in a conventional non-nuclear war with high-tech modern weapons. Yet the US wants missles there --whether for Iran or Russia or Communist China or all. Russia wants its southern flank secured, and doesn't want Ethnic conflicts interfereing with the Caspian basin Oil.

Could not a covert deal have been struck?

For the future, recall that during the Ukranian Election that a large Russian minority in the Ukraine voted for the pro-Russian candidate--and lost. The Ukraine has also made pro-West noises and is very desirable --at least in its Ethnic Russian parts --as the "breadbasket" and bringing it into a "sphere of influence" would be a major coup for Putin. As would bringing Eastern Europe (or elswhere...maybe the Midest) into its "orbit" for the USA and its Allies.

Will we be seeing other "problems" arise with trade-offs of "spheres of influence" with Eastern Europe States for the Ukraine? Geopolitics isn't too kind to smaller Countries when Superpowers start to talk --in secret. So far such a scenario is only "speculation" -- but it is reasonable speculation, knowing how Superpowers think --and act.

MegalosSkylaki

[lost-and-found]

Whatever is happening, behind the scenes or not, it doesn't look pretty.

[Disley]

As of now, it is a fact that the U.S. government and the American foreign affairs nomenklatura see NATO as an important tool of American foreign policy of intervention around the world. Since many American politicians do not anymore support de facto the United Nations as the supreme international organization devoted to maintaining peace in the world, a U.S.-controlled NATO would seem to be, in their eyes, a most attractive substitute to the United Nations for providing a legal front for their otherwise illegal offensive military undertakings around the world. They prefer to control totally a smaller organization such as NATO, even though it has become a redundant institution, than to have to make compromises at the U.N., where the U.S nevertheless has one of the five vetoes on the Security Council.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Citation for above Quote ?

[Chuckiechan]

Now Poland is indefensible in a conventional non-nuclear war with high-tech modern weapons. Yet the US wants missles there --whether for Iran or Russia or Communist China or all. Russia wants its southern flank secured, and doesn't want Ethnic conflicts interfereing with the Caspian basin Oil.

I have a different take on the situation.

Russia is in the "threat" business - the missiles are defensive, and are easily overwhelmed by a Russian barrage, so they are no protection from Russian missiles. They are anti-missile missiles. Don't believe Russian propaganda, they are pro's at disinformation.

The problem is Iran. Russia needs to use Iran to threaten Europe. It won't do it itself, since the sheer power of Russian nukes makes it a "world wide nuclear war" argument. It can't go "small", but it can use Iran to "gin up a threat" against Europe for say "helping Israel". By being able to block Iranian missiles, you render their threats against Europe as "empty".

Russian aggression: Putin believes in using muscle against weakness. His philosophy is that if you control the resources, use them as leverage for political gains.

I have to say that it was incredibly dumb (there has to be an angle we aren't seeing!) to rattle the Russian sabre in an election where such a weakling as Obama is leading the pack. Iran is quiet as a mouse, praying their boy gets in. I guess Russia is playing a strategy we haven't seen develop yet, or they are just playing "kingmaker" by wanting a strong player in the White House who won't do something stupid.

Who knows? But Putin and the KGB (FSB now?) have something up their sleeves. The are probably throwing a "long ball" we haven't figured out where it's target is, yet! And let's not discount the fact the organized crime is now part of the equation in the Russian political landscape that wasn't present in the old "cold war" Soviet Union.

[Disley]

Iran doesn't have the weapons or reasons to threaten Europe.

[MegalosSkylaki]

Originally Posted by Disley

Iran doesn't have the weapons or reasons to threaten Europe.

First of all, foistering terrorism causes big bucks to combat it so that's threat. Secondly, by threatening the Middle East, its threatening everybody.

Not have the "intentions" ?

Keep dreaming.

MegalosSkylaki

PS. This is not a new event.
Ever since Jimmey Carter decided on his "rose Garden strategy" when "American soil" was taken hostage, instead of taking actions against an act of war, its been threatening everybody. It knows it can get away with it, and that is the political culture that has been intrenched for decades.

[Pexster]

Interesting proposition. It's hard to know what we are thinking. Bush is not capable of strategic realpolitik, and when Rice says things like this

This is an agreement that, of course, will establish a missile defense site here in Poland, a missile defense site that will help us to deal with the new threat to the 21st century of long-range missile threats from countries like Iran or from North Korea.

yuo have to wonder about her own credibility.

[Disley]

You can believe the crap printed and on the MSM news programs if you want to.
There's no evidence of Iran producing the enriched uranium to use in nuclear weapons as the intelligence agencies have stated.
Threatening the M.E? Iran's no threat to anywhere, although it could cause some minor disruptions to oil if it's attacked.
The US, Russia and Europe sell weapons to anywhere and everywhere in the M.E. what Iran does is negligible.
It's time you got over the hostage crisis in Iran, it was payback for the coup brought on by the CIA/MI6 which inflicted the Shah on a democratic country, that wanted it's oil for it's own people, not given to foreign oil companies for pennies.
As for foistering terrorism, when Bush give 400ml to destabilize Iran, by paying terrorist organisations to murder and cause terror in Iran, it makes the US just as bad, and the threats of bombing Iran, coming from the US and Israel is also using terror to try to change Iran from it's legal right as a signatory of the NPT, to enrich it's own uranium for peaceful purposes.
When Israel has hundreds of nuclear weapons and nothing is mentioned, the double standards are incredible.

[Pexster]

Some of what you say is true, Disley, but Israel does not make statements about Iran's right to exist (all accuracy of translation arguments -- which I acknowledge -- aside).

And North Korea? We need a missile defense system in Poland to protect us from North Korea (which doesn't even have missiles that can get to Poland)? How stupid does Rice think everyone is? 'Cause Putin sure as hell isn't!