I add to my last posting, fingers crossed!
[Rep]

Should Russia become too occupied with the Caucases, China may see it as an opportunity to reclaim territory in the East and taken from them by the Tsar in the 19c.
Let it evolve, we should concern ourselves only with British interests. Engage in war for idealistic reasons, in an imperfect world, you will be permanently at war. That was the dilemma discovered by the League of Nations.
[Rep]

As someone who spent many years in Russia and yes, I've even visited Abkhazia, might I make a small point?

This isn't about Georgia per se and it's most certainly not about Abkhazia nor Ossetia. It's about oil and gas.

There's some oil and vast new reserves of gas being developed around the Caspian. We'd rather like to use that in Europe. We'd also rather like to use it without the Russians being able to choke off the supply. The only way that can happen is if the pipelines go through Georgia, and if Georgia is totally independent of Russia.

So, strangely, we are in fact talking about one of our own national interests. As indeed Russia is acting in its own interest.
[Rep]

So Russia is expanding it's borders then in the area of where the pipe-line is?

So are they planning to pull the strings of the economies of the countries which are heavly reliant on oil?
I think that they might be.

The above is just my opinion, not "fact".
I have made no attempt to twist what "facts" there are and spread "slander" about Russia.
[Rep]

Tim Worstall: British interests are not identical to those of Europe as a whole. We can exploit our own oil reserves, and seek more from elsewhere when necessary. I remember in 1956, Eden said that we had to invade Egypt, to guarantee British oil supplies through the Suez Canal. Britain, we were told, would be brought to her knees in a matter of weeks, should we lose control of the canal. In the event, Nasser deliberately blocked the Suez Canal, and it remained blocked for some years. Were we brought to our knees? No, the trouble with journalists, Mr Worstall, is that they always champion theoretical bourgeois intellectualism- of the Eden variety- over real politik. You seem to be going in the same direction.

What you are saying, is precisely the sort of thing that we should avoid;- confusing British interests with European ones. In the final analysis, British interests must never be sacrificed for some nebulous European, 'common good' theory. It was that sort of thinking that embroiled us into the Alliance System, in the early 20c. Did that serve us well? It landed us in to two world wars within a generatiopn. Foreign Secreatry, Sir Edward Grey, said in 1914, that unless we entered the war, we could never again, be able look the Tsar in the face. In a crisis, I believe, we must be able to make our own decisions. That can be a very lonely and difficult path to tread, but it is one which has served us well, and we shouldn't abandon it now.
[Rep]

I agree with Tim, I think Georgian independence is in out interests and, as 30% of the pipeline belongs to BP, I think we have to be supportive of Georgian independence.

The Ossets in South Ossetia number 70,000 and the Georgians intermingled with them are about 14,000. The Georgians obey Georgian law and were protected by Georgian troops. That situation might have changed and the Ossets might be about to ethnically cleanse the area that Russia controls. This is not a good solution.

Russia is not a 'peacekeeper' maintaining international law. It illegally occupies areas of a sovereign state recognised by the UN and bombed civilian targets in Georgia.

Russia, incidentally, has different standards concerning Kosovo and denies the 'right' of the 1.3 million or so Kosovars the independence they have gained by ethnic cleansing.

There is a game of realpolitik here and it is not simply about 70,000 people having their own resourceless country with a capital the size of a small market town and no international airport. How would South Ossetia survive as an independent republic if Georgia seals the borders and everything has to go through the one tunnel link to the north of the mountains?

The Ossets hope to unite with their kin the other side of the mountains. Once that has been achieved they will do a Chechnya and turn on Moscow and then all those who support Russian occupation here will be offended when the same troops oppress the Ossets.

Part of North Ossetia is land which Stalin had ethnically cleansed in 1944 and Ossets occupy the homes of Ingush who were expelled or killed.

The bloodshed in the Caucasus has a long way to go before it's all over.
[Rep]

"No, the trouble with journalists, Mr Worstall, is that they always champion theoretical bourgeois intellectualism- of the Eden variety- over real politik. You seem to be going in the same direction."

Geoffrey, with all due respect: all this stuff about democracy, Ossetians, ties to Russia, that's all theoretical bourgeois intellectualism.

Realpolitik is about who has the power.

My analysis is about who is going to have the power as a result of controlling those pipeline routes. It's just very weird to accuse me of intellectualism and advocate a realpolitik view of the world when I'm actually providing a realpolitik based view and rejecting the bourgeois stuff.

Most odd.
[Rep]

Aardvark: I am not against Georgian independence any more than I am against any nation being free. What we must be mindful of is an embroilment resulting from some fact which sounds impressive, but may be more complicated than is at first believed. In about 1950, following the nationalisation of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, the general public were in favour of direct action, which was taken in respect of Egypt six years later, to re-take 'our' oil company. As it transpired, Dr Mousaadeq was overthrown by 'internal dissidents', and that served us better. Unless we are careful, we could end-up being sandwiched between American and EU interests. Economic interests must always be just one of many considerations.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier:
Should Russia become too occupied with the Caucases, China may see it as an opportunity to reclaim territory in the East and taken from them by the Tsar in the 19c.
Let it evolve, we should concern ourselves only with British interests. Engage in war for idealistic reasons, in an imperfect world, you will be permanently at war. That was the dilemma discovered by the League of Nations.

Russia has always been occupied with the Caucasus, as was Hitler - becuase of the oil. In simple terms, it was the oil there which made Hitler open the second front in the East and therefore attacking Russia. With the Allies strangling external supplies, he wanted (and needed) control of those oil supplies.

Tim is right. the oil and gas are Russia's preoccupation as it gives them economic power over the West; not forgetting the military considerations already mentioned.

The president of Georgia made a huge strategic blunder in assuming Russia would not intervene.

We should not make similar blunders by intervening in any way.

I repeat, we (the Brits) should keep well away from all this business, (if necessary, holding our noses as we do so!) - as we should have done with the Iraq and Afganistan wars in which we should never have become embroiled, are stupid to remain engaged in, and which most people in this country have forgotten is still going on though it is costing them plenty in taxes!

Does anyone know of any useful function or advantage to Britain for example, in pusuing a war, and having our soldiers killed, in Afganistan? (No oil there - only opium poppies and mountains) - apart perhaps that is, from supporting an American president with dubious mental faculties and warmongering tendancies?

DED.
-
[Rep]

Douglas D: I agree with much of what you say, keep out. I think that you are wrong about oil in Afganhistan. There is considerable evidence that there is much oil in the country. Have a look at your map DED, the oil doesn't stop on the iranian border.The question must be, howvwer, is the political climate worth the oil.

When it comes to Krill and oil, go south young man. The Falkland Islands may be a better bet. There is increasing evidence that much oil is in that area. That is what we should do: indulge ourselves with the gift of selfishness. Time and time again, Britain has exchanged real economic opportunities for the mirage of political power. We could be about to do it again.

When we went into Europe, we had the largest active mercantile fleet in the world. We traded in far off countries. We gave it all up to trade with our neighbours. We gave away our fish, in exchange for having 'a voice in Europe''. Destroyed the most productive agricultural system; to be ruined by E U. quotas. We share our oil with our EU friends. In exchange for what? It has been a disaster, we should get out; pan-Europeanism has no benefit for us. The fundamental question must be, are we reformers or withdrawallsts.

I may be making some progress with you after all.
[Rep]