Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008

Haggis Hunt is now on!

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

G7 condemns Russia over Georgia in an 'unprecedented' broadside



View Video
Download Video

Video

Foreign Secretary David Miliband on the crisis in Georgia
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 28 August 2008
THE G7 group of leading industrialised nations last night issued a stinging condemnation of Russia's decision to recognise Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.



"We, the foreign ministers of Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United States and the United Kingdom, condemn the action," the group said, in what the UK Foreign Office described as an "unprecedented step".

"We deplore Russia's excessive use of military force in Georgia and its continued occupation of parts of Georgia.

"We call unanimously on the Russian government to implement in full the six-point peace plan brokered by President Sarkozy on behalf of the EU, in particular to withdraw its forces behind the pre-conflict lines."

The G7 statement came hours after David Miliband, the UK Foreign Secretary, warned Russia that it must not start a new Cold War.

Speaking during a visit to Ukraine, Mr Miliband said if Russia started a new era of tension, there would be a price to pay.

His speech – made in the eastern European country which wants to join a growing number of Russia's neighbours in signing up to Nato – comes amid escalating tensions with Moscow. As well as the G7 statement, Britain issued its own condemnation of Russia's recognition of Georgia's breakaway regions.

In a reference to an article written by Dmitry Medvedev, Mr Miliband added: "The Russian president says he is not afraid of a new Cold War. We don't want one. He has a big responsibility not to start one. We need to raise the costs to Russia for disregarding its responsibility. We need to re-examine the nature, depth and breadth of relations (with Russia]."

Mr Miliband accused Russia of not recognising the new geography of the 21st century. "Russia has not reconciled itself to the new map of this new region," he said.

"Today, Russia is more isolated, less trusted and less respected than two weeks ago. It has made military gains in the short term. But over time, it will feel the economic and political losses.

"If she truly wants respect and influence, and the benefits which flow from it, then Russia needs to change course."

David Cameron, the Conservative leader, yesterday urged the government to support the expulsion of Russia from the G8 group of leading countries. He said: "There is a danger of having your cake and eating it, of saying that you want a tough response to Russian aggression, you want to build a strong coalition, but then ruling out so many of the potential items.

"Having Russia as a member of the G8 at a time when her troops are still on the sovereign soil of another country, I think, is inappropriate."

The Russian president has set out to defend Moscow's actions in an opinion article for a British newspaper. Mr Medvedev said Russia had "no option" but to "crush the attack to save lives". He added: "This was not a war of our choice. We have no designs on Georgian territory."

Meanwhile, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, yesterday spoke to Mr Medvedev by telephone to tell him the presence of Russian troops in Georgia was a grave violation of the ceasefire. The Kremlin said that Mr Medvedev had assured Ms Merkel he remained committed to the ceasefire under which Russia agreed to withdraw most of its forces.

The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, warned that Russia could have its eye on other neighbouring countries, such as Ukraine and Moldova.

France, which holds the rotating EU presidency, has called an emergency meeting of European leaders next week to review their relationship with Russia.

Mr Kouchner said it was "not impossible" that Russia would now regularly choose to confront the West, rather than co-operate with it.

Meanwhile, Russia will push for support from other allies today when it attends a summit of the Shanghai Co-operation Organisation in Tajikistan.

China will have to weigh up whether to offer its usual backing to Russia, or if this will encourage separatists along its own borders.


The full article contains 676 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 August 2008 12:09 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Russia
 
1

8/10 Cats,

28/08/2008 00:01:08
Miliband the heavyweight? He has as much credibility as Alex Salmond on the international scene. Time to get some people of worth and callibre in the top jobs.
2

druidh,

edinburgh 28/08/2008 00:09:25
A no-hoper, pushing his supposed weight around so that he looks up to the "top" job. Who is going to fight your war Mr Miliband? And how long will it last once the Russians turn off the gas tap?
3

Hickory,

US 28/08/2008 00:19:43
Face the facts. All of Europe is just a weak sister. They are all bark and no bite. Aye, they cut back their armed forces and.......... now what? This brings back memories of Chamberlain. If Russia attacks Poland
what will Europe do? Say, "You better not do that again". Then what? The chickens are coming home to roost!
4

democracy,

Scottish Borders 28/08/2008 00:22:53
#1 8/10 Cats, Alex Salmond is the best parliamentarian there is in Britain, just ask the political commentators, even the ones that don't like him, that is why he has won the major political awards in the past 12 months, north and south of the border!!

But hey,if you haven't got a Salmond in your party then your bound to be jealous and a Salmond hater, isn't that correct?, but I do agree with you on Miliband, the Russians must be quaking in their boots!!
5

Savo,

London 28/08/2008 00:58:12
Few months ago Miliband was happy to declare the 'independence' of Kosovo against all international laws and UN rules.
Now he would like to protect the territorial integrity of Georgia?
A little boy should learn that the international law is not made to work when he wants and not to work when he decides.
The only way to resolve the Georgian problem is to cancel the 'independence' of Kosovo and Russia will have to cancel their declaration.
But, to do something like that the EU needs some politicians with guts and I do not see them.
6

VoteoutLibLabConTraitors,

castlemilk 28/08/2008 02:40:05
I'm sure I must have more sense than Milliband. Having done 20 yrs in the Forces. Serving in the Falklands and the gulf.
Russia is pissed off with us with Nato so close to their borders.
But we need their oil and gas. No probs. Get together. For gods sake the wee countries we're fighting over are non events. Who has heard of south ossetia ? The US will evaporate a family of 70 with a brill new bomb and zilch will happen. Yet we moan about Russia. Give me a break. Both equally guilty !
7

hz pnh,

HZ PNH 28/08/2008 04:16:30
Do you guys really think that Russia even cares about G7... big mistake.
Georgia started the war by bombing non-military parts of the Tskhinvalli, and now US des-information tryes to say, that Russia is "bad guy" again. Really?! Real reason for all those mostly pointless accusations are:
1: Russia destroyed US plans for the region, and destroyed US president foreign policy.
2: Russia cut alternative oil path for Europe.
Us is pissed, Europe is pissed, and Russia just reminds: "Guys don't forget, we ARE major power, which won't let you threaten us from OUR own borders."
And by the way, well, UN was lookin at Russia as some "broken" by them country, and it was so... untill around 2000s, Russia is raising and it was just a show of it. And UN doesn't like it very much it doesn't want Russia to be powerful again, it wants it to stay weak and desorganized... well everythin good ends someday, got to learn it, UN.
When US on some false accusations started a war in Iraq, UN was OK with it, when Russia tryes to defend its citizens from REAL threat of Death, UN is all pissed... wtf is goin on?!
8

fife runner,

28/08/2008 06:10:56
what about condemming Georgia for making the first attack and precipitating the crisis. It is all a bit one sided and will only further entrench positions. It shows up the West for what they really are anti Russian.
9

fife runner,

28/08/2008 06:12:11
#9 and 14 totally agree
10

Boy Wonder,

28/08/2008 07:14:51
Milliband the Militant Millipede??

Russia will do what it likes ... and the G8(7)? along with the UN and NATO will do nothing except wring their collective hands!

Or will they conclude a non-nuclear war is inevitable since the World has entered an economic downturn, as it did between the last two global conflicts?? I mean, a culling of the over six billion people on the planet is long overdue, isn't it??
11

The Spook in Leith,

28/08/2008 08:09:12
If i were the Russian President i would tell the G7 to fu#k off. Russia should have gone into the Georgian capital and removed the government because of the genocide committed in South Ossetia by them.

It is laughable when they talk about punishing Russia!! well seeing the military option is out of the window when it comes to a county that is big and powerful, Good on you Russia, stick it up them.

Go get Alaska back as well just for a laugh.
12

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000miles from Earth's core 28/08/2008 08:41:04
Milliband ,two words for you ,"Kosovo" and "Hypocrasy".
"In a November 2006 referendum, 99 percent of South Ossetians voted for independence from Georgia "
So Georgia attacks South Ossetia killing 2,000 civilians and Russia steps in the stop the massacre and somehow Russia is the bad guy!?!?!
What would have been the response if Serbia had invaded Kosovo after the independance vote and massacred 2,000 civilians!?!?!? Would that make NATO and/or UN the bad guys if they stepped in to stop the massacre?
Mean while in the REAL world , I don't think Russia give a care what Mr.Milli"Vanilli"band thinks or says, just another War for Oil in the making.Being promoted by LIES and LIARS and COWARDS who will NOT be fighting in the war but will make a lot of money from it.
"Georgia is developing into an international transport corridor through Batumi and Poti ports, an oil pipeline from Baku through Tbilisi to Ceyhan, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline (BTC) and a parallel gas pipeline, the South Caucasus Pipeline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(Caucasus)#The_Modern_period

13

The Spook in Leith,

28/08/2008 08:42:42
#19

Good post and the smell of hypocrisy from the G7 is disgusting.
14

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 08:54:35
Russia could not care less what the G7 and NATO says, it's immaterial and business goes on as usual.

Having been here for a while i understand just how the Russians feel about their borders. The great patriotic war is still very fresh in the memory here and after losing 30 million they are not about to roll over and let anyone ever again threaten the sovreignty or their borders.

15

Wise Man,

glasgow 28/08/2008 09:09:05
#19
You've got the facts wrong. South Ossetian militants started this war by murdering Georgians. Having just come back from the region on a journalist placement I can confirm. It must be said that the Georgians did retaliated in a heavy handed way but tension has been building up for a long time and it would appear much of the South Ossetians support is being garnered by Russia. It could be said that Russia started this terrible situation to show it is once more a power to be reckoned with. Russia's or should I say Putin's key objective has been to reestablish the Country as a Great Nation - by whatever means.
16

Alan B,

28/08/2008 09:16:31
Georgia is a sovereign country. Russia is wrong to invade a foreign country and involve itself in an internal dispute. Russia must come to terms with the fact that the soviet union is no more.

Any moves to self determination must come through international organisations like the UN. It would help if the UN itself was revamped, democractic countries dominate and new rules round self determination and the path to achieve that laid down.

European (EU) countries must come to terms with this a they deal with their own issues with territories seeking slef determination. The fundamentals of democracy needs to be rejuvinated. The EU countries must do that to show they can take a lead, rather than being hypocritical.

17

Alan B,

28/08/2008 09:23:17
#Savo

It was a correct decision to allow Kosovo its independence. Any country/territory that has the support of the majority of its citizens should have the right to self determination.

One of the biggest problems and source of disputes is round artificial countries eg Yuogslavia, put together after wars or imperialist forces. Iraq is another example. Kashmir in India is another.
18

Duncan in Edinburgh,

28/08/2008 09:24:26
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation in Georgia, the problem we face is that the US and its allies opened the door to any and all such illegal actions by itself ignoring international law in its invasion of Iraq. We are unable to argue on principle to Russia because we ourselves already betrayed those principles. Many people, including me, pointed out at the time that these sort of wider implications would result from the folly of direct military intervention in the middle east.

In many respects, a new era of east-west hostilities is inevitable, as a result of the actions of GW Bush.
19

Cuthulan,

approx.12,000miles from Earth's core 28/08/2008 09:38:10
#20 Spook
Thank you , see you in Robbie's bar for a beer one day ;-)

#22
"You've got the facts wrong. South Ossetian militants started this war by murdering Georgians. Having just come back from the region on a journalist placement I can confirm."
What facts do i have wrong ??My nephew's girlfriend is South Ossetian with her family still living there , and as far as I know, it was a Russian military base that was attacked first ,by whom, it is still unconfirmed. Where do YOU get your FACTS from,the US D.O.D.? Also can you then explain why there are 2,000 DEAD OSSETIANS.
Also the War games going on just before was just coincidence as well.
If you want some better info on the situation check this article you might learn something.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article5834.html
IMHO I find the quality of reporting coming from western media to be of very low standard and have little understanding of the history of this region.
20

bluehead,

edinburgh 28/08/2008 09:38:23
the G7 would be better addressing the blatant provocation of America for installing the nuclear equipment in Poland,that they propose,
It is clear that this is meant to bully down the Russians,the Americans would be the first to complain if another country were to place the same things in such close proximity to their country,the cold war got even colder after this decision it is obvious they want to box in Russia which could cause terrible problems,and as for this Milliband who seems to have a bigger mouth than he has a brain,he should be given a job selling hamburgers or shining shoes,that seems to be the extent of his intelligence.
21

Alan B,

28/08/2008 09:41:49
To deal with issue like this the West must come up with a long term strategy. No matter what you feel about the Iraq war that must come after there has been a change of government(poltical party) in both US and UK.

To a large extend the EU must take the lead, in that regard it is a pity that the UK is so semi detached. you cannot exactly see the tories playing a positive role.

Firstly they need to revamp the international organisations like the UN round democratic lines. The UN simply does not work. It tries to do to many things and does nothing well. The premanent security council means that one non democractic power eg china or russia can veteo action. The UN should mandate actions based on a majority of a cross section of democratic countries.

Secondly the EU must take a lead. That must start with stop messing about with its own constitution and alienating its citizens. It then should follow with sorting out the mess it made of Cyprus. And then welcome turkey into the EU.

The EU should be about spreading democracy and human rights, based on set of laws underpinned by economic prosperity.

The EU should move to ensure that it is energy independent ending its dependency on Russian gas or middle east oil.

End subsidies for CAP.

The EU should develop a common foreign policy.

The EU should develop a military response force for peace keeping and peace enforcing for neighgouring disputes.

The eu should encourage associate membership for north african countries that are democratic to encourage the prosperity and democracy from Morroco to Egypt. (dealing with issues like Algeria).

The EU should take a must more proactive approach to Israel/palestine issue. First course of action should be to have complete sanctions on Israel until it retreats to 67 borders. Some independent arbitration is needed then to divide the land between the 48 and 67 borders. A un/eu force should be deployed to the new free palestine to secure borders.



22

Senga Jean,

28/08/2008 09:47:08
Reflect on the Cuban crisis. Vice versa? (learning history is only a good thing if you remember it and understand it.) Alex Salmond was so very correct!
23

A Scot in China,

28/08/2008 09:47:45
Duncan #25, absolutley, we have lost all the moral high ground in international politics now, I don't even know who are the bad guys and who are the goods guys these days. As a result of the western actions in the last 10 years all the other powers of the world can do what they want and have a very compelling argument to back their action up. George W is where my finger of blame goes
24

David Chapman,

Aberdeen 28/08/2008 09:48:55
#22 - if you've really just come back from a journalistic placement in South Ossetia, you should be sacked.

The correct response to defuse this situation would be for the G7 to agree to recognise South Ossetia if Russia withdrew its troops. But that's not going to happen, as it involves America not getting its own way.

Evidently the Americans are trying to make up for being late to the last two World Wars by being good and early for World War Three.
25

Alan B,

28/08/2008 09:49:00
#bluehead

First of all this has nothing to do with Poland. Blaming the US for everything is just getting silly.

On a serious point, the implication of what you are saying is Poland as a democratic country, now free for decades of totalitarian rule from Russia and the evils of the Russian empire created by Stalin, should be refused entry into Nato.

NATO is about european countries coming together with the US democratically to secure themselves from invasion. Why should eastern european countries be denied that, if they wish to democratically join?

You point seems to be. While Russia wrongly ruled the eastern european countries by force against there will. Now that that has end, these victims should not be allowed to seek protection from the democratic coat of NATO for fear that we upset the perpitrator of the crime.

26

Alan B,

28/08/2008 09:52:46
#David Chapman

"Evidently the Americans are trying to make up for being late to the last two World Wars by being good and early for World War Three."

Interesting point. 2 world wars happened due to Europe. The first on the back of colonialism and empires. The US played an isolatist foreign policy and stayed out the way, letting europe make a complete mess of it.

Since the end of ww2 the US has played a proactive and interventionist foreign policy due to being dragged into 2 world wars, that it has little to do with.
27

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 10:19:09
All a bit rich after Nato forces stood by and watched as the KLA ethnically-cleansed Kosovo of Serbs, and set-up a dominion with 'no visible means of support'...
28

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 10:26:28
#32 AlanB

I would hope, and presume, that Nato has absolutely no intention of going to war with Russia over ethic enclaves in the Caucuses - it has almost nothing to do with Nato. Nato may as well offer Saudi Arabia membership - it is on the same longitude.

Poland is a very, very long way from the Caucuses.
29

Alan B,

28/08/2008 10:37:28
#The Tin Man

I was responding to another poster who raised issues regarding Poland. Not trying to draw any parallel between the 2 issues.

30

Alan B,

28/08/2008 10:45:48
#The Tin Man

"it has almost nothing to do with Nato."

2 things:
1)If Georgia was to be accepted as a member of NATO it would be.
2)If Georgia was to be accepted as a member of the EU, then the EU would have some responsibility to ensure that it was not attacked by a foreign power.

So i think you are wrong to dismiss the relevence of the issue to the EU and NATO.

Part of the underlying issue here is: Russia has dominated by force to so much this part of europe under the soviet regime. ie the whole of eastern europe and ex soviet republics.

These countries are turning west words. They want membership of the EU and they want the safety of the Nato blanket. Some countries are split on their loyalties.

The EU can either welcome them or reject them.

The enlargement of the EU (and Nato), you cannot realistically welcome them to the eu and reject them from nato, means a shrinking of Russias empire and influence.

We could see the with Ukraine and what might happen with it in the future.
31

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 10:46:43
#36 AlanB

I would say that Polish membership of Nato is a very good thing. However, I believe that Ukranian membership is a rather ridiculous idea.

Large swathes of E. Ukraine were 'gifted' to the Ukranian Republic by Krustchyev, and are ethnically Russian. The idea that Russia could have it's major southern naval base in a Nato country is highly antagonistic.

There is little love lost between the Russians and the Ukrainians, but for Ukraine to join Nato, the border would have to be re-drawn.
32

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 10:53:18
#37 AlanB

Indeed, but if Georgia was a member of Nato last year, would you support British troops enforcing Georgian 'assimilation' of the Abkhaz and the Ossetes, which is the goal of the Georgian government, or would you support referendums in these areas, which the Georgian government would not allow?
33

Alan B,

28/08/2008 11:00:19
#The Tin Man

Can you really have a country accepted as a member of the EU, but refused membership of NATO. NATO at the end of the day is an ensurance that the other members will fight for you if you are attack and try to safeguard your borders.

Would you reject Ukraine a soveign country for membership of the EU if it met the criteria of membership and it democractically wanted to join?

I do not know ukraines intensions but i think within a decade we could see ukraine seriously considering membership of the eu.

It will be difficult for Russia as you say to adjust. But is there another alternative?

Should EU really say, well we know you are a democratic soveign nation but Russia does not like it so you cannot join our club.


34

Alan B,

28/08/2008 11:04:17
#39 The Tin Man

I believe in the right of people to have self determination and therefore I would support referendums.

I am not that knowledgable about Georgia, but in principle I would not let it join NATO or the EU unless it would agree to the principles of democracy. And that includes the right of self determination.

35

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 11:15:04
AlanB

Indeed, but the Georgian government does not share your sentiments.

It was not so long ago that Russia was after membership of the EU. They were strongly re-buffed, probably for geo-political reasons, and they have obviously got the message.

As for Ukraine becoming an EU member, I would find that highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. It is dependant on trade with Russia, to a much greater extent than the EU. Mind you, Bulgaria has membership, and it's economy is still mired in government / mafia criminal inter-dependency.
36

Savo,

London 28/08/2008 11:20:27
#24 Alan B
If we accept that any large group has a 'full right to independence' like Albanians in Kosovo, that will be the end of all large countries in Europe except the Germany.
One of the first to go would be Bosnia, followed by Ukraine, UK, Belgium, Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Macedonia, Turkey, etc.
Yugoslavia was not an artificial country for its citizens, but it was a problem-country for Germany and Vatican. Now they achieved their objective - partners from the WW2 are together again.
37

Alan B,

28/08/2008 11:34:21
#Savo

Having the right to self determination does not necessarily means that larger countries will break up. And there is nothing wrong with it if they do. Many countries were put together after wars and for many that can mean resentment that survives long past that point in history.

If the uk was to break up so what? It is up to the 4 different countries to make up their own mind on what constitutional future they want. If NI wanted to democractic re-unify with the south, that would probably be a more permanent fix than the current situation. But it is up to the people that live there.

If scotland was to decide to be independent, again what is the problem with it. You may even find relationship between countries could be closer or more positive.

If Belgium democratically decides to split which it may do, if it votes for it no one will stop it. I do not think anyone outside Belgium would have an issue with it.

Same with Canada. But so far all these places have not decided to change their status.

Yugoslavia was an artificial country from the perspective it was put together after the fall of the Austria-Hungary empire at the end of WW1. Bit like countries put together in the middle east after the fall of the turkish empire.

The fact was the different areas like Bosnia and Croatia did not want to remain part of Yugoslavia where Serbia was the dominent power. Unfortunately it was not down in a peace full way and I do think the Serbs got see wrongly as the bad guy when like most things it is alot more complicated.

But at the end of the day Yugoslavia fell apart not longer after the fall of the soviet union.

I do not understand why you have a problem with the western countries you mentioned democraticall splitting. (it could happen in germany as places like Bavaria has their own identity, but unlikely as germany has a devolved federal system).


38

Alan B,

28/08/2008 11:39:58
sorry about the typo should have been

" Unfortunately it was not done in a peace full way and I do think the Serbs got seen wrongly as the bad guy when like most things it is alot more complicated. "
39

MacGillicuddy,

28/08/2008 11:42:48
I am sure Putin and Medvedev are brickin it when they see David Miniblair wag his finger at them.

The peoples of South Ossietia and Abkhazia , just like the people of Scotland, Tibet, wherever, have EVERY right to self-determination. Russia was correct to stop Georgia's naked acts of genocide.
40

Alan B,

28/08/2008 11:46:27
#MacGillicuddy

That is why Russia stood so strongly behind the right of self determination of Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Kosova. And had no problem with Chesnya.

41

"Hoots" Fandango,

28/08/2008 11:53:06
The Tin Man

"It was not so long ago that Russia was after membership of the EU."

Eh?

28 October 2004 13:29

Russia not aspiring to join EU

"Relations between Russia and the European Union should be built on the principles of equality, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters. He noted that the European Union was one of Russia’s largest business partners.

“We do not aspire to membership in the EU, but we are ready to cooperate in the spheres of economy and external security,” Mr. Lavrov said."
42

MacGillicuddy,

28/08/2008 11:53:35
#47
I made NO comment whatsoever on Russia's view of self -determination for parts of Georgia. I merely made the point that it was (only) Russia which stopped Georgia's killings.
The comment on the right of people to self determination was my view.
43

"Hoots" Fandango,

28/08/2008 11:55:18
Tin Man

2007

"It’s true that we have neither the intention of joining the EU nor of establishing any common institutions in the foreseeable future, for obvious reasons. Looking realistically at the way things stand, Russia intends to build its relations with the EU on the basis of contractual obligations and principles of strategic partnership."

Putin
44

Alan B,

28/08/2008 12:05:58
#MacGillicuddy

I too support the right to self determination. The question is the process that should be take to that end.

My point regarding Russia shows that they are not taken the action they did becuase of any beleive in the democratic right to self determination.

You simply cannot have Russia invading its neighbours. You also have to put this into the perspective of the fear many other former republics and eastern european countries will have of Russia becuase of it recent past history of ruling these countries by an autocratic dictatorship.

Russian behaviour has unfortunately in my view forfeited the right to take part in deciding the way forward for other sovereign states. I would have liked a democratic Russia to fully integrate into europe.

For territories to gain self determination they must go through the UN. You cannot have anyone declaring independence without democractic approval.

The problem here is Russia sponsors those that want to break away and encourages it. That area then encourages an over the top response from Georgia.

We really do have to look at how we should deal with these type of disputes. Unilateral invasion by one country is not the way forward. Russia should have taken the issue to the UN to try to get a solution.
45

Alan B,

28/08/2008 12:28:23
#Duncan in Edinburgh

No matter your views on Iraq. There was more of a legal justification for war in Iraq than the military intervention in Yugoslavia to stop the mass killings in Bosnia and Croatia. No matter whether Iraq was the right or wrong thing to do, the legal justification would come down to the fact that Iraq had broken the ceasefire agreement by not allowing weapons inspectors to inspect iraq despite countless un resolutions.

The real area where there is no doubt that military intervention was illegal was in Yugoslavia. However the issue here was it was the right thing to do. It would simply be wrong to stand by and let mass killings go on without intervening.

As such the question is why is the legal and the right thing to do not necessary tally. ie bacause something is legal does not make it right obviously. But more importantly how can we reconsile things when there is a right course of action but we are constrained by the legality.

The way I see it legality is down to approval of the UN security council. What we need is a modernisation of these rules. The UN was put together to deal with the end of ww2 and using that horrible phrase is not fit for purpose.

Preventing a single veto stopping action would help. A qualified majority voting system should be the way to authorise military interventions. Those voting should probably not include those leading the call for military intervention (alhtough with majority voting it probably would not matter).

Also who should make up the countries authorising UN response to international issues. For me it should be done in 2 ways. One the countries should be democratic (or predominately so). Secondly the UN should be regionalised so that different regions get the dominent say in their region/continent.
46

lulach mac gille coemgain,

28/08/2008 12:30:29
It’s terrible . . .

A bigger country Bullying her neighbour - England would NEVER have done this ! ?
47

jett,

aden 28/08/2008 13:10:51
it is all about oil again folks the pipeline for oil rich regions in that area all the way even to turkey.

but you and the russians can in georgia request a similar deal for osseta naturalised russians as it was with kosovo for the muslims in that area of the former eastern european bloc.

remeber the cold war is not over and io do not like missiles in poland the russians are people like us and just as ordinary.

keep the balance.
48

jett,

aden 28/08/2008 13:12:59
over 30 million russians and her allies died for us also during hitlers term in power they were not rich oil barons nor the ruling elite of any country.
49

The Spook in Leith,

28/08/2008 13:44:46
#26Cuthulan,approx.12,000miles from Earth's core 28/08/2008 09:38:10
#20 Spook
Thank you , see you in Robbie's bar for a beer one day ;-)

lol yeh i might just take you up on that...
50

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 13:46:47
"Hoots" Fandango

Try Yeltsin. The administration you are refering to is the backlash.
51

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 13:55:27
51:

A slightly squewed post regarding the facts of Georgia and one which unfortunatly comfirms the old and tired view of Russia as an evil and imperial power intent on expanding.

Have you any idea how many countries have been formed since the collapse of the soviet union with the full co-operation of the Russians? Not the actions of an imperial power really is it Alan B. Oil rich Kazkhstan for example or Azerbaijan, totally free and living peacefully with Russia but then there are reasons for this.

I suggest you have a look at the map and count the number of countries and then you count the number of countries that are applying for NATO membership. Then count the number of countries who have previousely invavded Russia. Then count the countries where America has a DIRECT influence over policy and even those countries who have presidents placed in power by the Americans (Georia for instance) who are directly encouraged to adopt a policy to isolate Russia?

Then count the 50 million than Russia lost in the war so the we would not be living under the Nazi yoke (for which they have had little thanks)and you begin to get some idea of what is going on here.

Russia was right in the way it reacted and i believe the line has to be drawn regarding American meddling in this area..full stop!

Let Russia site nuclear detection stations in Canada and Cuba, place Russian troops in Canada and Mexico and encourage them to join a reformed Warsaw pact along with other South American countries.

Then let those educated in Russia be put in place as presidents of Canada, Mexico, ElSalvador etc..get the point?

Your post it totally naive and shows a frighteningly biased view of what is going on here.



52

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 13:58:42
#52 AlanB

Didn't the mass killings start after the Nato intervention?
53

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 13:58:52
51:

While you are at it recall the mess America made of meddling in South America..go ask the Yanks about democracy in foreign countries. The price tag is puppet prsidents and butchery!
54

The Spook in Leith,

28/08/2008 13:59:12
This is a Spooky thread coz i am in agreement with several unionists and in total disagreement with some of my fellow nationalists..!!

I just think the G7 smacks of hypocrisy and with the sort of gibberish Miiyband and Bush are coming out with they are the ones who want to start a cold war.

My own "personal view" is Russia should have taken out the Georgian Government and put him on trial for crimes against humanity.

What about the USA and the missiles it wants to put in Poland? they said it was not aimed at Russia but when this crisis flared up they were hell bent on pushing it through with the pols.

To counterbalance this Russia should do the same in Cuba, vis a vis.
55

The Spook in Leith,

100% with Russia 28/08/2008 14:05:24
#60

Good point and the same could be said in Indonesia.

The USA in my view (the Republicans not the public) is one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.
Sometimes when i hear them go on about winning the second world war it makes me sick. Russia lost over 20 million of her people to win that war yet somehow the USA takes the credit.

The USA is very lucky that they have no big powerful hostile neighbors because if they did i rather think their illogical foreign policies would had been better thought out.
56

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:17:52
#59 The Tin Man

From my memory the killings in Yugoslavia happened after Bosnia and Croatia decided they wanted to part ways from Yugoslavia. The Serbian dominated Yugoslavia used there military dominance to massacre those non serbs from bosnia and croatia. Not saying it was all one way or the Serbs were completely wrong.

The EU under David Owen had a peace plan to try to keep the whole thing together that failed miserably with Germany independently declaring support for independence for croatia.

The UN was pretty power less to do anything. The uk and france in particular were reportedly to be begging Clinton to get involved and sort out the mess. He was wanting to leave it to the europeans. The uk wanted ground forces, but Clinton was only willing to conduct aerial attackes. (remember they hit the chinese embassy).

57

The Spook in Leith,

28/08/2008 14:25:55
#63

We can troll thought the nitty gritty on that war but remember NATO nearly caused world war 3 when they bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade and used cluster bombs in heavily populated civilian areas and blew up a commuter train.

Also the Albanians in kosovo are committing genocide against the Serb minority. All sides have blood on there hands. I have read a lot about the war in the Balkans as i would have been to young to remember it, well some of it, or most of it..
58

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 14:30:17
we are repeatedly told that Georgia is a beacon of democracy, and that is is westward leaning.

The fact that the Georgia president was elected with 95% of the vote smacks of a strange kind of democracy.

I remeber a poll showing that more than 70% of Russians wanted to joint the EU in the late '90's, which could be regardede as westward leaning. However, after being kicked while on the floor by the West, I doubt that many Russians share that sentiment any more.
59

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:33:24
#The Spook in Leith

"Sometimes when i hear them go on about winning the second world war it makes me sick. Russia lost over 20 million of her people to win that war yet somehow the USA takes the credit. "

While I understand where you are coming from, I think alot of people were sick of holywood making films portraying US victories in ww2 when sometimes they were not present and it was the british that were fighting.

However putting both ww in historical context.

WW2 the Russians under stalin had made a deal with Hitler to divide up europe. Hilter then turned on Russia tried to invade them. So while without the russians hitlers germany may have won ww2, they were not really the good guys in that war. Stalin was an evil dictor just not quite as bad as hitler.

Russia actually got a good media after ww2, due to the fact that the US president trusted Stalin or atleast had not appetite to do anything against him against Churchills advice.

Remember we went into ww2 to keep Poland free from German rule, but ended up with them being run by another dictatorship from the soviet empire. (poland it must be said was not a democracy before ww2).

Look at US involvement in ww2. What would have happened if they did not join in belated in 42. Would most of europe have been dominated by the communist dictatorship of Stalin. Assuming the war was still won without the US, a big assumption, you can be assured that Germany would have been under compete soviet domination and not just the east. The soviet empire would also probably have taken France aswell.

Also while it does not effect us so much what would have happened if with regards to Japan. How far would their imperial ambitions have gone.

While the US stayed out of ww1 till 1917 do you think we would have won without them? Remeber there were plans for britain to sue for peace as part of the German uboat campaign. It was only with the help of the US that the embargo of Britain was beaten.

Remember aswe
60

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:33:58
cont..

Remember aswell ww1 was not their war. It was a colonial war, fought over empires. Britain could easily have joined the German side if she had not been rebuffed by the Kaiser year earlier when we approach him for a military tie up, Britains main issue was competition with the French over imperial ambitions.

Britain main squabbling with germany was around 1910 when Germany wanted part of britains colonial areas and argued over Morrocco.



61

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:36:09
#The Spook in Leith

It was issues in the balkans that started ww1.
62

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:41:28
#The Tin Man

Are we told Georgia is a beacon of democracy. If we are i must have missed it. Georgia from what i remember was critised for it democracy particularly under (cannot spell his name) but the ex foreign minister of ussr.

It is not really about whether Georgia is good or not. But whether it should be Russia invading another country particularly one that it ruled by dictatorship for so long.

Surely any intervention must be through the UN and the EU.
63

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 14:41:59
Alan B:

The great patriotic war has nothing to do with politcs for the Russians..this is what it means to them:

10,700,000 battle DEAD.

Don't start talking about Stalin and what if's, really is meaningless to Russians.
64

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:44:11
#The Spook in Leith

As you have read about the break up of Yugoslavia how would you have dealt with the problems that caused it and prevented the civil war that came about. Or would you take the view let them fight it out.

Much of the initial problems were caused by ineptitude from Europe. Complete backing for the Serbs by Russia (what helped triggered ww1). And the failure of the US to get involved at an early stage leaving it to europe.
65

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 14:44:42
Alan B:

Why are you not asking about the Georgians bombing and killing South Ossetians..i think you seem to be glossing over this fact?

How can you state it's not really about Georgia..are you off your nut? THEY attacked the South Ossetians!

Go ask the South Ossetians who they support NATO or Russia for defending their lives?
66

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 14:46:22
Anyway winter coming on here so guess the Yanks wont invade now! I'm offski.
67

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:49:01
#Nevsky

I am not arguing about what ww1 means to the Russians.

I was also not talking about what ifs, apart from posing the question about what would have happened if the US did not get involved in WW2 in response to spooks comments.

The fact remains, if you look at it from a british perspective, the russian leader stalin happily went into a deal with hitler to split europe for their own imperial ambitions. It was only when hitler turned on Stalin and Russia that they fought the nazis.
68

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:51:41
#72 Nevsky

You obviously have not read my posts if you come to that conclusion.

There is 2 issues. How do the world community eg UN deal with Georgia and any ambitions break away areas have for self determination.

And what do you do when a large country invades another sovereign nation, without going through the UN.



69

Alan B,

28/08/2008 14:57:10
#Nevsky

"for which they have had little thanks"

1)Russia (soviet union at the time) did not go into the war with france and britain to stop the march of hitler. Stalin the leader made a deal to carve up europe with hitler. Is that something people should be thankful for. The ussr only ended fighting hitler because hitler betrayed the agreement between these 2 dictators.

2)should eastern europe be thankful for being invaded and controlled by a foreign power. If britain when into ww2 becuase of the german invasion of poland then all they achieve was handing poland to a soviet dictatorship for the next 40yrs.

3)if the russia had been a democracy and not a communist dictatorship under stalin etc then western europe would not have lived under such threat for 40yrs.

70

Alan B,

28/08/2008 15:01:48
#The Tin Man

I would like to have seen Russia within the EU but unfortunately Russia has not reformed itself in a way that would make it a prospective member.

The west turned a blind eye to Chesnya as it wanted to give Russia time to sort itself out but stuff like that meant there was not way it was going to be a candidate for eu membership quickly.

Russia really has had problems adjusting to losing its global power and empire. Probably in a way like the uk did in a much smaller scale as the uk could do little about it. Think 67 as an example and suez canal. Or indpendence of most of the colonies.
71

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 15:03:44
#69 AlanB

I am not in favour of projecting power through military means, but this has been going through the UN ever since Georgia was created, and it is not a matter for the EU.

72

Nevsky,

Moscow 28/08/2008 15:12:43
74:

Funny i thought the British appeased Hitler at first as well didn't they? I seem to remember Czechoslovakia being conceeded to prevent war?

It's hard to call South Ossetia part of a sovereign nation as it has always been seen even during soviet times as autonomous and 99% of people there support and always have supported independence from Georgia.

Regardless, the Russians were right to intervene and prevent the deaths of civilians although in a typically heavy-handed way.

South Ossetia is lost to Georgia forecver and that is a fact, you think the Georgian will treat the Ossetians favourably now or that they ever have?

The only course is to grant and to recognise their independence to prevent centuries of conflict.

Perhaps if the UN had acted as quickly in the past as the Russians have done then many innocent lives would have been saved in Europe.

Once again i suggest you look on the internet to the views of South Ossetians, they do not consider the Russians as invaders...they saved a great many lives.

73

The Tin Man,

28/08/2008 15:15:45
#77 AlanB

...and hence the chance of reconcilliation has been lost, probably for another 50 years. Personnally, I find it a lot easier to blame the EU's lazyness. They really did blow a golden opertunity

Remember that only 9 years ago, some American bankers went to Russia and devalued the Ruble to such an extent that everyone's saving's evaporated, while they lived in a land governed by a western-inspired government / mafia cabal. No-one would welcome the same people back after being treated like that.

Remember that Chechnya is, and was, part of Russia. Similar to N. Ireland, but with the flattening of Belfast with artillery.
74

The Spook in Leith,

28/08/2008 15:32:46
Alan B (several posts)

Blimey i wish you would take up shorthand lol..

I agree with most of your postings around ww1 & ww2 and Stalin was just as much as a dictator as Hitler but sometimes i think the USA take the credit for victory in Europe. As for the Balkans, well what Nato did in the Balkans is what Russia is doing in Georgia, preventing Genocide.

The west can not hack that they can do very little or nothing against a more assertive Russia.
I am in no way saying i prefer Russia to the west but in this particular conflict i am 100% behind Russia.

BTW have the USA found any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq yet or was that just more propaganda lies to get at Iraq's oil.??

75

Alan B,

28/08/2008 15:54:54
#Nevsky

Yes Britain appeased Hitler. Britain was hypocritical in its reason for going to war (ww2) to defend the sovereignty of another nation when it had butchered much of the rest of the world.

76

Alan B,

28/08/2008 15:57:37
#Nevsky

I do not oppose independence for these areas as i have previously said. It is more the Russian approach that makes me worried.

I think it is ashame as Russia, if it could democratise properly and get is act together could be a valuable member of the EU. We really should not have a them and us between us in Europe.

I do not know if you are Russian, but all the Russian people I have met and worked for are a great bunch of people.
77

Alan B,

28/08/2008 16:00:32
#Spook

I've got verbal diahreha! lol
78

Alan B,

28/08/2008 16:11:29
#Spook

My view on the US is more that I would prefer the EU to take responsibility for situations and take a proactive approach to certain situations.

We tend to do nothing and then blame the US for doing something. Even where the US gets blamed in Yugoslavia when it is european leaders like Blair and Chirac (i think he was french president at the time) that asked for US military intervension.

I despise US policy in palestine but I tend to get more annoyed by our own lack of doing anything about the problem. Something i think the EU should easily sort out.

We blame the US for oil. But europe relies more on middle east oil. It was the french, followed by the brits that broke the sanctions on Lybia for oil deals. It was the French and Russians that had the oil deal with Iraq before the last war despite their continued breaking of UN resolutions.

It would help if europe stopped its dependency on oil, if we want the US to do so. Otherwise it is just hypocracy.

79

Alan B,

28/08/2008 16:17:32
#Spook

Question regarding Iraq.

In 88 Sadam dropped chemical weapons on the kurds in the north of the country. What should the world community do in this situation?

A year or 2 later he invaded Kuwait (and probably intended to invade Saudi). What should the world community do?

Should the world community have invaded Iraq when Sadam brutally put down resistence to his rule after losing the first gulf war?

Did you support the no fly zones over Iraq to prevent more chemical weapon being dropped on the Kurds? If so who should do it if the US don't?

How should the world community deal with Iran in the 70s? Which underpinned alot of the support from the west for Sadam round that period, that lead to the wars between both countries? Remember a police woman shot in london by the Iranians. The London embassy hostage situation with the Iranians.

There is no easy answers to alot of that.

Remember much of the problems in the middle east are due to the french and british dividing the whole thing up after ww1 when the turkish empire was destroyed. The US under Wilson took no share in the spoils. Britain taking control of Iraq and installing a foreign king. Aswell as taking control of the paletstinian mandate that now makes up Jordan, Israel and Palestine.