The Real World Order

So the central point of this article is that the Russian's intend to restore their "sphere of influence" whilst the US is distracted in Iraq, Afganistan etc.

The Russians "acted now" because the US is "winning" in the middle east and will soon be able to redeploy to "take on" Russia again.

Couple of things:

1. We forget the Georgians started this latest problem. This is just a bit of good luck for the Russians rather than something deliberate.

2. Russia intentions wrt its neighbours is only to ensure that they are not part of an anti-Russia millitary pact (NATO) - no one is trying to annex or control anything beyond that. Russia has far too many domestic issues to deal with to be rebuiding an empire.

2. The US is not "winning" in the middle east - any fool can see that, so they will be leaving there only in defeat (which will also be the end of the US "superpower"). After this, the USA will just become a "major power".

3. In the same way the US meddles in Chechnya etc to keep Russia "busy", image the mischief the Russians could cause now if they shipped weapons to Iraq and Afganistan insurgents?? It won't happen I think, but if America's arrogance is not curtailed and they will not accept they are just a "major power", it's an option.

4. Finally, I think the Russia-USA fight is a little over done. It will not be the focus of world politics once the USA is defeated in the middle east. Certain elements in the US are nostalgic of the cold war and want to march to the gates of Moscow, but they will be dissapointed. We all know the saying that the generals always want to fight the last war.

The article forgets the elephant(s) in the room, China vs USA and India vs ???

There's your 21st century showdown(s).

America - welcome to the new world order. It seems that your intelligence and Generals advice to the Georgians, during the Olympics and August holidays to crush and reassert sovereignty on two enclaves failed. The Russians have just reasserted themselves on the world map, and have placed an iron fist on their sphere of influence. Watch out for new moves by China and India next in their spheres. The playing field has been levelled internationally, though more moves are likely in the future. Remember all empires rise and fall.

One of the greatest obstacles to a more peaceful world are the numerous, ungoverned mercenary groups in the United States and the west who are often referred to as "think tanks"

These think tanks(hoover, carnegie, brookings, etc, etc) control the most powerful asset of the military industrial complex in the US. They control and manipulate the free flow of information, via there unquestioned access to the American media. The people who actually control these so called think tanks remain forever in the shadows-thier representatives pop up on CNN, MSNBC, fox news on a daily basis to spread the american pro imperial line. There is no free media in the US.

"Was that not a way to convince hesitant NATO members that Georgia must be admitted to NATO? In that case who were not the Americans the ones who set the trap and the Russians who walked in it?
(nik, 20 August 2008 20:11)"

nik, my dear, now you won´t seriously try to tell us that all what happened from August 8th up to the present day, was carefully planned and exercised by those universal geniuses in the pentagon just in order to improve the strategic position of Russia not only in the Caucasus, but in fact globally.

because, that´s what´s happened actually.

but in your flawed fantasy, even the best proof for the lack of american omnipotence turns out to be a brilliant tactical move...

well, in fact, the Americans have brilliantly managed to achieve important russian strategic goals.

very clever.

Jovan: "well, in fact, the Americans have brilliantly managed to achieve important russian strategic goals."

Russian strategic goals? The Russians controled South Ossetia and to lesser extend Abkhazia brfor 08.08! The "security zone" around them will only make sure that Georgia stays hostile to Russia. The expected regime change did not happen. Defeated Georgian troops did not walk home with their weapons (as happened in 1992) In a seanse Georgia started as the agresor, but at the end is portraited as a victim. The Western corridor from the Black Sea to Azerbaydjan was preserved. The American warships landed in Poti. (carrying only "humanitarian" aid of course :-) France complains of Russian non complience. Will it block the extenssion of NATO next time? Georgia left CIS, Ukraine may follow! It announced it is not going to extend the lease of the Russian naval base in Cremia.

All those things might have happened without a war. Why so many people had to die?

May be the Georgians, like the Serbs were obsesed with "territorial integrity". May be no politician there could have promised to his people adheasion to NATO and EU while getting rid of the "occupied" territories! So they had to give it a try!? May be West Europeans were accustomed to the idea that Russia is not dangerous. They had to be shaken.
If that was the case (we may never know) it was a cynical scenario. But in the global geopolitical game so much is!

Interesting article'
Many American may be asking themselves (in the style of the 50's) Who lost Russia?
Or was there any idea about what to do with Russia?
The East Europeans were to join NATO and the EU? Since that was what they wanted, the process provided NATO and the EU with their proverbial "soft power". East Europeans complied with requirements, allowed monitoring. What was offered to Russia?
Surely not integration. Indeed the more and more East European countries joined the Western institutions, the more isolated the Russia would become!
The concept supported by Yeltsin that Russia and the US (plus perhaps the EU) would turn into sonething of a directoria, whose concensus would be needed for every important decision also proved a no go. Nobody cared about Russia opinion even on less important questions such as Kosovo.
If there was even a hint that after Russia gets encircled, it had to be broken on pieces, no doubt the Russians turned hostile!

And yet after the color revolutions the West was given the oportunity to move in Georgia and the Ukraine, not with troops, but with (politically minded)investments, that would bring stability on the Russian borders and the Russians would find it hard to violate. Was it so difficulte to the US advisors to Georgia to explain to president Saakashvili that the desired US help is subjet to a tacit acceptance of the "loss" of Abkhazia nad South Ossetia. West Germany had to put up with the GDR for decades! But that was the only way to achievs stability and economic bloom.
So the big question remains: Why the Georgians walk in the trap? were the Americans privi to it? Was not the Russian overreaction expected? Was that not a way to convince hesitant NATO members that Georgia must be admitted to NATO? In that case who were not the Americans the ones who set the trap and the Russians who walked in it?

Jovan: "well, in fact, the Americans have brilliantly managed to achieve important russian strategic goals."

Russian strategic goals? The Russians controled South Ossetia and to lesser extend Abkhazia brfor 08.08! The "security zone" around them will only make sure that Georgia stays hostile to Russia. The expected regime change did not happen. Defeated Georgian troops did not walk home with their weapons (as happened in 1992) In a seanse Georgia started as the agresor, but at the end is portraited as a victim. The Western corridor from the Black Sea to Azerbaydjan was preserved. The American warships landed in Poti. (carrying only "humanitarian" aid of course :-) France complains of Russian non complience. Will it block the extenssion of NATO next time? Georgia left CIS, Ukraine may follow! It announced it is not going to extend the lease of the Russian naval base in Cremia.

All those things might have happened without a war. Why so many people had to die?

May be the Georgians, like the Serbs were obsesed with "territorial integrity". May be no politician there could have promised to his people adheasion to NATO and EU while getting rid of the "occupied" territories! So they had to give it a try!? May be West Europeans were accustomed to the idea that Russia is not dangerous. They had to be shaken.
If that was the case (we may never know) it was a cynical scenario. But in the global geopolitical game so much is!

Interesting article'
Many American may be asking themselves (in the style of the 50's) Who lost Russia?
Or was there any idea about what to do with Russia?
The East Europeans were to join NATO and the EU? Since that was what they wanted, the process provided NATO and the EU with their proverbial "soft power". East Europeans complied with requirements, allowed monitoring. What was offered to Russia?
Surely not integration. Indeed the more and more East European countries joined the Western institutions, the more isolated the Russia would become!
The concept supported by Yeltsin that Russia and the US (plus perhaps the EU) would turn into sonething of a directoria, whose concensus would be needed for every important decision also proved a no go. Nobody cared about Russia opinion even on less important questions such as Kosovo.
If there was even a hint that after Russia gets encircled, it had to be broken on pieces, no doubt the Russians turned hostile!

And yet after the color revolutions the West was given the oportunity to move in Georgia and the Ukraine, not with troops, but with (politically minded)investments, that would bring stability on the Russian borders and the Russians would find it hard to violate. Was it so difficulte to the US advisors to Georgia to explain to president Saakashvili that the desired US help is subjet to a tacit acceptance of the "loss" of Abkhazia nad South Ossetia. West Germany had to put up with the GDR for decades! But that was the only way to achievs stability and economic bloom.
So the big question remains: Why the Georgians walk in the trap? were the Americans privi to it? Was not the Russian overreaction expected? Was that not a way to convince hesitant NATO members that Georgia must be admitted to NATO? In that case who were not the Americans the ones who set the trap and the Russians who walked in it?

One of the greatest obstacles to a more peaceful world are the numerous, ungoverned mercenary groups in the United States and the west who are often referred to as "think tanks"

These think tanks(hoover, carnegie, brookings, etc, etc) control the most powerful asset of the military industrial complex in the US. They control and manipulate the free flow of information, via there unquestioned access to the American media. The people who actually control these so called think tanks remain forever in the shadows-thier representatives pop up on CNN, MSNBC, fox news on a daily basis to spread the american pro imperial line. There is no free media in the US.

"Was that not a way to convince hesitant NATO members that Georgia must be admitted to NATO? In that case who were not the Americans the ones who set the trap and the Russians who walked in it?
(nik, 20 August 2008 20:11)"

nik, my dear, now you won´t seriously try to tell us that all what happened from August 8th up to the present day, was carefully planned and exercised by those universal geniuses in the pentagon just in order to improve the strategic position of Russia not only in the Caucasus, but in fact globally.

because, that´s what´s happened actually.

but in your flawed fantasy, even the best proof for the lack of american omnipotence turns out to be a brilliant tactical move...

well, in fact, the Americans have brilliantly managed to achieve important russian strategic goals.

very clever.

So the central point of this article is that the Russian's intend to restore their "sphere of influence" whilst the US is distracted in Iraq, Afganistan etc.

The Russians "acted now" because the US is "winning" in the middle east and will soon be able to redeploy to "take on" Russia again.

Couple of things:

1. We forget the Georgians started this latest problem. This is just a bit of good luck for the Russians rather than something deliberate.

2. Russia intentions wrt its neighbours is only to ensure that they are not part of an anti-Russia millitary pact (NATO) - no one is trying to annex or control anything beyond that. Russia has far too many domestic issues to deal with to be rebuiding an empire.

2. The US is not "winning" in the middle east - any fool can see that, so they will be leaving there only in defeat (which will also be the end of the US "superpower"). After this, the USA will just become a "major power".

3. In the same way the US meddles in Chechnya etc to keep Russia "busy", image the mischief the Russians could cause now if they shipped weapons to Iraq and Afganistan insurgents?? It won't happen I think, but if America's arrogance is not curtailed and they will not accept they are just a "major power", it's an option.

4. Finally, I think the Russia-USA fight is a little over done. It will not be the focus of world politics once the USA is defeated in the middle east. Certain elements in the US are nostalgic of the cold war and want to march to the gates of Moscow, but they will be dissapointed. We all know the saying that the generals always want to fight the last war.

The article forgets the elephant(s) in the room, China vs USA and India vs ???

There's your 21st century showdown(s).

America - welcome to the new world order. It seems that your intelligence and Generals advice to the Georgians, during the Olympics and August holidays to crush and reassert sovereignty on two enclaves failed. The Russians have just reasserted themselves on the world map, and have placed an iron fist on their sphere of influence. Watch out for new moves by China and India next in their spheres. The playing field has been levelled internationally, though more moves are likely in the future. Remember all empires rise and fall.