The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Chris_ on September 12, 2008, 04:04:50 PM
-
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said on Friday NATO's promise to extend membership to Georgia was unjust, humiliating and intolerable to Moscow.
By Janet McBride
Briefing Russia experts, Medvedev compared Georgia's attack last month on its rebel, pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia to the al Qaeda attacks on the United States which killed nearly 3,000 people on September 11, 2001.
He said Russia -- which responded by sending troops and tanks deep into Georgia and routing it in a five-day war -- would have acted just as decisively if the former Soviet republic had already had a roadmap for NATO membership instead of just a promise of future entry.
CLICKY (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080912/ts_nm/russia_medvedev_dc)
-
I personally don't doubt that he would have still invaded.
I'm honestly curious, does anyone actually believe that NATO as an organization; would have immediately responded militarily to a member such as Georgia being attacked by the Red Threat?
No...they would have opted for "diplomacy" :jerkit:
-
Uh, yeah, I'm guessing NOT. Kruschev pounds his shoe on the dais at the UN and we still would have "attacked" had the Warsaw Pact rolled into Germany. The only thing that would have been different had the Russians tried to roll into a NATO-member Ukraine or Georgia would be grid coordinates.
Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, Mr. Medvedev--try reading it sometime.
-
Interesting thing this new cold war. The Russians actually think they can win this one or any war is going to end very bad for them.
-
I personally don't doubt that he would have still invaded.
I'm honestly curious, does anyone actually believe that NATO as an organization; would have immediately responded militarily to a member such as Georgia being attacked by the Red Threat?
I suppose one could debate the term immediately but, yes, some sort of response would happen if the "back off NOW" message was ignored.
-
I suppose one could debate the term immediately but, yes, some sort of response would happen if the "back off NOW" message was ignored.
I don't mean to open a debate on semantics, just emphasizing a reasonably immediate military reaction.
May I ask, why you believe NATO would react if the "back off NOW" message was tactfully ignored or subverted by Russia, much as they are doing now? Honestly curious.
Problem is, NATO couldn't afford to ignore the Russians aggression without losing some serious face or credibility as an organization, if it survived at all. I mean seriously, how long would NATO last if they said, "An attack against one is an attack against all," then changed it when it wasn't "expedient" for them? Why would you place conditions on that?
One of the biggest reasons that kept the Russians from rolling across the Fulda Gap for nearly 40 years was the fact they DID recognize that they would be taking on ALL of Western Europe, and when it all came down, would they have REALLY been able to rely on their Warsaw Pact allies? Case in point: the Poles are far better allies to us then they ever were for the Soviets. Even if we (the US) do carry most of the weight, they are quite aware of our capabilities and technology. Iraq has shown SOME of that, but not nearly all.
Bottom line, Putin might be trying to restore Russia to her old Soviet glory (whatever that might be) but even he's smart enough to realize that he can't go toe-to-toe in a protracted war with the West--he doesn't have the money, he doesn't have the manpower, and he doesn't have the material. Too much of his military sat around rusting for the better part of a decade. Sure, he might have some Backfires and a few new Su-31's, but exactly how long would those last when faced with the combined military of nearly 30 nations?