Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Georgia NATO/US Relations

    Share
    avatar
    TheGeorgian

    Posts : 217
    Points : 194
    Join date : 2014-06-22

    Re: Georgia NATO/US Relations

    Post  TheGeorgian on Sat Dec 09, 2017 12:30 am

    GarryB wrote:
    If it had mentioned intervention to support the rebels against the government then Russia would have vetoed.

    Russia knew exactly what was going to happen and the political determination to fight Gadaffis troops as well as the resolution was perfectly clear on that.

    bent the meaning of the reslution

    Nothing was "bent" anywhere. You are trying too hard GarryB

    backstabbing nature of the west


    Classic communist banter 1 + 1  Rolling Eyes


    Russia does nothing as bad as the west and does not preach to the world about how they should behave unlike the west.

    Russia just can't go as full retard as the US because they don't have the same power and influence.

    Except when it does within its limited sphere of influence ( or backyard as they like to call it ) their deceitful politics are awfuly clumsy and more obvious to the naked eye than that of the US.

    That's literaly the only difference.

    That makes Russia better in my book.

    lol right ....

    Won't judge your standarts, but simply ... no .... that's not how you have a valid argument.

    The purpose was to prevent bloodshed and stop the violence to start dialog and a political solution... not bomb the shit out of one side so the disorganised chaotic rebel side prevails.

    Yes, bloodshed caused first and foremost by the regime, and not only Gaddafis but also rebel forces were bombed, although their support seemed obvious. NATO even restricted their movements to lessen the continues bloodshed.

    The civilians are still fucking suffering even after the west called success, because they could care less about the Libyan civilians, their goal was to kill Gaddafi and they achieved that... pack up and go home.

    Just like everyone else who intervenes usualy does. Oh wait, not true ....

    Not justifying it btw. When you also cause damage, you also have to contribute to repairing the damage. Seen none of that, from either side in any recent conflict.

    WTF has that got to do with Europe and the necessity for NATO?

    Israel is a strong NATO ally and which the US has vowed to defend against any threat. Iran is consistant on threatening to destroy it. So put 1 and 1 togheter.

    Is the only thing keeping Europe safe is the existence of Israel fighting the good fight against those evil persians... after Israel is destroyed is Europe next or something?

    Actualy that's not a very far fetched prospect at all. Arab-Turkish regional dominance in past history speaks for itself.

    If they had the chance, they would re-emerge. But they won't because already fight eachother because of different beliefs in their own religion. One source of conflict that the "Western" world got rid off.


    What they really need to do is use the internet and get a Russian penfriend and actually talk to a few of these evil aggressors that want to occupy eastern europe again.

    Again, you are confusing nations manipulating governments with agendas and politics with the avarage people.

    The avarage population can perfectly differentiate between those as is easily observable in every society.

    Name me one people who outright hate Russians or vice versa.

    They take measures and complain because they are ill informed by people

    I am sorry, but that applies to both sides.


    Don't expect credit or recognition except when they want something...

    And in the end you will be giving rather more than you will ever get in return.

    We don't and we are. NATO support from the pop is dvindling continuesly since 2008.

    However they are aware that nothing else could possibly protect us against a currently continuesly aggressive Russia.

    If Russia wanted to destroy Georgia you handed them the opportunity on a plate in 2008.

    Yes, Saakashvili did indeed. But even the drunk hotheads in Kremlin aren't stupid enough to destroy an entire nation especialy when said attacked country didn't justify anything of that proportion and the rest of the world disapproves of it.

    What makes you think now that they want to invade you?

    Continous military buildup when there is zero NATO buildup.

    And more importantly even though the US seems keen what makes you think the rest of NATO wants you to join NATO?

    Nothing. I firmly believe we will never joint NATO because NATO fears exactly what we and the US want. Having NATO right next to Russia. The US tried to push us into NATO twice now and each time at least a couple or handful Nations vetoed that notion. Even one single veto is enough to not become a member. That is exactly why your "US is NATO" claim is complete bullshit.

    You can't say the western world agrees with you because the western world does not agree on anything.

    Thats funny.

    Now re read what you wrote in your previous replies and contemplate about it Wink

    There is no such thing... though for the price you might think so...

    Obviously not, but what we could do would be enough to cause more trouble for an attacker than he is comfortable with. That's more than enough.

    Yes, I can see the trial now... you are guilty of murder.... how do you plead... I am guilty of doing the deed your honour, but it was not my fault because the victim of my attack looked at me funny,... I simply had no choice but to attack.... I didn't realise the gun was loaded till after about the 5th round fired and by then I had to finish the job...

    Yeah no. Except "looked at me funny" doesn't equate to "instigating wars" and also "5th round shot" would fit more to what happened in 1993 to the Georgian population than anything else. Bad effort.

    Still tasteless humor ... also leave matters of law to people who know that shit. Murders ( be it out of self-defence, pure spite or provocation ) and crimes in general have many faccetts and yes, the motives actualy matter and do in fact decide over how much you are guilty or at all. So please, reading such ignorant nonsense as a jurist realy rustles my jimmies.  


    Excuse me, "backstabbing" ?

    You mean like when Russia backstabbed us, not one ( 1801 ), not two ( 1921 ), not three ( 1992 ) but four times now ?

    You got some tasteless humor.

    The history is irrelevant..

    wow *clap hands*, but proclaiming BS is relevant yes ?

    Of course it is unrelevant whenever it doesn't suit you.

    Georgia signed a peace treaty


    Yeah Russia also signed some treaties making them our allies but instead ended up annexing us. Whoops I guess.

    with agreed clauses that I am pretty sure did not allow the Georgian army to go into SO and shell its capital city.

    Funny because said clause also didn't allow Russian troops to act as saboteurs and boost their overall military presense way above any agreed "peacekeepers" mandate. Russia's MC presense was overshadowed by additional troops already long before the 2008 war.

    Russias behaviour was so obviously cheeky and sassy it did not even protest too much when the Georgian army boosted its presense in both regions in response to that.

    So what both sides ended up with, was MC forces boosted by further military presence. But who started ? Russia.

    Backstabbing is by definition promising to be friendly to conceal an attack without warning.

    Yea, we know that. Experienced that. Many times. Thank you.

    You lied and attacked without warning last time, why would they think you will change and give plenty of warning in writing next time?

    Without warning ? the Russian MC was warned beforehand. Their puppets in Tskhinvali were warned multiple times over the years to cease provocations or the military response would be harsh.

    So what, we should have let them keep shelling and saboutaging us ?

    ..... and wont do that by providing bases for the US and asking to join NATO, which as I said is a military organisation dedicated to "countering" Russia.

    Clearly Russia seeks a peaceful resolution with its recent and current behaviour .... We are the ones pushing fences and continuesly saboutaging the dialogue ....


    There are claims they will buy S-400 and Iskander but there are lots of claims about lots of things... mostly from the Jerusalem Post or other impartial media source...  Rolling Eyes


    You mean like the "claims" with Iran yes ?


    Stalin approached Poland and the UK for a military alliance against Germany and both rejected the whole idea.

    what a shitty ass excuse.

    Right. Now you're defending Stalin huh ?   Laughing

    as I said, whenever it suits you ppl ....

    The hostility of the polish forces and people probably made elimination of members of her military seem like a good idea at the time.

    Again. Are you sure you ain't the Nazi here ?

    Considering the number of people arbitrarily executed by all the power (including the US and UK and Germany and Japan) the fact that the Soviets did it too is no great surprise.

    Yeah especialy considering the earlier purges and domestic execution waves not only in Russia, but Georgia and all other Soviet Republics .... go read a book ....

    Lots of people opposed Stalins orders... they usually got shot on the spot.

    No excuse. That ppl who did were no less evil than the Gestapo, especialy with crimes against Jews as well.

    I don't need excuses...

    That's all you've been doing this entire time. Trying to find excuses for them.

    Nobody was talking about you .... or do you also have some skeletons in the closet ? ^^

    I haven't done anything, but it is you condemning the Russians over their past actions and alot of made up shit as well, without looking at who they were doing it to and why.

    That's the problem I have with people like you.

    You can for what ever mysterious reasons find great admiration and support for Russia and whatever they create and have complete understanding for their POV but utterly shit on everyone else who suffers under them. Its the pinnacle of hypocricy. Go fucking figure ....

    Either way, it does not change anything.

    It actualy reflects and validates a lot.

    That is not how you turn people on your side.

    They are as much a threat to a subdued Poland as the nazis are... if you can get them to kill each other all the better.

    Thank you. Subdued being the key word here.

    Why not simply liberate and simply leave ? same question you asked before Smile

    The west had the same policy.... let the Commies and the Nazis fight each other in a land war.. supply the commies with equipment and food and hope they destroy each other.

    They supplied the Soviets with equipment and food a) because Stalin requested it and b) hoping that the Wehrmacht gets worn out and slaughtered in Russia so that an allied invasion wouldn't be a catastrophy.

    No, at that time it was Germanys country.

    You are running not just low but also miserable in the excuses.

    An occupied nation, is still an occupied nation. No matter how you twist it, it doesn't belong to an invader just because he establishes a temporary hold. Even if he holds claim on it for several years or decades.

    Of course the Soviets wanted Poland to have a government friendly to the SU and not Britain.

    That's exactly the problem with expansionist policy. It won't work in the long term. Especialy when you offer little to nothing in return.

    When you "liberate", make sure, you actualy "liberate" and don't occupy. It will bite you in the ass eventualy. Just a matter of time.

    The first few landings might have failed, but they didn't even try because they didn't want to take casualties...and if you think it was so fucking hard to go across the english channel how the fuck did they get expeditionary forces to north africa or to invade Italy?

    Hold on there alright. It wasn't the rest of the allies fault that the Soviet leadership was inititaly so ruthless and uncaring to its own troops.

    Secondly, the British especialy and French already had forces in North Africa and those bore the brunt of the Axis ( initialy only Italian ) offensives there. Only later were they reinforced first with US equipment, than actual US troops and logisticaly speaking it was indeed a  nightmare for the Allies.

    How the hell did Aussie and Kiwi troops get to europe and africa to fight if moving forces by sea takes years of planning?

    Aussie and Kiwi troops always were part of Commonwealth forces no ?

    Britain declared war against Germany because Germany invaded Poland... surely if Poland is so fucking important a few million dead soldiers to liberate them should have been their first priority.

    Lmao. Now I know who I wouldn't put in charge of my army.

    So the fear of excessive casualties in their attacking force led directly to the Soviets spending much longer to defeat the Germans themselves with excessive losses.

    .... and you blame them for what exactly ?

    The Boers never did us any harm, and nor did the Germans or Japanese or Vietnamese for that matter... yet we travelled thousands of kms to kill them and be killed by them and for what?

    So who forced you ?

    No.

    When you fight back and keep fighting the bully eventually gives up and goes away because no matter how strong the bully country is it can never wipe out an entire country unless it does it poltiically.. ie palestine does not exist because it has been removed from all western maps.

    The palestinian people are still there though.

    Hahhahahha... and right and wrong have nothing to do with anything in conflict.

    The bully in case of Russia doesn't give up at all and the Palestinians don't because realy what are they supposed to do ? swim away, get drowned ?

    Really?

    I know it doesn't reflect current reality, but that's how it should be.

    The places the Soviets could "occupy" were agreed to.

    Look. I get where you're coming from, but those are simply no excuses for being the arguably slightly lesser asshole than the arguably slightly bigger one ....

    You still don't get that I neither approve US nor Russian aggression. I am only comparing and using them as counter argument to display how unjust any of that is.

    If the American military forces had gone home and left civilians to help with the rebuild the Soviets likely would have withdraw most if not all their forces too.

    We both perfectly know that wouldn't have been the case and in Stalins interests Wink

    Their purpose was to counter US forces and to ensure that Germany never again became a threat.

    Why "counter US forces" ?

    The only reason to counter US forces is because they stood in the way of further Soviet expansion.

    The US didn't want to take part in the war effort to begin with. They deemed the war as "the Europeans business, leave us out of it".


    Without the precedence of independence of Kosovo, the Russians would not have considered the solution of independent SO and Abkhazia as being acceptable.

    If Russia had not the ambition to maintain a military foothold in Georgia to prevent future aspiration of joining the EU it wouldn't have support any of the sessessions since the beakup. That is clear as water.

    Our mere existence is troubling them.

    Talk about massive insecurity

    1979 the CIA was kicked out of Iran, the reason the Soviets invaded Afghanistan was to stop them setting up shop there.

    See the reason why that doesn't hold up as excuse is because the Soviet spy cells were just as equaly all around the world including the United States ( as they are today ) as the US spy cells were all around the world including Russia, though comparably less, ( as they are today )

    And the American CIA claim responsiblity for the Soviet invasion, but all those millions dead was because of Afghan opposition stirred up by the west and Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

    Right, because the Soviets didn't directly and physicaly contribute to that in the first place at all ....

    So the Russians are only as bad as the Americans.... OK...

    That's all I'm saying.

    Iranian weapons have been crossing that border for 30 years.... no, probably 300 years.

    That just proves the my point with Iran and the US has its own quarrels with the Pakistanis despite their fragile alliance.

    The simple fact is that might is right.


    Sad fact yes, legit excuse no.

    And when your little country attacked the even smaller region of SO you gave up your rights by stirring up an even bigger country.

    It simply doesn't add up as an excuse when you attack your own separatist region and in return ( for that very reason ) get attacked by a bigger nation that makes Shashlik out of its own domestic separatists.

    That is just bad comedy.

    So Russia can simply destroy sessessionists and committ mass murder, but we are to be restrained when trying to prevent sessession. Legit reasoning there buddy ....

    When Chechenia started attacking neighbouring regions Moscow had to do something.... remember the Moscow Theatre Siege? Beslan? I don't remember South Ossetian forces doing anything like that in Georgia...

    When armed militants started attacking Sukhumi, Tbilisi had to do something .... It did something, the region was secured but the armed insurgents were sheltered by the Russian army, so they couldn't be captured and prosecuted. But at least hostilities ended .... right ?

    Remember when there were still just those handfull but in the following months Russia snuck hundreds of instructors over the border, secured hunreds more paid mercenaries and then with thousands of armed combatants and troops with corresponding equipment and Russian airforce and naval support launched a surprise attack on the Georgian military ? Smile

    No. South Ossetian forces only committed several attacks on Georgian villages and troops that weren't even part of any of the skirmishes that typicaly took part between checkpoints.

    I have a question for you. I remember one of Putins former advisors ranting on TV about Kremlin should destroy Georgia for killing so many Russian troops during those skirmishes up until 2008. None of that was ever mentioned, nor denied in any Russian media outlet or by any official. If Russian troops were killed ( and they were as shown in more known engagements ) why did Russia not attack then or retaliate if they were so innocent ? ....

    Why?

    Do you think being part of NATO will save you if you try to take SO by force again?

    Is that a serious question ?

    Alright, I'll play your game. No. Obviously, technicaly speaking, the only guarantee for a successful military operation is complete withdrawal and neutrality of Russia.

    Secondly, we don't consider a military option in the first place. Neither now, if we join NATO or in the event Russian troops withdraw. Internal questions like that should never be even attempted to be solved like that.

    But I guess its okay if you can simply bomb or rape them into submission so they are terrifyed to even consider seperation for the next 1000 years. Apparently also works  dunno ( Sarcasm )

    NATO does squat for Turkey against the Kurds.

    NATO also doesn't intervene, nor support them, or did you see them kick Turkey out of the Alliance ( not least because of recent betrayals ) or establish a no fly zone even over the Iraqi part of the Kurdish population .... ?

    NATO does not oblige member states to join an attack on a third country... hense Turkey was not obliged to support the operation of Desert Storm despite it being led by NATO member US and including the UK and France etc etc.

    It is one of the main reasons they don't like taking countries with territorial disputes...

    You are literaly proving my case for NATO here. Thanks Smile

    Hahaha... I am a 6th generation New Zealander with my ancestry coming from England, Scotland, and Wales.

    If you say so. I already apologized for assuming.

    They did.

    And they seem happy with the result and are not calling for more votes.

    You know exactly what was meant Wink

    Sure you ain't the Nazi here ?

    The Soviet Union had an ideology to push, which means carrying the weak and pursuading the strong.

    Oh man .... are you a devoted communist or something ? because none of that procclaimed bullshit took form in any reality .... or you come from a parallel universe in which the Soviets conquered the Earth with all their love and caring .... ?

    Russia has no baggage and can ignore the weak that don't want to be friends... let them join NATO and be safe there... let the west pay for them.

    What is that to you then if you are so "not care" with your attitude ? clearly you take sides and very obviously support Russia and spite against the West and its allies.

    Israel is surrounded by hostile more populated countries which it has attacked on several occasions to steal land. Why should they be trusted with nuclear weapons either?

    Because you'd virtualy expose them to another attempt of genocide. Not just their capable arsenal but also the mere possibility they may be stockpiling some nukes is completly enough of a deterrent to make the Arabs think it a 100 times over.

    Plus the nukes they got aren't even missiles, but bombs I assume. So what, the Israelis an irrational threat to the world ? how are they worse than the US, Russia, India, China, England, France etc ?

    tell me, how stable is North Korea ? so stable I guess, that even Russia is concerned about their entire nuclear program because of recent events.

    how stable is the US.... a few more black people get shot by police and they can have problems...

    That is very unlikely ....  

    they have a two party system where everyone seems to be sick of both sides....


    How more boring and sick can it be than a one party system .... ?

    I mean granted if you are a great dictator and people love you ( or at least the vast majority ) than maybe it could turn into something, but with the current systems that are being used .... eh .... not so much.

    that is not going to end well... and they are the only country in the world to have actually used nuclear weapons against an enemy... unless you count Putin who regularly uses polonium to kill his enemies.... Twisted Evil Twisted Evil


    A fact that realy disgusts me even if they keep insiting on "casaulty reduction" which would seem only plausible for inhuman idk what ....

    You make fun of that, but do you know what physical torture that is ?

    Or the fact that the majority of the population in crimea are Russian, and its status being Ukrainian is merely bureaucratic nonsense from the cold war.

    Sigh ....

    You realy like to make everything look cuddly when it comes to Russian behaviour don't you .... ?

    The west pushed them into a corner with their coup in Kiev

    and they don't even have the balls to admit that, instead come up with bullshit excuses.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    It sill would have been an illegal intervention, sorry.  Very Happy

    Well first of all I don't see how you can equate Russian forces inside Russian borders with US and other NATO forces in Eastern Europe.... and second of all it does not bother me in the slightest where they practise... having them close to the border puts them in Iskander range.

    Easy. It's not just inside Russian borders, but foreign.

    Secondly, US is a NATO member and the US don't simply deploy their troops for manouvers into NATO or non-NATO states without their approval and permission .... and let's be perfectly honest here. None of those especialy Eastern European countries that do dissaprove of it. People come out and cheer.

    America has created such a strong image, that people applaude them simply when they see them. Wheter you approve of them or not, which I often don't either, you can't denie that fact.

    Russia is not the Soviet Union.... it has no political view to sell, so it can be friends with pretty much anyone.... and its communist heritage means it can be friends with communist china or communist north korea, or myanmar or cuba or Saudi arabia or Pakistan.

    So why then, does it struggle so much with literaly anyone even its allies ?

    The point is that no other country is obliged to be friends back, so while they can be friends with everyone there are plenty of people not interested like Poland or the UK.

    You mean politicaly. Because economicaly and culturaly there are not realy issues, until you threaten the EU with border conflicts and it dissaproves of Russias actions.

    Russia could bust a gut trying to be best buddies with everyone

    please spare me that river of fake tears ....

    Russia never busted anything trying to be best buddies with anyone. That is not of recent decades the case but their entire history. Generaly speaking there are only few nations or peoples that realy bust their guts and those are more Central-East European and Caucasian-Eastern nations.

    What I am saying is that to be friends with Poland or the US requires Russia to be their bitch...

    Not true at all. That means you and them are lacking imagination and actualy powerful and competent leadership, not what they have now. Putin is good at what he can, nothing can take that away from him, but thats about it, especialy when the rest sucks.

    That will be great for the US and overnight the rich people who own the media like CNN and Fox news will go from hating Russia to loving everything and anything about them, and soon after all of Russias resources will start to be used up faster than you can pour a drink of coke down a sink.

    Not when you are smart.

    Russia does not need those sort of friends....

    What Russia needs is a neighbourhood which trusts it and in turn can rely on and share innovations, ideas and resources ( not just raw material ).

    Russia has not annexed anything.

    Joke of the century.

    If you insist on joining NATO and letting the US military come and play on your territory there is nothing you can do to please Russia... other than not attack SO and Ab again.

    There is only one thing we insist on. Everything else is a consequence due thanks to Russia.

    It is about rebuilding trust

    The absurd notion is that Russia is in any position to demand that.

    I have told you plenty of times and you want to ignore me.

    Not ignoring, only pointing out how absurd that notion is. Nothing works just one way. It starts with the hypocrite bully learning to behave and respect others. No matter how small and weak he is.

    Noone is just bitter, because its a preferred state of mood. Its because factual reasons. You need to learn to understand that.

    What else is there to say?

    Idk, work for a peaceful environment, lead with example ? and all that stuff ? Russia established it won't. So we do.

    But its hard doing that when all we get in return is Russia is seeing our gesture as a sign of weakness and uses the situation and our reluctance to response like other nations would, to further boost military presence and push the fences. From our POV that is just unbelivably disgusting.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 17943
    Points : 18519
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Georgia NATO/US Relations

    Post  GarryB on Sat Dec 09, 2017 10:52 am

    Israel is a strong NATO ally and which the US has vowed to defend against any threat. Iran is consistant on threatening to destroy it. So put 1 and 1 togheter.

    Hahahaha... not sure NATO would be happy with the stated job of keeping Israel safe... it really is none of their business.

    The US is slaved to the rich jews in the US... you suck up to israel or you don't get money to get elected.

    what a shitty ass excuse.

    Right. Now you're defending Stalin huh ? Laughing

    as I said, whenever it suits you ppl ....

    Defending Stalin from what?

    The accusation that he sided with Hitler because of the non aggression pact, the west also appeased hitler and pretty much ignored his actions until Poland was invaded.

    Not all of Stalins actions were bad.... many made sense including the invasion of Poland and the delay at warsaw. Other actions like the murder of Polish military personnel was less defensible, but then there were much worse things done in that war anyway.


    Again. Are you sure you ain't the Nazi here ?

    They were enemy soldiers... the Americans were happy to shoot Japanese soldiers and sailors who were surrendering too.

    No excuse. That ppl who did were no less evil than the Gestapo, especialy with crimes against Jews as well.
    Why are jews so fucking special?

    The Nazi concentration camps killed all sorts of people including disabled people, gay people, and Soviet people.

    That's the problem I have with people like you.

    You can for what ever mysterious reasons find great admiration and support for Russia and whatever they create and have complete understanding for their POV but utterly shit on everyone else who suffers under them. Its the pinnacle of hypocricy. Go fucking figure ....

    It is OK, I am a minority,,, the rest of the west cries for the jews and the eastern europeans.... great rivers of crocodile tears.


    Why not simply liberate and simply leave ? same question you asked before

    Because if they liberated all of Eastern Europe and then left then the US would move in to fill the void and after spending an enormous effort to kick the German Nazis out they would then have to deal with Americans on their borders... much better to deal with them in Germany instead.

    They supplied the Soviets with equipment and food a) because Stalin requested it and b) hoping that the Wehrmacht gets worn out and slaughtered in Russia so that an allied invasion wouldn't be a catastrophy.

    That is exactly what I said, though it would be better put that they SOLD weapons to Stalin so the Commies and Nazis would fight it out and kill each other.... lend lease was not free.

    Hold on there alright. It wasn't the rest of the allies fault that the Soviet leadership was inititaly so ruthless and uncaring to its own troops.

    At every meeting of the Allies Stalin asked for a second front to be opened.... he was ignored.


    Aussie and Kiwi troops always were part of Commonwealth forces no ?

    They went by sea in large troop ships... every bit as vulnerable to U boats as any other sea traffic.

    You still don't get that I neither approve US nor Russian aggression. I am only comparing and using them as counter argument to display how unjust any of that is.

    And You are not cynical at all jumping into bed with the US because you think that will get the attention of Russia.

    I have repeated that it will get Russias attention but not the attention you crave.

    The Russians wont start respecting Georgia just because you are carrying M4s and wearing US uniforms, just like they would not have respected you if you joined the Nazis in WWI Iike the baltic states all did.

    We both perfectly know that wouldn't have been the case and in Stalins interests

    He had a country to rebuild and a strong mistrust of the west which even just before the war started were plotting and planning against the Soviet Union.

    If the west had pulled back I rather doubt he would have escalated anything... his forces were in no position for another war.

    Stalin could have easily crushed Finland if he wanted too... the Soviet Armed forces in 1945 were nothing like the force the Finns defeated in the winter war.

    If he was so land mad why not crush Finland, and for that matter why not take all of China... they had already kicked the Japanese out of China, the Soviet Armed forces could easily have kept hold of the country for as long as they wanted.

    Where was Stalins land grabbing then?

    Why "counter US forces" ?

    The only reason to counter US forces is because they stood in the way of further Soviet expansion.

    The US didn't want to take part in the war effort to begin with. They deemed the war as "the Europeans business, leave us out of it".

    The reason to counter the US is because they represented a threat to the Soviet Union every bit as big as the Germany military had just done.

    If the US military forces had just left europe then the soviet forces would have no reason to stay either.

    Soviet expansionism is a joke.

    Our mere existence is troubling them.

    They could hardly care less about little georgia playing with the EU and US and NATO.


    Sad fact yes, legit excuse no.

    The amusing thing is that your moral compass seems to be guided by Disney and American Hollywood films, where there is a good guy and a bad guy and the good guy always wins and does it without breaking his morals...


    It simply doesn't add up as an excuse when you attack your own separatist region and in return ( for that very reason ) get attacked by a bigger nation that makes Shashlik out of its own domestic separatists.

    Because obviously your own seperatist region is yours to attack when you want and there should be no outside interference... except when you are Russia of course which has no right to deal with criminals in Chechnia...

    Because you'd virtualy expose them to another attempt of genocide. Not just their capable arsenal but also the mere possibility they may be stockpiling some nukes is completly enough of a deterrent to make the Arabs think it a 100 times over.

    Make the arabs think what? It has been Israel that has started all the recent conflicts... perhaps possession gives them too much confidence and they should be sanctioned and sieged the way they are treating the people on the Gaza strip.

    So what, the Israelis an irrational threat to the world ? how are they worse than the US, Russia, India, China, England, France etc ?

    Actually having nukes makes them 10000 times more of a threat to the world than Iran, yet you and the US and Israel bitch on about Iran like they are somehow a danger to anyone...

    How more boring and sick can it be than a one party system .... ?

    Even a one party system picks its candidates from a group of more than one, so in terms of choice it is practically communism.

    I mean granted if you are a great dictator and people love you ( or at least the vast majority ) than maybe it could turn into something, but with the current systems that are being used .... eh .... not so much.

    The only good thing about democracy is the ability to kick out the leadership every few years.

    The old joke as to why politicians are like babies nappies... they both need to be regularly changed and for the same reason...

    America has created such a strong image, that people applaude them simply when they see them.

    Yeah, they create a strong message in Japan too like when japanese schoolgirls are found raped and murdered and a few US sailors are sent home in a hurry...

    Those same european people came out and applauded the nazi soliders when they entered many of the countries... the applause didn't last long.


    So why then, does it struggle so much with literaly anyone even its allies ?

    Because thanks to western media and stereotyping most countries think Russia is still the Soviet Union.

    You are clearly drinking the western koolaide, Russia has nothing to gain from better relations with Georgia because you are friends with the US and NATO.

    They are not going to help you negotiate a friendship and even a reintegration with SO and AB, simply because for them that would result in you demanding they leave those territories and eventually the US and NATO putting bases there too.

    What is there for them?

    They gain nothing and in fact lose, so that Georgia will be nicer to them.

    No... so Georgia MIGHT be nicer to them.

    I doubt they see that as worth the effort, in fact it goes against their interests and they will likely not cooperate.

    Like I said if you drop the US and NATO and EU you might have a shot because I suspect they would rather not be occupying SO and Ab, simply because that is money down the drain. The US on the other hand loves to spend money on foreign bases... the trick is to get them to leave afterwards...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

      Current date/time is Wed May 23, 2018 10:44 pm