Russian (Soviet?) war on Georgia

[Karl Heidenreich]

Hey, guys. Anyone of you remember a 1984 movie called "Red Dawn" starring Patrick Swaize, C. Thomas Howell and a teenager Charlie Sheen? I found some scenes of the movie in youtube and did remember those days of Cold War when we expected the ruskies to strike on America (and the nicaraguans will conquer Costa Rica with the help of the cubans).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWpT0LeMtS0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlE2pH9z ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxRjXO4N ... re=related

Well, in 2010 we will have the re make of the movie (I presume this time they´ll have islamic vermin instead of commie one).

Best regards

[RF]

Films like this will tend to be remade - with today's current enemy.

[RF]

Now that the military action (or at least that which is being reported) has ceased and other matters now dominate the headlines is it not both interesting and revealing that this issue now seems almost dead?

[lwd]

Not particularly.

Most people concnetrate on what effects them and what's new. Any event that is no longer new and has little impact isn't going to be talked about much. On the otherhand there are still ramifications of this echoing through the halls of international diplomacy.

[RF]

Yes but will these ramifications amount to anything of substance in the long term?

[lwd]

Yes but probably not obvious. They speeded up the US deployment of ABM missiles to Poland. It may have done more than that the Poles may not have agreed to it without the attack on Georgia. It makes inclusion in Nato an even greater prize for other East European states. Then there has been the pull back by investors although some of that is due to other activities by Moscow. There's probably a lot more going on behind the scenes.

[Bgile]

I'm afraid NATO is a paper tiger. Since the EU members have failed to maintain a significant military establishment, there isn't much they can do anymore and adding new members IMO just spreads out what little capability there is.

Germany in particular is dependent on Russian Natural Gas and they are not even willing to send their troops where they might get shot at. I'm under the impression that most of the EU states are more or less in the same boat. Hopefully someone can disabuse me of that impression, but I doubt it.

[lwd]

Not a paper tiger at all. We're still in it. And so are the French and British both of whom have nukes. One of the things I've never understood is why the Russians fought having NATO expand so much. Since it takes a consensus to do anything the more countries in it the less likely it is to act. The exception is an attack on a NATO member which triggers the support clauses.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I agree with Bgile: NATO is a paper tiger, no more than that.

And agree with lwd: whilst the US is part of NATO then there is some strenght in it.

Marxist synthesis: NATO depends on the US. Great Britain is the only secure ally maybe because it still "likes" to fight. The rest are just "paper" armies: the French? Don´t make me laugh: since before 1815 they have not manage to win a single important battle! They have nukes but cry loud about Israel trying to blow up Iran´s nuclear facilities. Remember Kosovo? See how much fighting the NATO allies are doing in Afganistan? The only reason a depleted and weakened Russian Army is not having it´s troops enjoing EuroDisney is because Uncle Sam disuade them to have some old cossak fun.

Best "political incorrect" regards...

[RF]

The basic problem for NATO is not that it is ineffective, it is being used for political purposes for tasks it was not set up to do. Further there is no agreement between NATO countries on this new role.

NATO is the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It is now involved on issues and conflicts nothing to do with western Europe or the North Atlantic, most notably in Afghanistan. NATO was, and should still be, concerned with the defence of western Europe, not as an unofficial world policeman.

[Bgile]

The entire US ground force capability is either tied up in Iraq or Afghanistan, or undergoing R&R for their next deployment to those places. There is no strategic reserve at all. The Russians know that.

[RF]

If this is indeed the case that there is no strategic reserve - a fatal mistake made by General Gamelin, amongst others - then the US President, as Commander in Chief, is at some stage going to have to correct this.

This I think is particulary so as over the next, say ten years, US interests will have to face up to three different challenges: reiligous fundamentalism, the Russians and the Chinese. This is why I have the feeling that Barack Obama is another Jimmy Carter, and John McCain is simply to old to be an effectice Commander in Chief, he doesn't have the energy or persona that Ronald Reagan had at that age.

[Karl Heidenreich]

Ronald Reagan was the man, the greastest US President since FDR and the one that really won the Cold War. Bush Senior only collect what Reagan did.

[lwd]

That's one view. Another is that he was a senile old man who did a good job as the front man for those who really ran his administration.

[Karl Heidenreich]

I respect your opinion: thanks to Reagan now everyone is free to think as they please.