NATO Hypocrisy

In 1999, NATO intervened against a state that was using violence in efforts to reduce secessionist sentiment in one part of the country.

In 2008, Russia intervenes against a state using violence in efforts to reduce secessionist sentiment in one part of the country, and NATO complains

If theres a little kid stealing your milk money you might grab em, if its a gang member you ask nicely or offer them more.

With you on this Vadz. When you compare the two situations NATO and the US appear to be adhering to a double standard. Though there any many differences on the surface, at the most basic level the two situations are the same.

Secondly, why is everyone so damn surprised, this stuff has been going on in Sth Ossetia and Abkhazia since the 90s

Hypocrisy and double standards in international relations...

Yeah just funny how in the same breath people can laud the US response in Kosovo and chastise the Russians for their stance on Ossetia and Abkhazia

NATO was a third-party intervention though - significant point of difference? or not?

You could consider the Russians as the third party to Sth Ossatia and Georgia as the 1st and 2nd.

Certainly not exactly the same but not different enough to not be considered a counter point.

No. Russia has a territorial/historical stake in South Ossetia, and indeed, the Ossettians feel a greater affinity with Russia than Georgia.

Is this not a classic dispute over territorial sovereignty?

Whereas the USA did not have a territorial or sovereignty interest in Yugoslavia.

Or "NATO" I should say

Although we all know it was a US-led initiative.

there's a big difference between what NATO does and that which Russia does

the difference is our double standard - ie Russia bad, NATO good

end of day innocents dies whilst the power brokers score political points

But don't those Russian tanks festooned with Kontakt-5 ERA look fucking badass? Seriously? It's like technology porn

you could easily argue that NATO (led by USA) has an interest as well namely in reducing the scope of Russia.

maybe, but that's hardly the point here

the point is, it can be argued that in many respects, South Ossetia is or should be part of Russia - so it's a territorial dispute

so it's not really analogous to NATO's involvement in the Bosnian conflct

I've been thinking that

Both were secessionist provinces
Both interventions were justified by "humanitarian motives"

well in the case of Kosovo it was deemed an "international humanitarian emergency" thus justifying NATO intervention.

every war will involve human casualties, but not every war will create a humanitarian crisis demanding international action.

it's a threshold question in other words.

Dude.



All the justification you need

that's a very nice tank I must say (and I don't normally have a fetish for such things)

very sexy

agreed. hypocrites

now what you gonna do when they come for you?

You missed out an important point vadz





Don't you remember? Russia complaints were more vigorous too. I remember Yeltsin (probably drunkenly, bless him) warning the West that it should not forget Russia has a few thousand nukes and it might decide to use them

Also there are tanks like that (probably modeled on the same ones) in Battlefield: Bad Company. Bad ass to drive and shoot (especially with 5.1 and 10" sub). Not so fun in real life for the poor civvies caught in the cross fire :/

how one can find sex appeal in an instrument of killing and mass destruction is beyond me

Many people find power sexy.

You can also admire something for how well it achieves its purpose, like a shark or a legal act

But don't get hung up on what vadz finds sexy

might may not be right but it certainly helps.

I'm sure BG can agree with Vadz that Tom Brady is dead sexy

Even if he sucks as a QB

ok - though i have always found that disturbing. but surely the type of power or what use it might be put to are relevant considerations? Hitler was a powerful man but he sure as hell wasn't sexy :>

wash your mouth out woman

Im the wrong person to explain the mechanics of finding machinery 'sexy' but i can certainly appreciate design, function and even simplicity in inanimate objects.

Hitler had charisma and political skill; personally i don't find that 'sexy' but I can still admire it.

Apparently girls are more likely to find power sexy... vadz?

*political skill being the pursuit of power (to link it to the discussion).

lol

ok, i can see how that might be considered *sexy*

Hitler on the other hand, no.

Next thing you'll be telling me Karadzic is sexy.

Russian tanks are useless death traps when they engage western armour.

So, does this action in protection of minorities by Russia mean the Russians now recognise Chechneya's right to self-determination?

Evidence being?

Iraqi T-72s in GW 90/91, for example, were export models without composite armour and firing 23mm subcaliber training sabots rather than the 45mm "real shots"

In 1981 when the MErkava met the T-72, it took hours of careful stalking by elite Israeli crews to destroy the Russian tanks, as they found that their 105s were bouncing off the frontal armour.

I know several armoured officers (ex-NATO) who said in all their OA, the one thing that scared them was Russian gun fired ATGMs, as NATO had nothing to shoot back with at that range (4-5km)

and Eva Braun would have vigorously disagreed with you there BG

My Russian friend is translating some Russian soldiers' blogs

WAYSA?

you don't speak Russian vadinho?

Not since 2001

That was the OG Merkava developed over 30 years ago. The latest Merkava (IV) is the equal of any Russian design....


Now the Merkava IV is a sexy tank...

And it was an OG T-72
Now, the T-90M...

Oh no you didn't...

its really heating up in this area.
Russia has formally recognised the two Georgian breakways now, and stated 'we dont mind if this causes a cold ware, its up to the West to determine that'

I had posted a long quote from Stratfor a few days ago predicting this but either I errored or it got deleted. (I wouldnt mind knowing which thx mods) I gather long quotes without other content are not kosher.

I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that this whole thing will blow over soon, i.e. Russia is going to withdraw fully from Georgia. Russia trying to reintegrate parts of Georgia would make Saakashvilli's idiotic attack on South Ossetia look like a piece of strategic genius.

Also I doubt there is going to be a new cold war, simply because the US is still far too powerful , despite two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. A cold war implies some kind of equality, which there clearly isn't (sorry vadz ). GDP, population, military spending, Russia is not in the same league as the US.

In any case, Russia and the West need each other far too much to let the relationship get fucked up by the foolish actions of the leader of Georgia. Russia is sending the West a message - we are back, don't fuck with us anymore, and treat us with some respect. Germany and France have already got the message, but it might take the US a bit longer, unless Obama gets elected in November

it doesn't look like it was deleted...