Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Russia Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why Not Admit Georgia Into NATO Now?
CJH    8/16/2008 2:33:42 PM
We should push for an emergency meeting of NATO to consider NATO membership for Georgia at the earliest possible time. Russia is asking to have its hand slapped before the world. That is what is needed from NATO. If Russia gets away with this, the risks will be higher next time. No doubt the Russians are aware that lame duck George Bush will be gone in 5 months and they probably believe that someone much weaker will be in the White House then.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2
Yimmy       8/17/2008 2:55:44 PM

Frankly, we don't need to have Georgia (or the Ukraine) to actually be in NATO, it is enough to have them on a suitable phrased 'membership path' - no definitive security pledge, but rather a general pledge to rebuild their military.

 

You know, I don't think that is enough.  Building a few hesco walls certainly wouldn't keep the Russians out.  Geographically speaking Georgia will always be more so in Russias back yard than the Wests.  Unless Georgia can call upon article five of NATO - there is no guarantee that NATO would defend Georgia - and so Russia still enjoys play of the field.


Of course, if Europe can distance itself from energy reliance on Russia, then it may no longer be in our interests to bring Georgia into NATO, or risk anything over Georgias sovereignty - which in turn could lead to far longer lasting precedents.
 
Quote    Reply

Carl D.       8/17/2008 4:05:02 PM
Well, per AFP, link Merkel's put it on the table, "Georgia will become a member of NATO if it wants to -- and it does want to," she said before talks with President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi.
 
So now I guess we'd better figure out what contingencies we'll need when the Russians react to that.
 
Quote    Reply

Bond       8/17/2008 6:04:21 PM
Paranoia? Did not the Russians interrupt the supply of natural gas to Ukraine and Western Europe?
 
Wasnt that about Ukraine not wanting to pay for gas which was before that given to them for almost free?
 
Have not the Russians advertised an intension to nuke Poland?
 
 Oh please... They never stated they intend to nuke Poland for no reason. It was specificaly said they would attack that site IF there was a war between US(NATO) and Russia. You know.. its kinda stupid not to bomb stuff that removes/limits your ability to strike back. But feel free to make up some more stuff...
 
 The US had to put up with Soviet bases on the island of Cuba. We could have invaded on the pretext of enforcing the long standing Monroe Doctrine or of stopping the excesses of police imprisonment and torture or of stopping the subversion of Latin America or on the grounds of national security but we did not.
 
You didnt invade because it would mean direct attack on soviet forces and would lead to nuclear exchange. But Bay of pigs does come to mind...
 
 However the Russians may have a security interest around its Caucasian frontier, Georgia has a right of self-determination.
 
So did Serbia, but i guess you dont care about that, afterall Serbia wasnt your ally right? And fyi S. Ossetia and Abhkazia were pretty much never under Georgian control.
 
 This might be true although it might also be true that Georgia was manipulated by the Russians into appearing to initiate hostilities in order to justify that which the Russians had already decided to do. That would not have been all that difficult.
 
Georgia was manipulated into launching artilery/air strikes into S. Ossetia? lol good one. Completly ignoring the fact that Georgian president himself doesnt deny it. You have been indoctrinated well.
 
 If what you say is true then don't you think the Russians would not have invaded Georgia proper and not just South Ossetia?
 
You mean like NATO didnt bomb entire Yugoslavia to expell them out of Kosovo? Diffrence is only that Russians went in with ground forces imidiatly instead of fooling around with airstrikes and are now dismantling Georgian army to prevent them from repeating such idiocy.
 
But did Russia have them already waiting at the border before hand?
 
Yeah well inteligence does that. Kinda gives you a picture that idiots were preparing for assault and prepared for it.
 
 
What really worries me is the great amount apology on the behalf of Russia. People want to be totally blind to such transgressions.
 
 Now im sure you will point me to post you made condeming US and NATO transgressions in Serbia, Afganistan and Iraq (II). And no, them not beeing friendly with you is not an excuse.
 
Sigh.. kinda feels like im wasting some more time on people that hear only what they want to hear...
 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    CJH insanity has its limits   8/18/2008 2:41:17 AM
u wanna a nuclear war with Russia??? to protect a stupid Georgian Prez!!! Russia wins this one all the way Ukraine and Armenia nxt
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       8/18/2008 2:55:46 AM

So now I guess we'd better figure out what contingencies we'll need when the Russians react to that.


 
I would suggest that the EU start by canceling the project to build gas delivery pipelines from Russia to Germany under the Baltic Sea.  If completed, these pipelines would allow Russia to cut off gas flows to their border states without affecting deliveries to the rest of Europe.  The EU should then put the money saved by canceling the project into alternate energy sources (nuclear, coal, LNG, wind, solar, biomass, etc.) to reduce their dependency of Russian gas.
 
The Russians are very dependent on the export of raw materials to generate foreign currency, and natural gas is the largest money maker.  This simple one-two punch could severely damage economic growth and even has the potential to push them into a recession.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       8/18/2008 3:26:15 AM


The EU should then put the money saved by canceling the project into alternate energy sources (nuclear, coal, LNG, wind, solar, biomass, etc.) to reduce their dependency of Russian gas.


The EU already has some very strong alternative (as in non petro) energy programs in place.  eg France has significant baseload power via nuclear, some german states already have mandated 20% renewables, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany etc have strong wind energy baselines.
 
The issue is not so much baseload power "conversion" to neutralise any potential russian energy threat - but more of one to deal with vehicle and transport energy issues.
 
 the sooner that alternative transport capabilities like hydrogen based or LiON electric vehicles get developed, the sooner that they can neutralise the damocles sword of trade with the russians.
 
Germany has some already established LNG commercial vehicle technologies (Mercedes),  as are LPG (Ford) solutions, electric vehicle solutions (limited by expence of LiON battery production costs), hybrids, (eg Toyota) and even hydrogen based solutions (BMW)
 
Governments have the capacity to change the balance, but political will and intent is always a relative vulnerability in historical democracies (until they're pushed to the wall)
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Le Zookeeper    yoo hoo gf ur ignorance is welll...   8/18/2008 3:34:40 AM
The Caspiann sea has estimated 200 billion barrels of oil Saudi has 260 billion barrels-- u fail to even remotely comprehend the game -
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       8/18/2008 11:03:00 AM


The Russians are very dependent on the export of raw materials to generate foreign currency, and natural gas is the largest money maker.  This simple one-two punch could severely damage economic growth and even has the potential to push them into a recession.

Indeed - but that isn't in our interest.  We want an economically vibrant Russia we can trade with.  This is while Russia being dependent on our purchasing their gas for their economy to tick over, is just as bad for them as it is for us.  It almost makes them the mimic of a third world country which has become dependent on the West to buy their sugar.

 
Quote    Reply

Nasty German Idiot       8/18/2008 11:46:08 AM





The EU should then put the money saved by canceling the project into alternate energy sources (nuclear, coal, LNG, wind, solar, biomass, etc.) to reduce their dependency of Russian gas.






The EU already has some very strong alternative (as in non petro) energy programs in place.  eg France has significant baseload power via nuclear, some german states already have mandated 20% renewables, Spain, Denmark, Netherlands and Germany etc have strong wind energy baselines.

 

The issue is not so much baseload power "conversion" to neutralise any potential russian energy threat - but more of one to deal with vehicle and transport energy issues.

 

 the sooner that alternative transport capabilities like hydrogen based or LiON electric vehicles get developed, the sooner that they can neutralise the damocles sword of trade with the russians.


 

Germany has some already established LNG commercial vehicle technologies (Mercedes),  as are LPG (Ford) solutions, electric vehicle solutions (limited by expence of LiON battery production costs), hybrids, (eg Toyota) and even hydrogen based solutions (BMW)


 

Governments have the capacity to change the balance, but political will and intent is always a relative vulnerability in historical democracies (until they're pushed to the wall)


 

 




One should also look on the other side.  Russia is more dependant on European economy than ever before.  More than half their trade is directly with the EU, let alone for machine parts, electronics, chemical goods.  They cant run their country self dependant anymore.
 
Look at their trade:

Russian Import:
  Germany 16.3%, China 12.4%, Italy 5.5%, Ukraine 5.1%, Japan 4.9%, Belarus 4% (2006)
Russian Export:
  Germany 9.5%, Netherlands 7.5%, Turkey 6%, Italy 5.6%, Ukraine 5%, China 5%, US 4.8%, Belarus 4.6%, Switzerland 4% (2006)
 
On the other side, Russia doesnt even appear on the German top 10 export countries list. 
 
 

 
Quote    Reply
1 2



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy