new cold war ?

Welcome to UKHIppy2764@2x.png

UKHippy is a long running online community and of likeminded people exploring all interpretations on what it means to be living an alternative lifestyle -- we welcome discussions on everything related to sustainability, the environment, alternative spirituality, music, festivals, politics and more -- membership of this website is free but supported by the community.

  • I'm surprised no one has said anything about the recent invasion of Georgia!!!! It seems like a massive deal to me?
    i.e. U.S. invites ex-Soviet country to join Nato, clearly to piss Russia off, Russia retaliates, US goes into Georgia, and George Bush and other US blokes say very unpleasant and very threatening things to Russia.

    It strikes me as engineered - am I alone in that?

    Also stank of hypocrisy. I noticed all the Georgian people being interviewed and explaining how awful this is for them (not undermining it here btw) but we never got interviews from people in Afghanistan did we... funny, or not.
    :rolleyes:

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan


    i.e. U.S. invites ex-Soviet country to join Nato, clearly to piss Russia off

    Erm.... no, actually. Georgia wasn't invited to join NATO. Georgia wanted to join NATO (and the EU). The West has responded favourably to the possibility, largely due to the oil pipe that crosses the country. The West has no interest in provoking Russia, since to do so would threaten our energy security. What has happened is a misjudgement of Russia's willingness to flex its muscle - partly by the West, but largely by the Georgian president, who went too far (admittedly in the face of provocation) and pushed Russia into a response that he didn't expect.


    From a purely strategic point of view - putting the ethics to one side - it's hard to see what other options Russia had. They sure as hell weren't likely to sit by and allow NATO to encroach on their back yard.


    Quote

    Russia retaliates, US goes into Georgia, and George Bush and other US blokes say very unpleasant and very threatening things to Russia.

    And threatening is about all they can do. The West has no intention of getting sucked into a war with Russia.

    Quote

    It strikes me as engineered - am I alone in that?

    Yes. The Georgian conflict undermines Western energy security, and undermines those who would like to have seen it gain EU/NATO membership. The West has no vested interest in engineering this conflict. Quite the opposite. You can bet there's a number of Western leaders mightily pissed off that the Georgian president didn't exercise a little more restraint, and has walked straight into the jaws of a rather elegant strategic trap laid for him by Russia.

    Quote

    Also stank of hypocrisy.

    Well of course. ;)

  • Quote from Atomik

    Erm.... no, actually. Georgia wasn't invited to join NATO. Georgia wanted to join NATO (and the EU). The West has responded favourably to the possibility, largely due to the oil pipe that crosses the country. The West has no interest in provoking Russia, since to do so would threaten our energy security. What has happened is a misjudgement of Russia's willingness to flex its muscle - partly by the West, but largely by the Georgian president, who went too far (admittedly in the face of provocation) and pushed Russia into a response that he didn't expect.



    Bush called for Georgia to be allowed tho, didn't he, I don't know, it doesn't seem right - Bush claims this mission is 'humanitarian' but he has never struck me, as few presidents have (Jimmy Carter excluded) like he'd do something for purely 'humanitarian' reasons, which says in itself that something's being hidden.

    Quote



    And threatening is about all they can do. The West has no intention of getting sucked into a war with Russia



    but one bloke said some very ambiguous stuff. i can't remember who he was, he was on tv news, saying 'american troops are in there for peace-keeping purposes at the moment, that might change in the future we can't say now' or something similar???
    that seemed filled with something too

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    Bush called for Georgia to be allowed tho, didn't he

    He supports their membership in principle, yes. But it's Georgia that sought that membership to begin with - for pretty obvious reasons.


    Quote

    Bush claims this mission is 'humanitarian' but he has never struck me, as few presidents have (Jimmy Carter excluded) like he'd do something for purely 'humanitarian' reasons, which says in itself that something's being hidden.

    Erm.... nothing's "hidden" at all. Georgia is a strategic US interest, and they'll give it what support they can in order to protect their relationship. That's kinda common knowledge, mate. ;)

    Quote

    but one bloke said some very ambiguous stuff. i can't remember who he was, he was on tv news, saying 'american troops are in there for peace-keeping purposes at the moment, that might change in the future we can't say now' or something similar???
    that seemed filled with something too

    There are small numbers of American troops in Georgia to distribute supplies. Anyone who thinks the US will get drawn into a shooting war with Russia is living in conspiraloon land.

  • The complexities of the situation are largely the result of Stalin's methods of population control. Always worried (rightly) that the weakness of the old Soviet Union lay in the possibility that the smaller constituent republics might break from Russia. To lessen the likelihood of this (and to give them grief if they did) he moved populations around so that most republics would have a significant minority population of a local rival within their boundaries. Hence Armenia and Azerbaijan have minorities from each others' populations.

    With Georgia this is doubly true. South Ossetia (which is the direct cause of the current situation) is split from its neighbour North Ossetia by the Russia/Goergia border, the Ossetians being the majority population in South Ossetia. Also on the Black Sea coast you have Abkhazia which has a now dominant Russian population and recently all but kicked the Georgians out, with unofficial Russian support. Recently the Georgian army had been attempting to remove the unofficial South Ossetian government and reclaim direct control of the area, against all western advice.

    So I wouldn't go apportioning blame on this one. The Georgian government presumably thought they were safe in sending troops into South Ossetia and that the NATO cavalry would come to their rescue if the Russians reacted. And again Putin read the situation correctly.

    So it's all Uncle Joe's fault.

  • The Americans have military bases in Gerorgia aswell so surley they must have known that the Gerogians were marching into South Ossentia. Also in the press there's massive condemnation of Russia but it seems to be pretty quiet about the killings of South Ossentian civillians by the Georgians which have been much worse than even the killing of Gerogian troops by Russians.

    The worst but was when Bush said it ws acceptable to invade a sovereign state in the 21st century. It's just mental.

  • Quote from anndra_w

    Also in the press there's massive condemnation of Russia but it seems to be pretty quiet about the killings of South Ossentian civillians by the Georgians which have been much worse than even the killing of Gerogian troops by Russians.



    well exactly, that's what's so dangerous about the media. they don't even have to lie to us to twist reality.

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • George Bush has just been on tv making a speech about this, the most memorable line being "Bullying and intimidation is no way to conduct foreign policy", what a f***ing hypocrite.

  • Hugo Chavez is making himself even more unpopular in America's books :whistle:


    Quote


    Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is accusing the United States of masterminding the current conflict between Georgia and Russia.
    A statement from Chavez's government alleges the conflict was "planned, prepared and ordered" by Washington in an "incitement of violence."

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • This could go a number of ways. There are probably going to be a number of accusations flying around as well. It would probably be very prudent for the US and the rest of NATO to feed Georgia to the dogs as it were.


    The worst that could happen if NATO went in there to deal with the situation by force would be to spark a world war with ICBMs flying every where, which would probably mean that NATO are probably take a back seat on this one. I would expect in the next few days to be a lot of diplomatic efforts being made to calm the situation down.


    Matt

  • Quote from Barefoot_Surfer

    This could go a number of ways.

    Russia will settle for securing the separatist regions, and the West will settle for its oil pipe remaining secure in Georgia proper. The only potential worry is if Russia presses on and takes the whole of Georgia, but they're way too smart for that. Putin has played his hand brilliantly (if ruthlessly). Georgia... along with the West... has been bloodied at very little cost. The West has been show to lack the stomach to protect the former Soviet states that encircle Russia and the West's strategy in the region has been torched.


    All of which was perfectly predictable and obvious to me, which makes you wonder just what kind of morons are employed at the White House. Any halfwit could see that Russia was being pushed too far, but America (and NATO) just didn't seem to grasp that fact. The only optimistic spin you can really put on this from an intelligence and planning perspective is that Saakashvili simply wasn't managed effectively. America needed to take a firmer line and make it clear that no help would be forthcoming in the event of a military conflict with Russia. The man's a hot-head, and he allowed himself to be provoked.


    The real issue in the coming months is whether the Russian's decide that the West is weak, and that they can afford to assert themselves in other areas. The Ukraine is the next potential flash-point. Many Russians view this territory as historically integral to their empire. The Black Sea fleet is still based on the Crimean peninsula in Sebastopol - a naval port leased from the Ukrainian government. That lease expires in a few years, and the Ukraine has already stated that it will not be renewed. I doubt the Russians will just pack up and leave. Currently, I'd say it's even money on whether Russia decides to annexe the Crimean peninsula at some point. Stay tuned.

  • Quote from Benijuana

    wtf are russia saying about nuking poland

    Bluster. They're threatening to put Poland on their target list. Which is kinda inevitable if the US bases elements of a missile defence shield there, so really, Russia is simply stating the obvious.

  • Quote from Atomik

    Bluster. They're threatening to put Poland on their target list. Which is kinda inevitable if the US bases elements of a missile defence shield there, so really, Russia is simply stating the obvious.



    elements of a defence shield?? i thought they had nuclear missiles pointing at Russia??
    and if that was me i'd be pretty pissed off too!

    but what's France got to do with any of this? :boing: have I missed something?

    Quote


    Russia announced on Monday it had started a military pull-back from areas of Georgia under a ceasefire brokered by France to end conflict over the Russian-backed breakaway region of South Ossetia.

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    elements of a defence shield?? i thought they had nuclear missiles pointing at Russia??

    America is developing an anti-missile defence shield, designed to intercept soviet intercontinental nuclear missiles soon after they launch. In theory, this should give America a huge advantage. Currently, "mutual annihilation" is the accepted outcome of any nuclear exchange between America and Russia, but a functioning defence screen would theoretically enable America to launch a first-strike an survive a Russian counter-attack. Hence the Russians being a little perturbed - especially when elements of this defence screen are being shoved in their back yard, in former Soviet countries.


    Quote

    and if that was me i'd be pretty pissed off too!

    Indeed. It amazes me that the American government is so fucking dumb that they failed to anticipate the strength of the Russian reaction. Like I said... I've seen it coming for a long time. You'd think the White House should have a better idea than me, really!

    Quote

    but what's France got to do with any of this? :boing: have I missed something?

    Mediation. They're trying to get Russia to play nice.

  • Quote from Atomik

    but a functioning defence screen would theoretically enable America to launch a first-strike an survive a Russian counter-attack.



    well why would you spend that money theoretically..:eek: :panic:

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    well why would you spend that money theoretically..:eek: :panic:

    Bargaining strength. I mean for example.... America might be a damn site more interested in defending Georgia without the threat of a Russian nuclear strike.....

  • so..is russia less dangerous since the demise of the soviet block.. or are they more dangerous? suppose size isnt everything..a nuke is a nuke..

    suppose I am just waiting for them to be labelled terrorists

  • american dude said 'this doesn't have to end up as a cold war situation' :whistle:

    he also said the defence shield has nothing to do with russia and is there to protect against iran's missiles. :|
    (the missiles are either ficticious (most likely) and therefore just fear-mongering to start a war, or they wer given to iran by russia in which case it certainly does have something to do with russia!)

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    american dude said 'this doesn't have to end up as a cold war situation' :whistle:

    Of course it doesn't. Russia's army is at least two decades behind America. During the cold war, there was always a realistic threat of a soviet ground invasion of Western Europe. That threat is no longer there.

    Quote

    he also said the defence shield has nothing to do with russia and is there to protect against iran's missiles. :|

    Well he would, wouldn't he? :rolleyes:


    Quote

    (the missiles are either ficticious (most likely) and therefore just fear-mongering to start a war, or they wer given to iran by russia in which case it certainly does have something to do with russia!)

    Oh, get a grip with the conspiraloon paranoia already! Nobody is trying to start a war. If America wants to start a war, it just needs to go and drop a few bombs. Convoluted conspiracies are really not required. The missile defence shield is intended to defuse the threat of Russian intercontinental nukes. Everyone and his dog knows that.

  • Quote from Atomik


    Oh, get a grip with the conspiraloon paranoia already! Nobody is trying to start a war. If America wants to start a war, it just needs to go and drop a few bombs. Convoluted conspiracies are really not required. The missile defence shield is intended to defuse the threat of Russian intercontinental nukes. Everyone and his dog knows that.



    America doesn't want a war? Well enlighten me on what they are going to be doing in Iran then.
    I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and don't tell me to get a grip, because there's no need whatsoever to be rude to me.

    we reenact Noah's ancient drama, but in reverse, like a film running backwards, the animals exiting

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    America doesn't want a war? Well enlighten me on what they are going to be doing in Iran then.



    Mining for oil of course...... ;)

    We are old, we are young, we are in this together... New Model Army....they still going?

  • Quote from elfqueenofrohan

    America doesn't want a war? Well enlighten me on what they are going to be doing in Iran then.

    Any sign of a war in Iran other than delusional conspiraloon ramblings? Nope? Thought not. We already have a thread on that very topic, and I've been waiting for three months for any evidence to emerge, and it still hasn't. Bush only has five months left, so if he plans to start a war with Iran, he'd better get a bloody move on. And please discuss this in the existing thread. Thank you.


    Quote

    I'm not a paranoid conspiracy theorist, and don't tell me to get a grip, because there's no need whatsoever to be rude to me.

    Erm... no offence mate, but yes you are. You've made a number of references to America "starting wars" (including in Georgia, bizarrely) which are based on nothing other than paranoia and conspiracy theories. If you have a rational explanation for why America would want to provoke a conflict in Georgia (and such an explanation would have to offer a more rational line of reasoning than the obvious and accepted explanations - Occam's Razor), and support it with facts that makes sense, and I'll be happy to withdraw the accusation. :p

  • im gonna post a message that i sent recently....


    i completely agree about the defense shield. mutual destruction insurance is now being replaced with first strike insurance. i have always hated conspiracy theory, but there are chess players making moves right now that will dictate our future. google 'fake georgia pictures'... i am in the uk and our papers are rife with pictures of this man?? if the naval blockade becomes reality ...another piece has been moved.


    the pieces are being moved...chess is a great game...except when people are involved

  • Quote from GIROGUY

    im gonna post a message that i sent recently....


    i completely agree about the defense shield. mutual destruction insurance is now being replaced with first strike insurance. i have always hated conspiracy theory, but there are chess players making moves right now that will dictate our future. google 'fake georgia pictures'... i am in the uk and our papers are rife with pictures of this man?? if the naval blockade becomes reality ...another piece has been moved.


    the pieces are being moved...chess is a great game...except when people are involved

    The problem with this line of reasoning.... and it's a pretty damn big problem.... is that there's absolutely no sign whatsoever that the west is planning to engage militarily with Russia (or, indeed, has the spare military capacity to do so). Defence shields are a very immature technology, incapable of interecepting the entirity of a Russian nuclear assault, and if America provoked a conflict of that nature then you can be certain that its key cities would still end up as smouldering, radioactive slag-heaps. They aren't about to take that risk. What is taking place... in line with the history of post-WWII gloabal politics... is a maneuvering for military advantage to increase bargaining power and leverage on the world stage.


    The "defence shield" is really no such thing. America can't "defend" against a full-scale Russian launch. What it can do is intercept the relatively small number of missiles that Russia could launch in the event of an American "first strike". So what America is likely to be doing is developing theoretical "first strike" capacity, thus increasing it's leverage over Russian considerably. Would Russian invade Ukraine if they knew America could launch a nuclear attack without the fear of mutual annihilation?


    This may, in a worst-case scenario, lead to a nuclear war if a political flash-point is managed badly. But it is unlikely, as it serves nobody's interests, and it would certainly be accidental rather than planned.

  • to me, the defense shield is all about first strike, mutual destruction has been taken out of the equation, america would have the option to flatten countries...and what little they fired back in retalition could be dealt with (above the poor people who thought it was a good idea to start a new arms race). russia has today been test launching ballastic missles it says are untraceable.there is alot of pushing and shoving going on now, political flash points are off the scale, one will go wrong, its human nature. personally im sat waiting to see if the fleet, which were in operation brimstone, are going to turn up at the persian gulf. if it does its time to buy lots of tinned food!:(

  • Quote from GIROGUY

    to me, the defense shield is all about first strike, mutual destruction has been taken out of the equation, america would have the option to flatten countries...

    Yes. It's about the threat of first strike, and the perceived strategic advantage that that offers. Won't last though... technology moves on. Other countries will (as you mention) develop means of countering it. It's impossible for any nation to defend itself 100% against a missile strike, and America knows this. It only takes a few missiles to get through, and America is toast. It ain't about to provoke a conflict.


    Quote

    there is alot of pushing and shoving going on now, political flash points are off the scale, one will go wrong, its human nature.

    Nah. If anything, it'll be exactly like the cold war - wars fought by the major powers through proxy. If America was gonna kick off, they'd have gone into Georgia. It'd be a piece of piss to defend - one single point of entry through a mountain tunnel. They have no interest in a hot conflict with Russia.


    As far as flashpoints go.... yeah, they exist. But we got through the entire cold war with the major powers locked in conflict all over the globe without it ending up as a nuclear engagement, so I really don't see that the threat now is any greater.


    Quote

    personally im sat waiting to see if the fleet, which were in operation brimstone, are going to turn up at the persian gulf. if it does its time to buy lots of tinned food!:(

    Why are hippies so damn paranoid and pessimistic? If history teaches us anything, it's that major powers like to preserve themselves. Nuclear conflict serves nobody's interests. The American's are reluctant to shoot bullets at Russia... let alone ICBMs. The Russians, in turn, know that they are outclassed on every level by the American military. They know damn well that if they managed to push the Americans into a shooting war, they'd be sheesh kebab. Won't happen. No fucking way. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is if anyone wants to place a small wager. :reddevil: