geopolitics

You are currently browsing articles tagged geopolitics.

Thank fuck for that

August 15, 2008 in The other | No comments

Last ever post on the subject.  Barring anything newsworthy.

Here’s NATO’s article five:

Article 5

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

One of the things that is being said about NATO membership is that a military attack on a NATO country guarantees a military response. This is totally wrong.  A misunderstanding that suits propaganda from anti-Western types in Russia (who oppose NATO generally), and hawks in the West (who want to restore NATO as a deterrent). But it ain’t so. If Georgia were a member of NATO today, because NATO operates by consensus, it’s quite possible, probable even, that the same situation would exist. Except as a whole the NATO would look substantially weaker and even more divided.  As a deterrent NATO only works if the collective will is there.  The will exists but not in all circumstances.  “Such action as it[NATO] deems necessary” is deliberately vague.  Like when Germany, France, and Belgium used their veto in 2003 over the Iraq War.

Robert Gates said yesterday:

“The United States spent 45 years working very hard to avoid a military confrontation with Russia, I see no reason to change that approach today”

Thank fuck for that.

Tags: , ,

The background to the South Ossetia/Abkhazia/Georgia problems – via Google Archives

August 13, 2008 in The other | No comments

Here’s Google Archives on the South Ossetia problem in the last decade.   Amazing how many talking heads and pundits on both sides of this tawdry affair are incapable of using a search engine.  Or Lexis-Nexis.  If we don’t pay attention to history the same old retarded shit will happen again and again.  With the same shrill voices cheering-on both sides.

Tags: , ,

Georgia/South Ossetia/Russia/Us (being the West)

August 8, 2008 in Media, The other | 2 comments

The situation in Georgia is a nightmare. I haven’t kept up with the region for a long time but here’s what I recall, which may not be entirely correct (this is aided by some notes I took): South Ossetia was originally colonised by Ossetians from across the caucus in the 17th/18th Century. The Imperialist Russians first invaded Georgia in 1801 but didn’t really conquer it until 1864. Because of fights with the Turks. With all of the stuff that went down in 1918 Georgia briefly achieved independence until 1921 when the Bolsheviks regained control. They made Abkhazia and Adjaria autonomous republics. South Ossetia was an oblast – which is different.

In 1988 the Ossetian Popular Front got annoyed that the Georgian Government intended Georgian to be the only official language. Some may say rightly, given about a third of Georgia is not ethnic Georgian, and multiple languages were in use. The OPF wanted South Ossetia to merge with the distinctly Russian North Ossetia, and in 1989~1990 declared an independent Soviet Republic. At which point the Georgian government stripped South Ossetia of its autonomy. The shit hit the fan – by which I mean violence – the Russians sent in troops and thanks to Yeltsin and Shevardnadze in 1992 both sides established peacekeeping forces.

Georgia is important to the West disproportionately to its size. Why? Central Asia. Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Caspian Sea, and Turkmenistan have vast oil, gas, and mineral resources. Without a long detour, or reliance on Russia, Georgia is an extremely important strategic point. Georgia cannot win against Russia. The attack on South Ossetia was like kicking a bear up the arse. Why they did it is difficult to fathom. I don’t see that it serves anyone’s purposes. Both Russia and the US/UK have hundreds of ‘military trainers’ (often drawn from elite units – who train/advise/arm), there is a huge vested interest in having Georgia in NATO (incedently you can’t join NATO if your country has outstanding border disputes), and as a result this could be the first Cold War style proxy war of the 21st Century.

Both sides are right, both sides have legitimate claims on South Ossetia, and as a result, nothing good can come of this. A good compromise leaves both sides unhappy, and that isn’t going to happen. It’s like a flashback to the early 20th Century. Not good. One hopes world leaders are sane, but evidence suggests otherwise. Hopefully it won’t spread.

FFS x 10.

Tags: , , ,