Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Called It!
I have been predicting, for most of the past year, that Russia, with too heavy a commitment to the Ukrainian war, will start to split apart as regions separate from Moscow.
“The law is Russian as we all know… we don’t want to be a part of the ex-Soviet Union, we want to be a part of the European Union, we want to be pro-West,” one protester told Reuters news agency.
If this follows through to its conclusion, we can expect a cascade of similar protests, movements, and separations. Russia lacks the manpower and resources to hold things together. As and when other regions in Moscow’s sphere of influence get it in their heads that there is nothing Russia can do to keep them in the Mother Ship, they will follow suit.
Published in General
Where do the protesters in the streets of Tbisili think it comes from?
Was the Soros funded color revolution in Minneapolis in 2020 a good thing? Maybe I just don’t get it.
Read the quotes from Georgians in Georgia. There is no shortage of consensus that this is about Russia.
Because Georgia is partially occupied by Russia, and it is politically immature.
We are heading into a global depression. There are going to be a lot of color revolutions around the globe in this decade. I might be more impressed, if you can predict which countries *don’t* have revolutions;)
As pointed out by others, iWe, Georgia isn’t even part of Russia. Protests in Georgia are not a fragmenting of Russia.
What happened is that during the Bucharest Summit, on April 3, 2008, NATO issued a declaration that Georgia and Ukraine would eventually join NATO. Russia didn’t like this. As a result, two small regions of Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, rebelled, backed by Russia. It looks like the fighting actually started in August 2008.
Within a couple of weeks, the Russians had prevailed, and had invaded parts of Georgia beyond the two breakaway regions. The breakaway regions declared independence, and were recognized by Russia and a few other countries. Russia withdrew from the undisputed parts of Georgia, mostly by October 2008.
The Russian mission was accomplished because, as I understand it, one condition of NATO membership is control over a country’s entire claimed territory. (I believe that I heard this from John Mearsheimer.) This makes sense because, otherwise, NATO would be immediately buying into a war upon granting membership.
This was a very limited Russian action, and seems to have made its point for about 6 years. As far as I can tell, there was little action toward bringing either Georgia or Ukraine into NATO during this period. Ukraine elected a pro-Russian President. It wasn’t until the 2014 coup in Ukraine, backed by the US and EU, that Russia took action in Ukraine.
So what we see, I think, is Russia making its point that it will not tolerate either Georgia or Ukraine in NATO. When ignored, it would take forceful but limited action, hoping that our side would take Russian concerns seriously. However, we’d eventually return to form after about 6-7 years — 6 years between the 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the 2014 Ukrainian coup, and 7 years between that and NATO’s re-iteration, in mid-2021, of its intention to eventually admit Ukraine and Georgia.
I very much doubt that Russia is going to fall apart. It’s always possible that I could be wrong about this, but it seems like wishful thinking.
And worse, to me, it seems like wishful thinking that allows people to continue to ignore the reality that Russia is going to do what it thinks is necessary for its own security. Before last February, this could have occurred with a largely intact Ukraine (less Crimea, which was lost in 2014). Now, Russia will probably require more territory, though I doubt that they’ll want anything west of the Dneiper, and perhaps not even quite that much.
Well, the thing that’s wrong about it is that it is naive and unrealistic. Just as it would be naive and unrealistic for Canada or Mexico to think that they could be free of American influence and, to some extent, control. We’ve applied this same rule to the entirety of the Western Hemisphere for over 200 years now.
This is the nature of the world. Maybe you don’t like it, but the alternative is some sort of utopian globalism. There are Great Powers, and there are other countries. If you’re a small country near a Great Power, you have to deal with it, generally by accommodating the Great Power.
This is all quite obvious, isn’t it?
The thing is, the desire to be free of Great Power influence is not the issue, and is pretty much irrelevant. The important point is whether we, the United States, ought to be risking war with another Great Power — a nuclear one, by the way — for the sake of some other country.
I think not.
Here are a few lines from a speech by John Quincy Adams on the Fourth of July, 1821, speaking of our country:
Prophetic words, I think. This has been the path that we have followed, initially when Wilson led us into WWI in 1917, and after a period of reconsideration, consistently since FDR led us into WWII.
Which Georgians in Georgia? The ones protesting the law, who claim it is Russia-inspired? Or the members of the Parliamentary party that tried to pass it and its supporters, who say that “it is modeled on U.S. legislation dating from the 1930s”?
https://news.yahoo.com/georgian-protesters-rally-tbilisi-violent-141830891.html
I don’t think you presented the available choices accurately.
First of all, the alternative is NOT some sort of utopian globalism. You’ve set up a false choice with that one.
Sure, France is not free of German influence and “control,” and vice versa, but neighbors gotta be neighborly, even if they have a history of resorting to violence in the past. It’s misleading to lump that kind of influence and control with intimidation and threats if you aren’t allowed to install your agents in the other country’s political system, or aren’t allowed to sponsor violent revolts in neighboring countries, or annex neighboring regions where you have introduced populations that need to be “protected.”
Countries have come up with all sorts of ways to conduct alliances of self-defense and mutual cooperation that are nowhere near “utopian globalism.”
Neither of these countries are great powers. The great power they have to accommodate is the US.
OK. Instead of immaturity, you might say it is degenerating. Vlad Vexler calls it a failing democracy. But that wasn’t really why I was asking. I was curious as to whether you were denying that Georgia has sense of national identity, because its sense of national identity is every bit as strong as that of Ukraine’s. The point about Georgia being partly occupied by Russia is a good one.
Like Germany did when we told them that relying on Russia for energy imports put their sovereignty at risk?
It’s about government maintaining control of the civil sphere. Which is bad, but a foreign country controlling the civil sphere by proxy can be worse. The National Endowment for Democracy isn’t really about democracy, now is it?
Well you showed them who was boss, amirite? (Boom.) Bet they’re more careful going forward.
Actually, it was Putin who showed them when he cut back on the flow so they couldn’t stockpile gas for the winter.
If the pipeline was back tomorrow, do you suppose the Germans would just close their eyes to the war crimes and toe Vladimir’s line?
And while President Trump could have helped them make up their gas supply from our domestic production and shipping, FJB is off begging the Saudis to produce more for US!
I do. They’d also nix Ukraine’s NATO bid, like they were messaging in January 2022.
No conflict of interest there.
The best kind of colony is one you don’t even have to occupy.
“Occupy”? Up until a few years ago, the USA had more military personal in Germany than Germany had military personal in Germany.
Indeed. Nor is USAid, the current Administrator of which, Samantha Power (of Libya, Syria, and Yemen “humanitarian” interventions fame), chimed in approvingly yesterday:
Yes. And the leading critic of that situation was the US. The Germans have been underspending on their own defense for decades. I do believe that they have advanced to the point where once they build up their military, they invade France with it.
For all who claim Georgia has nothing to do with Russia:
source
Note that the protesters have won the day. Which means separatism proceeds…
Does it also mean that Russia can fund NGOs in Georgia?
Worth noting that two parts of Georgia have actually split from it – Abkhazia and South Ossetia – with Russian assistance. (And perhaps even instigation, who can say?)
You think Volodin’s remarks prove that Russia was behind the Georgian parliament’s attempt to pass the law in question? Really?
Well, by that “logic”, …
Samantha Power’s remarks (see comment #50) prove that the U.S. was behind the protesters, who turned violent (Molotov cocktails, etc.) and attempted to storm into the parliament building, etc..
No matter how insistently you keep repeating the words “separate”/”separatism”/etc., while ignoring all the evidence that has been presented to you (by me and others) in this thread debunking it, your thesis that the current events in Georgia are about the country’s efforts to extricate/separate itself from “Mother Ship” Russia’s influence is not going to magically become true/valid.
You’re getting mixed up with the J6 insurrection, aren’t you?
How so, pray tell?
That was sarcasm, son (said in the voice of Foghorn Leghorn).
Please feel free to elaborate/expand upon on your response. In your own “voice”, to the extent you are able.
I know almost nothing about protests going on in Georgia. But I’m going to hazard a strong guess that they are not protesting U.S. intervention, nor the CIA, nor “Globalism” nor anything European, as many in this thread are asserting (especially since they barely even trade with the U.S. or Europe). And my educated guess is that Russia, who invaded them and took their land and is currently conducting the largest military invasion of a European country since World War II, is not perceived as Georgia’s friend.
Is this too simplistic??
I haven’t been following Georgia closely, either. The ruling party has been growing closer to Russia. The people of Tbilisi want to move toward democracy. What the people outside Tbilisi think is hard to know. Apparently the Russian government considers any move away from authoritarianism and towards democracy to be a matter of concern.
Here is an item from Deutsche Welle that I watched a few minutes ago.