So in case you haven't noticed, Russia invaded Georgia recently.

Georgia and Russia were both part of the former Soviet Union (Georgia is north of Turkey and Russia is north of Georgia. Georgia and Russia have been on unfriendly terms since the breakup of the Soviet Union and has petitioned NATO for membership. NATO hasn't officially accepted Georgia at this time.

There are two groups in Georgia that want to split off from the country, Russia has been backing these separatists and recently Georgia's military moved into those regions. To be clear, Georgia owns those regions, but some of the people there just don't like the Georgia government very much (it would be like the US army rolling into San Francisco or Berkeley).

So to "protect" the Russian "peacekeepers" in the region, Russia rolled its army and air force into these separatist areas and then moved towards Georgia's capital.

So we have a NATO friendly country (Georgia) suddenly invaded by Russia (not so NATO friendly).

What, if anything should NATO, the US, the UN, or anyone else do?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

Personally, I don't like US involvement in almost all of the major events in the world. Aside from WW2, their involvement has led to more kills than any other country. I can't help but think that due to US meddling here that it could lead to WW3. Russia's not like Vietnam or North Korea. It's a superpower that can go head to head with the United States. Is it worth the risk to plunge the planet into a war? Anyway, President Saashkavili made a stupid move with those Russian peace keepers. What I didn't like is the biased reporting of events.

Hi Bartimaeus,

I'm interested in your blanket statement blaming the US for killings in wars since WWII. Certainly the US killed people during WWII as well, but I gather that you find something "wrong" with the efforts of the US in wars since then. Can you expand on this? While the US hasn't been a perfect nation, neither have any of its opponents and in some cases, such as Vietnam, when the US left, things got much worse, not better for the civilians left behind.

For the record, I agree with you that the US shouldn't unilaterally be involved in the Georgia situation, but one must ask whether or not Russia should be able to get away with its actions.

Back to my original question, what should the UN, NATO, or anyone else do? Should the world sit back and watch Russia conquer Georgia? Should they boycott Russian companies or perhaps the 2014 Olympics (that would sure teach them)?

-- Jeff

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan

" Should they boycott Russian companies or perhaps the 2014 Olympics (that would sure teach them)?"
Yeah that will be pretty good to show them the resentment, I am of the view that voice should be raised when injustice is being done around you. This teachs the required lesson to all.

Hello ztecc,
I'm glad I have someone I could debate this over with. What I'm insinuating is that the US, while it's good that they play the role of helping another county in distress, some of us think that they have other motives behind this support. It's no secret that the US supports democracy and is encouraging other nations to this kind of governance but one could argue that what they would like is a government in support of the US. Others also argue of other motives like the exploitation of another country's natural resources like Iraq's oil. While to others these accusations seem farfetched, looking at it in an unbiased view, the likelihood cannot be ignored.
As for Vietnam, the kills I'm referring to also include the US. How many US troops, Viet Kongs and civilians were killed during the war? Was the situation REALLY better? Also, why the US? Why is it that I hear only of US troops being deployed? Why can't we hear that other countries, especially in Europe deploying troops out there? In any case, the US's involvement doesn't make it easier, especially within the US itself. My appreciation goes out with the soldiers in the front line and contempt for the politicians fueling these wars.
Going back into the situation in South Ossetia and Georgia, the events are too close to call at this moment. While most of the nations think Russia intends to invade other nations starting with Georgia, events up to this point show Russia's intention of securing South Ossetia and stand by their "protection of their citizens". As of this moment, Russia announces their troops to withdraw. Others including myself believe Russia made a power play against the US, UN, NATO and EU. With all these nations and organizations telling Russia to stand down, you'd think Russia is being bullied. Putin does not want to give this image to Russia and the world that they're being bullied. I hope this wouldn't be true as many people in Georgia and South Ossetia are suffering. Anyway, from what I hear in the news, US are declaring accusations against Russia which is already straining the peace talks and I think their involvement is worsening the situation. But hey, that's just me. What I'm saying is to try to look at it in an unbiased perspective.

I agree that we should be suspicious when people and nations do things apparently out of altruism, but when we put them to the test over the course of history and find that they are not exploiting these situations, then they deserve a bit of leeway and a bit of trust.

In the case of the US, although much has been made about exploitation of natural resources, the historical record shows that the US doesn't, as a rule, do this. For example, there has been no exploitation of Iraq's oil by the United States. The US could easily have taken all of the oil from Iraq. Who would have stopped it from happening? Yet years later, Iraq is making record profits on its oil sales and the Unites States is paying record prices at the gas pumps. Clearly the fears about he United States stealing Iraqi oil did not materialize. In the aftermath of World War II, there was no force, except for possibly the Soviet Union, capable of preventing an United States takeover of all of Europe (and much of Asia). Nonetheless, this did not happen either. For example, the Philipines were restored their sovereignty in 1946. The United States has historically chosen to not exploit other nations in times of war and since 1900 has not engaged in a war of conquest for the purpose of controlling or ruling another nation (prior to 1900, one could make a case about Native Americans and parts of Mexico that wanted to join the US). In fact, the United States has, many times, in that same period, engaged in war only to establish, in their view, a free self-governing country (yes, a government that is somewhat friendly to the US, although this hasn't always occurred).

As to Vietnam, just under 60,000 US troops (out of 3 million that served) were killed in about 12 years of war as well as roughly 6 million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians (some killed by US/UN troops, some by North Vietnamese troops or Chinese troops). So in 12 years, the average death rate was 500,000/year in southeast Asia. In the 2 years immediately following (1976-1978), that rate jumped to 750,000/year in Cambodia alone during the reign of the Khmer Rouge. Other purges occurred in Laos and Vietnam re-education camps where millions were imprisioned. Perhaps you recall the "boat people" who fled these countries on rickety boats in the open ocean for a chance to escape to Australia, New Zealand, the Philipines and the United States. We don't know how many died on these boats, but we know that many did. We do know that over 1 million survived to live in other nations due to the horrible conditions that arose after the United States left.

As to "Why the US?", it is simply that the US is the most willing. Nobody disregards the contributions made by the other members of the coalition in Iraq, but the US was simply willing to put more of its troops and equipment on the line. Certainly the US would have welcomed it if other countries wanted to contributed equal amounts, but at the end of the day, if a mission calls for 200,000 troops and the other countries are only willing to contribute 50,000, then the remaining 150,000 will have to come from somewhere. The US appears to be willing to make such an investment for people that may turn on them once they have their freedom. Note that I don't feel that the US should send any troops to Georgia without Georgia requesting full military support; something that hasn't happened yet.

I agree with your analysis that the situation in Georgia was a power play, and a good one at that. The US, and really anyone else could do nothing about it. Since Georgia wasn't part of NATO, Russia didn't have to fear a NATO response. Since the US is pretty much committed right now in two wars, it doesn't have the manpower to do much in Georgia, plus the geography of the region doesn't lend itself to US support (the US would have to get permission to fly/drive over other nations to get there and that would be difficult). The United Nations could do nothing because Russia, being a permanent Security Council member with full veto power, can unlaterally veto any resolutions about the situation. This was a pretty smart play by Putin and even if Russia fully withdraws, it sends the message that they can and will move about in their area and the challenge is whether or not anyone will do anything about it.

On the flipside, the US is indeed sounding impotent "demanding" that Russia withdrawl, but being unable to back it up. The US appears almost like a juvenile that isn't getting its way. True it is busy elsewhere, but the feeling is that the US believes it is "entitled" to tell Russia what to do and that Russia should listen. Certainly Georgia and the US are friendly, so that gives the US some grounds, but realistically, they are trying to stick their nose in where it really doesn't belong. Unless Georgia were to request full support from the US, the US should simply allow the UN and perhaps the US State Department to negotiate a resolution properly rather than the rancor and empty threats.

On a broader note, I was still interested in what you thought other bodies (NATO, the UN, etc.) should be doing in this situation? What stance should they take?

-- Jeff

ps Hard to be completely unbiased, given that I live in the US, but I do try to present a fair accounting.

__________________
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem." --Ronald Reagan