|
|
Post by medo on Mar 6, 2008 19:37:53 GMT -5
As long as they don`t recognise Kosovo there is nothing to be gained by Russia by assaulting them. As long as they don`t recognise Kosovo independence they do not fully belive that the US has the right and more importantly the power and the influence to shape the world fully as it pleases with full disreagard of any norms whatsoever. It means they are not jet fully and completley US bitches and can be potentialy wrestled further away from the US. Kosovo is not issue for US sponsored Georgia and Azerbaijan who claim that " Kosovo is a special case" and has nothing to do with their own breakaway provinces. What does recognizing or not recognizing of Kosovo independece by Georgia or Azerbaijan has to do with their intentions to regain control over their breakaway provinces? Just because Georgia or Azerbaijan do not recognize Kosovo does not mean that Russia shall withdraw its troops from their breakaway provinces! And anyways what is it for Russia if Armenia gains Nagorno-Karabakh? Respect to Armenian history and their nationalistic spirit... Likewise there is nothing in it for Russia in securing Abkhaz independence. I didn't say that Russia supported the independence of these provinces! On the contrary, I wrote that current policy should continue, and that means Russian formal support for Georgian and Azerbajian's territorial integrity while keeping its forces in the breakaway provinces. In other words status quo. However ability to continue its present course does not dependent solely and entirely on Russia. Russian support for Armenians has nothing to do with their " history and nationalistic spirits". I guess everybody is well aware that more than twice larger (by population) and much richer (by resources) Azerbaijan could have eaten all the Armenians in Armenia (+ those in Nagorno-Karabakh) if there had been no Russian support for Armenians. The same applies to Abkhanizains and Ossetians. But there was Russian support for the ethnic minorities in Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldavia! Now, why do you think it was the case? there is nothing in it for Russia in securing Abkhaz independence...But 250,000 new non-Russian citizens would hardly be a gain for Russia. But they ARE Russian citizens! Both Abkhazians and South Ossetians! The present policy of Russia is correct. It is a constant reminder for Baku and Tbilisi that if they stray too far into the US orbit Russia can put its full weight behind the seperatists and make their life miserable for them. But ultimatley Russia doesn`t need constant strife in its near abroad. A lasting peace is more desirable. Yes, as I already said Russia should continue its current policy in the Caucasus as long as possible. However, Russia does need an instrument of pressure to keep the countries in the region away form the western sphere of influence and thus keep the West away from the oil and gas deposits in Central Asia. These countries are on the path to these resources! After all this is exactly what the current policy means. This is something that would have probably happened long ago under the sponsorship of Russia were it not for US exploiting the situation to anchor her influence in the region and promising Tbilisi and to a lesser extent Baku that by joining their block they won`t need to compromise at all, but will be able to get all of which they claim at Abhaz and Armenian expense. I disagree. I think the West always wanted any type of solution of the frozen conflicts! And by using Kosovo issue they want to force Russia to cut the Gordian knot, while they would keep alliance with Georgia and Azerbaijan. |
|
|
|
Post by pastir on Mar 6, 2008 20:36:25 GMT -5
I guess everybody is well aware that more than twice larger (by population) and much richer (by resources) Azerbaijan could have eaten all the Armenians in Armenia (+ those in Nagorno-Karabakh) if there had been no Russian support for Armenians. Not so. There was barely any support from Russia. The public might have had a preferance, but the state was weak and indifferent. They sold weapons to them and the Soviet Army on the ground arguably ended up being partial towards the Armenians before the dissolution, but that was about it. The reason separatist Armenians were so succesful was simply that they were better organised and had better morale, because they were all mobilised for the fight. While Azeris were demoralised due to incredible corruption and also a lack of stability in Baku with governments getting overthrown in coups and shit. Plus you are forgetting one thing. Armenia was at the time a recepient of a huge monatary support from the US. Courtesy of the incredibly strong Armenian lobby in Washington. And it sent a load of that money to Nagorno-Kharabakh The balance of power only shifted recently with the increase in oil prices and the subsequent increase in Baku`s wealth and the consolidation of Aliyev dynasty and subsequent stability. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Warrior on Mar 6, 2008 23:45:46 GMT -5
Unless Russia shows real solidarity with the Armenians, unless Russia really helps those who it supported during the late 80ties and 90ties it looks like it could easily lose its first ally in the Caucasus -> Armenia and strategically important Nagorno-Karabakh. In that case it shall lose also Abkhazia, South Ossetia and other allies since it shall be clear to the whole world that Russia only supports by empty words. I repeat what I said here before -> Russia must not allow to be dragged into a conflict, and should try to continue its present policy as long as possible, but if Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldavia continue their present course, and that means strategic partnership with the West and confrontation with Russia (all these countries are in the pro-western and anti-Russian alliance GUAM), Russia will soon be forced to make a choice: either to be seen by the whole world as a reliable ally who stands to its commitments to its allies or just a trouble maker who first support you and then betrays you... Being one of the poles of the multi-polar world is not cheap -> it implies commitments! I am not to sure what type of relation Putin has with Alexander Lukashenko, but the Belorussian president called Putin a "weakling" for not doing enough for kosovo and also the possible events of ukraine and georgia going to Nato - but those comments are alarming coming from a country that is very pro russia. I hope the russians are not just full of hot air and have SOME sort of plan, because they are being surrounded as you said and are close to loosing key allies. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Warrior on Mar 6, 2008 23:47:17 GMT -5
Unless Russia shows real solidarity with the Armenians, unless Russia really helps those who it supported during the late 80ties and 90ties it looks like it could easily lose its first ally in the Caucasus -> Armenia and strategically important Nagorno-Karabakh. In that case it shall lose also Abkhazia, South Ossetia and other allies since it shall be clear to the whole world that Russia only supports by empty words. I repeat what I said here before -> Russia must not allow to be dragged into a conflict, and should try to continue its present policy as long as possible, but if Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldavia continue their present course, and that means strategic partnership with the West and confrontation with Russia (all these countries are in the pro-western and anti-Russian alliance GUAM), Russia will soon be forced to make a choice: either to be seen by the whole world as a reliable ally who stands to its commitments to its allies or just a trouble maker who first support you and then betrays you... Being one of the poles of the multi-polar world is not cheap -> it implies commitments! I am not to sure what type of relation Putin has with Alexander Lukashenko, but the Belorussian president called Putin a "weakling" for not doing enough for kosovo and also the possible events of ukraine and georgia going to Nato - but those comments are alarming coming from a country that is very pro russia. I hope the russians are not just full of hot air and have SOME sort of plan, because they are being surrounded as you said and are close to loosing key allies. Lukashenko Attacks Putin over Kosovo lukaputin022108.jpgStratfor is reporting that Belorussian dictator Alexander Lukashenko has given a vitriolic interview with two Russian television stations in which he attacks Vladimir Putin as being a weak leader for allowing Kosovo's delcaration of independence to go forward. According to reports, Lukashenko "bluntly laid a challenge before Putin, saying the Russian president simply does not have what it takes to restore Russia as a great power." In addition, Lukashenko also accused Gazprom of threatening to double prices for Belarus, not because it needed the money, but rather to politically weaken the government. What's behind these frankly absurd comments from one of Europe's worst autocrats? Stratfor puts forward the following theory: "Lukashenko’s actions represent an attempt to portray himself as the true leader of a resurging and powerful Russian-Belarusian movement — something of which he sees himself as an integral part once his dream of the Russian-Belarusian union is finally implemented. Russia, however, has no interest in pursuing the union in a way that would give Belarus a real say in politics. Rather, it would keep Belarus firmly in the Kremlin’s grip as an anti-Western buffer." This perspective seems to back all the rumors we have heard that Putin personally detests Lukashenko, and is quickly tiring of their relationship of convenience. Perhaps Belarus would be better off promoting its brotherhood with fellow pariah states Iran and Venezuela, though their bond seems non-existent beyond run-of-the-mill anti-Americanism... www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/02/lukashenko_attacks_putin_over.htm |
|
|
|
Post by medo on Mar 7, 2008 2:54:06 GMT -5
I guess everybody is well aware that more than twice larger (by population) and much richer (by resources) Azerbaijan could have eaten all the Armenians in Armenia (+ those in Nagorno-Karabakh) if there had been no Russian support for Armenians. Not so. There was barely any support from Russia...
.
.
.
Accusing Armenia of supporting N-K rebels, Turkey has provided support to Azerbaijan, however the threat of Russian intervention in support of Armenia deters deeper Turkish involvement.
.
.
.
Since 1999, Russia has been reinforcing its military positions within Armenia, increasing tensions with Turkey and within NATO.
flashpoints.info/CB-Nagorno-Karabakh.htmWhy don't Serbs attack weak and poor Albanians in Kosovo and Albania? Because of the American military presence! Without Americans Serbs would be not only in Pristina but also in Tirana for a week. In the same way having Russian troops and bases in Armenia is one heavy weight argument for not attacking Armenians in Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. |
|
|
|
Post by The Ultimate Warrior on Mar 6, 2008 23:24:11 GMT -5
Condoleezza blasts South Ossetia's independence: "It’s not going to happen" TransnistriaSouth Ossetia has formally asked the international community to be recognized as an independent state like Kosovo has been. But despite a much longer period as a 'de facto' independent country, the US Secretary of State immediately ruled out the same rights for Ossetians as for Kosovars. Condoleezza Rice was brief and to the point: "It’s not going to happen!" By Jason Cooper, 06/Mar/2008 She says no: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants Kosovo to be free, but not South Ossetia: "It's not going to happen" She says no: US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants Kosovo to be free, but not South Ossetia: "It's not going to happen" WASHINGTON, D.C. (Tiraspol Times) - Ossetians will be treated differently than Kosovars, according to the Bush administration's highest ranking diplomat. Barely two weeks after having recognized Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence against the wishes of Serbia, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made it clear that there can be no similar recognition of the independence of South Ossetia. Her statement came one day after South Ossetia asked the international community be recognized as independent the way same way that Kosovo has been. While on her way to Brussels, Belgium, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked by a journalist if she thought that South Ossetia's independence was inevitable. Her answer was blunt and to the point. " - It’s not going to happen," snapped Condoleezza Rice, cutting short the dreams and hopes of freedom which are shared by the South Ossetians. " - I don’t want to try to judge the motives, but we’ve been very clear that Kosovo is sui generis and that that is because of the special circumstances out of which the breakup of Yugoslavia came," added the Bush-appointed official before again repeating that "it’s a special circumstance." De facto independent state Like Pridnestrovie (informally also known as Transnistria), which declared independence in 1990 and today functions as a fully independent country, South Ossetia also broke free from its Soviet-era past in the early 1990's and has today achieved all the practical elements of statehood but no international diplomatic recognition. The small and de facto independent state is located on the border between Georgia and Russia. For the past 17 years, South Ossetia has governed its own affairs free of interference from Georgia, which pursues an unresolved territorial claim over the area. This period is twice as long as Kosovo has been pursuing independence. Although South Ossetia - like Pridnestrovie - meets the requirements for statehood under international law, it still lacks recognition and diplomatic relations except with other unrecognized countries. Citing Kosovo as a precedent, South Ossetia has now called for international recognition of its de facto independence, news agency Interfax reported. " - The Kosovo precedent presents a convincing argument," read a declaration adopted by the South Ossetian parliament this week, calling on the European Union, Russia and the United Nations to recognize the small state's independence. Rice in 2007: Two state solution "makes sense" A year ago, while on a visit to Jerusalem, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that the formation of a new, separate state will solve a stalled territorial conflict. "It only makes sense," she told journalists in reference to Palestine. Experts in international law noted that her suggestion would also be a viable policy for other disputed territories as well. On Tuesday, the parliament of the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia adopted a resolution requesting an international community on a basis of the Kosovo Precedent to assist them in a process of recognition. In its statement, the democratically elected legislature of South Ossetia explains that "during the 17 years of our independence we have clearly proved the viability of our statehood, and the only thing that is now left is to simply legalize our sovereignty in accordance with UN principles." It is also pointed out that in 2006, the voters of the South Ossetia once again confirmed the decision to carry on a process of building a sovereign, democratic and legal state. www.tiraspoltimes.com/node/1626 |
|
|
|
Post by medo on Mar 21, 2008 10:07:22 GMT -5
Duma discusses Russia’s policy on breakaway republicsRussia's lower house of Parliament is discussing the country's policy towards Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Moldova's region of Transdniester. The Duma speaker Boris Gryzlov has told journalists that Russia is deeply concerned by the prospect of Georgia joining NATO and the possibility of military conflicts in the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.He also said that Russia should be ready to protect its nationals in Georgia's breakaway republics, by recognising their independence if necessary. The draft policy statement asserts the possibility of recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia if Georgia joins NATO. Russia considers the move a threat to its security. Also, many Russian citizens live in the breakaway republics and Moscow wants to ensure their security. Map of breakaway republics Map of breakaway republics The resolution contains a number of suggestions for the government, including opening Russian missions in the republics, making border crossing easier and boosting economic aid. In the beginning of March Russia lifted economic sanctions on Abkhazia, imposed by the CIS states during the 90s, thereby angering Georgia and the U.S. Last week leaders of the breakaway regions came to Moscow to discuss their situations with Russian MPs. Now the Duma session is to finalise Russia’s policy toward the regions. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniester proclaimed independence in the early 90s when the Soviet Union collapsed. None of the breakaway republics received recognition, but they're once again appealing to the international community, encouraged by the example of Kosovo. All three regions have seen military conflicts in which thousands of people were killed. www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22446
|
|
|
|
Post by medo on Mar 21, 2008 10:25:07 GMT -5
I think Russia is running good politics in Caucausus.
One might consider this conditional policy of "recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia if Georgia joins NATO" a little bit dirty or maybe without straight principles, but as I said earlier -> in the long term it is fully legitimate right for Russia not to allow NATO on its borders, and to use any possible mean to divert such plans. Having NATO in Georgia or Ukraine is like having Russia troops in Venezuela and Kuba.
It is like having a person going into another person's face, very, very close, and not touching it. And what's that? No one touched no one (yet), no one attacked no one (yet), and strictly speaking its is allowed by the laws. But in fact it is virtual aggression.
What does this news mean for the Serbs?
I would strongly recommend to the Serbs to calm down since their long term interests cannot be harmed. In the long term Serbs cannot lose since they shall either return Kosovo or have Republika Srpska in BiH. The only thing Serbs have to do is to continue their policy of rejecting Kosovo "independence", protecting the interests of the Serbs in Bosnia (while respecting Bosnia's territorial integrity) and be calm. At the same time they must rebuild their army and their military potential! The best way to make peace is to prepare for war!
One way or another there is one thing I am absolutely sure of -> Russia shall not recognize independent Kosovo if the Serbs do not recognize it!
|
|
|
|
Post by medo on Mar 21, 2008 12:21:54 GMT -5
Duma: Time to recognise breakaway republics
The Russian State Duma has preliminarily approved a draft statement recommending that Russia recognises Georgia's breakaway regions and Moldova's breakaway Transdniester province as independent states.Having studied appeals by Abkhazia and South Ossetia, the State Duma deputies have proposed that the president and government of the Russian Federation consider recognising their independence. The draft resolution also contains other suggestions for the government, including the possibility of strengthening the potential of the peacekeeping forces in the zones of the Georgian-Abkhazian and Georgian-South Ossetian conflicts. Map of breakaway republics Map of breakaway republics Earlier the Duma speaker Boris Gryzlov told journalists that Russia is deeply concerned by the prospect of Georgia joining NATO and the possibility of military conflicts in the territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. “The Georgian President must clearly realise that if Georgia joins NATO, the Russian Federation and a number of other countries will support Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and acknowledge their independence,” said Aleksey Ostrovsky, head of the State Duma Committee. At the beginning of March Russia lifted the economic sanctions on Abkhazia imposed by the CIS states during the 90s, thereby angering Georgia and the U.S. Last week leaders of the breakaway regions came to Moscow to discuss their situations with Russian MPs. Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniester proclaimed independence in the early 90s when the Soviet Union collapsed. None of the breakaway republics received recognition, but they're once again appealing to the international community, encouraged by the example of Kosovo. All three regions have seen military conflicts in which thousands of people were killed. www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/22446
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2008 13:07:22 GMT -5
Does that mean Russia's veto will soon be history? Because if Russia recognizes the breakaway republics in her neighbourhoud, there's no real argument anymore not to recognize Kosovo too.
|
|
|
|
Post by medo on Mar 21, 2008 13:44:35 GMT -5
Does that mean Russia's veto will soon be history? Because if Russia recognizes the breakaway republics in her neighbourhoud, there's no real argument anymore not to recognize Kosovo too. ha ha ha good joke ;D Russian veto for " Kosova" will be history as much as USA is rushing to recognize pro-Russian breakaway republics of Transdniestria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia.  No place in UN for these pro-Russian provinces, due to western vetoes in support to territorial integrity of Georgia and Moldova, then no place for " Kosova" either. When and if a place will be there for any of the provinces there will be for all the others including Republika Srpska, since it will not be possible to include these provinces into UN without making new rules. In the long term pro-Russian provinces are close to Russia, actually some of them are bordering Russia, while Kosovo is on the other side of the planet Earth with respect to USA. Therefore in the short term Serbs will have to satisfy with Republika Srpska but in the long term " Kosova" is doomed since it does not border USA like Abkhazia borders Russia but instead it borders hostile Serbia, hostile Macedonia, hostile Montenegro. In fact all the Albanians are surrounded by the hostile nations... P.S. By the way read the articles better -> the article says that recognition of the pro-Russian provinces shall be considered in case some conditions are met. One of them is Georgia joining NATO, as I wrote here many, many months ago. Shall Georgia decide to join NATO and lose the provinces once for good since Russia shall protect them with the nuclear weapons? You should think better -> this article is not a message of encouraging sent to the breakaway provinces, but primarily a clear message to Georgia. I do not think Georgia shall ever join NATO. Mass protests are already happening in Georgia, and the current regime is doomed. By the way it is not only Russian veto but Chinese veto also. In fact absolute majority of the UN SC members does not support Kosovo independence. Only a few days before Kosovo declared independence there was a UN SC session and absolute majority of the members rejected Ahtisaari's plan and urged for continuation of the negotiations. |
|
|
|
Post by medo on Mar 21, 2008 14:03:37 GMT -5
Lets just imagine that the West recognizes the right of pro-Russian provinces to secede from Georgia, hooping that in that way their child "Kosova" could become member of UN also. What would then happen?
They would lose Georgia, an ally in strategically important Caucasus. Pro-Western Georgia would then once for good turn its back to the West, and completely devote itself to rebuilding of its ties with Mother Russia.
And what do you think Russia would do then? In that case Russia would not recognize pro-Russian provinces since enormous Russia does not need new territories but only peace on its borders. In that case Russia would get the whole Georgia, the provinces would be forced to return to Georgia and to satisfy with autonomy within Georgia, and Russia would strongly encourage Serbia to go to war for Kosovo.
In long term the West does not need "independent Kosova", the West does not care about Albanians or "human rights" (otherwise they would not arm Israel but instead help Palestinians who suffered genocide and ethnic cleansing in millions), but the West is only miscalculating that they would get sympathies of the Muslims which would then, as the westerners hope, not fight against the westerners when they attack them for oil ;D
This sounds rather stupid but in simple words that is it. After all hasn't western policy in the last 8 years proved to be foolish?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2008 14:14:05 GMT -5
My comment was indeed not very clever.
|
|
gleb
Starshiy Leytenant
Posts: 363
|
Post by gleb on Mar 21, 2008 15:21:52 GMT -5
Does that mean Russia's veto will soon be history? Because if Russia recognizes the breakaway republics in her neighbourhoud, there's no real argument anymore not to recognize Kosovo too. No! Veto will be veto! As Americans say: "Kosovo is a far different story. It has nothing in common with other breakaway provinces"))) For Russia it is also a different story)) |
|
|
|
Post by Danik on Mar 28, 2008 8:57:08 GMT -5
"By the way it is not only Russian veto but Chinese veto also. In fact absolute majority of the UN SC members does not support Kosovo independence. Only a few days before Kosovo declared independence there was a UN SC session and absolute majority of the members rejected Ahtisaari's plan and urged for continuation of the negotiations".
Yes Medo, too hasty to form conclusions. Yes, majority of the countries rejected the Ahtisaaris plan but as U.S recognized Kosovo and there were no more possibilities for further talks on the status of Kosovo, a considerable and influential part of that majority of nations that rejected the Ahtisaaris plan still followed american suit and recognized Kosovo.
|
|
