digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

East Europe tries to protect itself from Russia

ap.google.com — Russia's attack on Georgia has sparked fears across the young democracies of Eastern Europe that Moscow is once again hungry for conquest — and they are scrambling to protect themselves by tightening security alliances with Western powers.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lucy22, on 08/16/2008, -28/+38The countries there have to protect each other by sticking together or Russia will get ideas.
    • QuadZeroRoute, on 08/18/2008, -7/+16"Since fighting broke out more than a week ago between Russia and Georgia, the crisis has dominated headlines and sparked pro-Georgia rallies across Eastern Europe."

      And yet liberal American Diggers are against Georgia and for Russia.
      • Justice101, on 08/18/2008, -6/+5I don't think anyone's really for or against anyone for sure, with the type of media bias a lot of outlets throw out I'm surprised most Americans even know that theirs even a war going on in Georgia. If I had to make some sort of life or death military decision and pick a side, I'd fly out there myself and see whats going on.
      • QuadZeroRoute, on 08/18/2008, -4/+13Justice101, the USA has military advisers and trainers on the ground in Georgia.

        And it is hilarious that I am being dug down above for telling the truth. Any stupid ***** could go back over the past two days worth of front page stories and SEE with their own eyes the support that dumb ***** liberals who run the Digg boards have given to Russia. Russia has no reason to go into Georgia and even on the signing of the recent declaration they blew up a bridge that was very important to Georgia.
      • noisey, on 08/18/2008, -8/+15It's because Russia isn't the aggressor, Georgia started this *****. Let me put it in simple terms for you:

        Russia and America are sitting at opposite ends of the bar, having a few drinks. In comes Russia's little cousin named Georgia in to the bar. Russia and Georgia don't like each other much and America knows it. America takes Georgia aside and whispers in Gerogia's ear and points to Russia. Next thing you know Georgia walks up to Russia and sucker punches him in the ear. Russia stands up and kicks Georgia's ass.

        Now we have Georgia, beaten and bruised, looking at America wondering why we aren't helping.
      • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -2/+10Sorry noisey, your simplistic analogy is immature and flawed. This is global politics, not a Eugene O'Neill play. Where are South Ossetians -- the Scythian decsendants who've been issued Russian passports only in the past five years by the Russian Federation -- in your bar? Where are the ethnic Georgians living in South Ossetia in your bar? Where are Chechen special forces in your bar? Where are Ukranian mercenaries in your bar? Where are repressed Russian Federation media indexed #144 behind Sudan by Reporters without Borders in your bar? Get a clue, dude.
      • norman619, on 08/18/2008, -2/+3noisey:

        You obviously haven't a clue about what is going on between Georgia and Russia. One important factor most people like yourself tend to omit or are honestly ignorant of is the history. What's going on over there is not as simple as you pretend it to be. Problems like this one are NEVER cut and dry. Neither Russia nor Georgia are innocent here. Russia simply seized upon this opportunity to do as much damage as it could and destabilize the tiny country of Georgia. They went in and destroyed their tiny navy (if you could call it that) and proceeded to destroy vital parts of their infrastructure. Russia does not like the idea that its former states, which are sovereign nations now, are seeking to join NATO and form strong alliances and ties with the west in general. Russia has been throwing its weight around when dealing with former states for a while now. Only when you look at the history does Russia's motivations behind its actions today become clear. The Georgian people along with the other former states of the USSR rightly fear Russia's ambitions. The Russian government is not known for keeping its word in its dealings with the former USSR states. Their actions during this whole thing only reinforces this fact.
      • noisey, on 08/18/2008, -2/+5I concede the point that my bar analogy was too simplistic. It's purpose wasn't actually for a concise explanation, it was to present a simple scenario that would (hopefully) get some people in my country (USA) to actually check the facts.

        The USA is in a propaganda war right now for the sympathy of Georgia and getting America behind intervention in this conflict. I no longer trust the people of my country to check facts before making a judgment on world affairs. They rely on false-media like Fox news with their own agenda. American media is really that bad.
    • KataLieb, on 08/18/2008, -4/+5Lets remember that it was Georgia who attacked South-Ossetia, and killed both plenty civilians and russian peacekeepers (who were there because of the peace agreement in the 90s, and Ossetians wanted them there) - in a surprise attack.

      Lets also remember that USA and Israel have been arming Georgian troops, and israeli private military instructors, and US special forces, have been preparing the georgian troops as well. And Saakashvili came to power, helped by US and CIA. They want them in Nato bad - and not to protect Georgia, but to encircle Russia with Nato countries.

      Soon the only non-Nato country around Russia in the West will be Finland.

      How do you think USA would react if Russia was building missile bases in Cuba, Venezuela and Canada, and training Mexican troops, that would then attack Texas?

      Im sure USA would do nothing at all.

      This is not to say Im on Russias side - Im not, I just want to point out that theyre not the ONLY bad guy here. To say so is to swallow whole the ***** propaganda about this issue.
    • brundlefly76, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1funny, i thought russia was protecting south ossetia from georgians.
  • atomicpoet, on 08/16/2008, -34/+76Time for a controversial statement that will get me dugg down.

    The cold war was never over. We were simply lulled into a sense of triumphalism. In reality, Russia was merely waiting for time to retool it's economy so it *could* afford further sway in its "sphere of influence". And pretty much that's all the cold war ever was: two competing economies trying to hold sway over their respective spheres of influence.

    If you really want the cold war to end, *somebody* has to disarm. And last I checked, somebody's still polishing their big stick.
    • Ramenhood, on 08/18/2008, -2/+44You knew you weren't going to get dugg down the second you typed "Time for a controversial statement that will get me dugg down."
      • madzor, on 08/18/2008, -0/+17Holy *****! He just reverse psychologyed our asses!
    • fuzzmeister, on 08/18/2008, -9/+3In some ways I agree, but Soviet Russia was never much of an economy. It was always clear that America had far greater economic power and influence. The real question was who had more political and military influence. Now, the game has changed, as Russia has far greater economic sway, but a (relatively) less aggressive military and political stance.
      • RedViper1999, on 08/18/2008, -1/+10Russia doesn't have a greater economic sway. The US still accounts for 24% of the World's GDP, which is higher than the next 4 largest economies combined. So unless Russia is also China, Japan, and Germany it doesn't have a greater economic sway.
      • fuzzmeister, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Sorry, that was badly worded. By greater economic sway, I was comparing it to Soviet Russia, not the US. The US obviously still has a far larger economy.
    • ripple123, on 08/18/2008, -9/+5Time for a awesome statement that will get me a million diggs. gag.
    • Samsong, on 08/18/2008, -8/+1Uh oh, sounds like it's time to bring out the conspiracy-stick...
    • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -3/+11The Russian military is strong, but its a joke compared to its Soviet predecessor. You do realize their strategic bombers are turbo-props, right? And look at their tanks... Old-as-***** BMPs? Most unimpressive. I seem to recall an entire desert of burning T-72 chassis in '91... Also don't seem to see any of these supposedly advanced T-90 MBTs either. I guess they're saving them for special occasion... *rolls eyes*
      • SlavaKM, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Who needs strategic bombers, when you got ICBMs with same day delivery to your front door?
      • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3Who needs them? A country whose opponent has an ICBM interception network in place, that's who!
      • Ortheos, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4"You just need to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure that is russia will crumble ~Hitler

        Napoleon said something similar. But the moral of the story is the same. Underestimate Russia and you will get your arse kicked back to your capital, losing it in the process.







      • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1I guess Tokyo is still waiting for the Tsar's army, then!
      • Ortheos, on 08/18/2008, -1/+2The soviets kicked the japanese out of asia in operation august storm, and had plans to invade hokaiddo, and did invade the kurills, which are to this day russian, no longer japanese. And the japanese never really hurt the russians as much as napoleon or hitler did. You hurt them you pay with your nation in time.
      • BabyWookie, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1You are a moron. Those turbo-prop Tu-95's are used as extra long range maritime patrol planes and cruise-missile carriers. When it comes to capabilities, they are a good match for B-52's, which are still used by this country. If you want see a modern Russia bomber, look up the Tu-160.

        Also, the latest Russian T-72 != the Iraqi Tigers of Babylon; not even close. The Iraqi tanks didn't even have composite armor. The Russian T-72's are modernized with 3rd gen reactive armor, composite plating, active defenses, ballistic computers, the ability to launch guided missiles, etc.

        It is true that the Russian did use any of their more advanced quipment in this war, but they didn't need to. Why risk losing that expensive *****? Save it for a real war.
      • DuffyDirect, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah okay BabyWookie, thanks for the armchair General's logistics speech, but actions speak louder than words -- and Russian actions show they're a 1970s army masquerading as big bad asses by chopping up civilians and running over police cars.
    • DestroyFascism, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Dugg for the comment "somebody's still polishing their big stick".

      (Looks a GW Bush)
  • Stevanoski, on 08/16/2008, -21/+10Where is Code Pink? Sean Penn?
    • BillE3, on 08/17/2008, -5/+10Media Matters? Move On.org? Danny Glover? George Clooney? Jane Fonda? Tom Hayden?
  • artofficial, on 08/17/2008, -24/+13All of this ***** just seems childish. Russia is like that weird Uncle on Napoleon Dynamite, trying to relive some hay day fantasy of world domination. It's ridiculous and pathetic.
    • djoobacca, on 08/18/2008, -5/+0seems like the only person that brought up the past here is you
    • jgzman, on 08/18/2008, -3/+3With the point that several hundred people have been killed. Their lives ended.

      I find it hard to call it ridiculous or pathetic. I call it dangerous, and Georgia foolish for starting trouble, and US idiotic for opening another can of firefight before we finish our first one. (or two)
  • DaDrake, on 08/17/2008, -22/+37Anyone surprised by this? After all, Russia has billboards in Georgia with the picture of Putin saying "you're beloved leader". Then you have Russian leaders (the majority being from the KGB or the FSB .... basically the same thing) saying Russia will rebuild and regain its formal glory.

    Yes Russia is dead-set on expansion of power. The question wasn't ever if but when.
    • orlyfactor, on 08/17/2008, -6/+18Do the Russians have the equivalent grammar mistake of using "you're" when they should have used "your", too? Otherwise, it's telling me that *I'm* the beloved leader! Woo hoo!
      • astronomical, on 08/18/2008, -5/+0It could actually make sense with your or you're. But I don't know what he meant nor have I saw the billboard.
      • SlavaKM, on 08/18/2008, -1/+0Haven't you heard?

        In Soviet Russia, The Leader is you're!
      • astronomical, on 08/18/2008, -1/+0If the words are under a giant picture of him, it would make sense. Take an English class, not every single phrase you read is necessarily directed at you....
    • NerveBand, on 08/18/2008, -3/+7What the hell? Unsubstatiated evidence? Stop exaggerating seriously.
    • johndoee, on 08/18/2008, -5/+4Hey clown, you are high. Georgia has billboards with pic of Bush and stupid title "you're beloved leader". Not Putin. You should find another pusher - the stuff, current one gives you, is tooooo dangerous for you small brain.
    • BabyWookie, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1So far, it is only the NATO that's been expanding and doing everything to isolate Russian and undermine its geopolitical interests. By the way, Ossetia (Alania) is NOT Georgia. Its people said so.
  • autitastic, on 08/17/2008, -17/+72What has to be remembered is that Georgia is not blameless in this. Russia was mediating talks between the Georgian government and South Ossetian Separatists who had observed a ceasefire during such talks. Georgia then ignored the ceasefire and carried out pre-emptive attacks on the region (a rather base attack which targeted civilians also, leading to South Ossetians largely regarding the Russians as saviours).

    The fact that Russia has pushed beyond any legitimacy that they might have had in protecting the South Ossetians (as mediators they could claim such a role) undermines any righteousness that they might hold in the conflict. As such they are not without blame. But to say that Russia is re-engaging the gears of military conquest to target Eastern Europe is absurd and largely impossible.
    • justinx0r, on 08/17/2008, -16/+13Nope. The separatists fired at the Georgians first.
    • Crowlos, on 08/18/2008, -5/+2*****.
    • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -5/+3Give me a break, dude. Have you seriously seen the kind of folk the Russians label as "peace keepers", "mediators" and "negotiators" this past week? Wake up! Russian "peace keeping" like when Bush makes a "clean air act" that involves removing all pollution regulation from factories!
    • MetalliTooL, on 08/18/2008, -2/+6"What has to be remembered is that Georgia is not blameless in this."

      That's a severe understatement. Georgia IS TO BLAME for this.
  • Godwhacker, on 08/17/2008, -24/+47The big question is, 'who started it?'

    The big answer is George. As long as the rest of Eastern Europe isn't so stupid as to provoke Russia, then they should be safe. Also, putting a 'missal shield' in Poland is the hight of provocation and stupidity. It was the legacy of Ronald Reagan that he ended the Cold War. It seems Bush is determined that his legacy should be to restart it.
    • futureisours, on 08/17/2008, -14/+6Why is everything to you dumb libs, George Bush's fault?
    • eyefone, on 08/18/2008, -4/+16George Costanza?
    • banido, on 08/18/2008, -5/+4George Lucas?
    • akamurph, on 08/18/2008, -7/+6Provoke Russia you mindless gnome? By putting missile DEFENSE in their country? ... as in missiles that are not offensive? ...and if you actually believe that if these countries didn't do anything to 'provoke' Russia that they would be okay you do not know history or world politics.
      • Frozo, on 08/18/2008, -1/+6If a missile defense system negates the advantage Russia holds as a nuclear superpower (which it would to a substantial degree), than a defense suddenly becomes an offense. Can't you see that?
      • RusskiGuy, on 08/18/2008, -2/+8Ok dummy (and it's fine to call you that because you started it), do you realize who's putting the missile shield in Poland? U.S., which also happens to be a nuclear power.

        Now, here's a simple scenario: U.S. initiates a nuclear strike against Russia, which tries to retaliate, but U.S. shield missiles intercept Russian nukes.

        What this means: Russia loses power and U.S. gains it. This power can be used to bully the other country around. How's that not provoking?

        Why: Currently, the most powerful tool of influence in global politics since WW II remains the nuclear bomb. No country would dare invade another country that has nuclear bombs and means of delivering them to enemy's soil. It's kind of the reason U.S. made such a big whoop about nukes in Korea, Iran, Iraq (as alleged at the time), India, etc.

        This is as much as I'll bother to break it down, you twit!
      • thebaron2, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2So what you guys are saying is that no country between Russia and the U.S. is allowed to construct a system whereby nuclear missiles could be disarmed mid-fllight?

        And if they do construct such a system, they can expect military retaliation from Russia, which you justify and support?

        Really?
    • Metasquares, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1The question isn't "who started it?" so much as "who is going to stop it?" That or we'll end up in a situation much like the beginning of WWI.
    • tisk, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2It's only 10 missiles. 10 FREAKIN kinetic missiles. How in hell does Russia think that 10 missiles are in any way a defensive measure aimed at the Russian nuclear arsenal?
    • jzimo, on 08/18/2008, -0/+4Why is there a double standard? If the U.S. were attacked by Mexico and responded with force it would be without a doubt the U.S.'s fault for provoking Mexico.

      Russia provoked Georgia to attack and unfortunately Georgia did. Russia has been preparing for this scenario for some time now and when it happened the response was instantaneous. Georgia is still at fault but Russia is far from blameless being the instigator.

      I definitely would not be surprised to see the Ukraine or another former soviet satellite state attacked for some form of retaliation against Russia.
  • RayPugh, on 08/17/2008, -7/+2They should buy a knife. Only use it in self defence.
  • borez, on 08/17/2008, -30/+56"Russia's attack on Georgia has sparked fears across the young democracies of Eastern Europe that Moscow is once again hungry for conquest"

    Should read: Russians leap to the defense of the Ossetian people after a US backed Georgia attempts an ethnic cleansing operation in South Ossetia. Young democracies of Eastern Europe wanting Russian Communist 40 year pay-back then agree to back crooked media false propaganda story line.

    • dhughes, on 08/18/2008, -4/+1 From what I have read the country of Georgia has existed for over 1500 years, excluding the Soviet era of course, including the South Ossetia region. Since 1992 Ossetia has been trying to break free by fighting the Georgian government. August 8, 2008 Russian troops cross the Georgian border to confront the Georgian military.
      • Samiyam, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3...after the Georgians launch artillery attacks on South Ossetia. Not saying the Russians didn't throw fuel on the fire, but somehow the actions of the Georgian military as the reason the Russians started moving their amassed armor and troops is left out of a lot of stories.
      • x060t, on 08/18/2008, -2/+1Read some history of the conflict. There was a peacekeeping agreement which prohibited Georgia from trying to solve Ossetia/Abkhazia conflicts in a military way. Even leaving common sense behind and sticking to the agreement, we had an obligation to restore the situation to the same state it was before Georgian shelling invasion to Tskhinvali. Western people can view Saak's actions as if Milosevic would attempt to solve Kosovo problem by simply invading it and clearing out all Kosovars in a few days, not giving time for US/EU to take control of situaiton. Of course, just booting them out of Tshinvali wouldn't do the trick since they'd continue shelling from their territory. Thus, we had to get into Georgia and destroy their military (sometimes, sadly, with civilian losses, especially when they set their air defense in living districts). All that's left to do is to get our troops out of Georgia ASAP back to Ossetia/Abkhazia, since Georgians will try to make alot of provocations and hang it onto our troops in order to say that we're violating peace agreements and can't be peacekeepers. Of course we're throwing some fuel on the fire simply by de-facto supporting Abhazia/Ossetia independence, and we'd like to see Saak in Gaaga for ethnic cleansings.
      • dhughes, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1 The "peacekeepers" were Russian, wouldn't it have made more sense to have had a neutral country supply the peacekeepers and not from a country hostile towards Georgia?

        It would be like having Iranian soldiers as peacekeepers at the Lebanon Israel border.
      • BabyWookie, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Wrong. The peacekeepers were Russian, Ossetian AND Georgians. The Georgians picked up an left, right before the rockets started falling all over the city.
      • dhughes, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1>"Wrong. The peacekeepers were Russian, Ossetian AND Georgians."

        So the area in question contested by Georgia, Ossetia and Russia had peacekeepers of the countries who were arguing over the land keeping each other from harming the other? That doesn't make sense.
    • holi1, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1True!
    • ivandir, on 08/20/2008, -0/+1Last time I checked Russia was bitching about 2000+ south ossetians being killed by Georgian military might. Today it ended up the casualties were around 133 people, which who knows how many were killed by Russians themselves.

      This smells like ***** and it is *****.
  • mshtml, on 08/17/2008, -30/+62NATO propaganda. Buried.
    • fuzzmeister, on 08/18/2008, -5/+4If you disagree with the Western point of view in this conflict, do you care to elaborate on your own views? It's not very helpful just to label something as propaganda and say "buried".
      • gwolf, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3Who says that's the western point of view... you? Just ho died and made the right wing gutless cowards the arbiters of what that point of view is.?
        The powers that be always pull out the "Make them afraid card" and the lemmings flock behind them towards the cliffs. It's the oldest trick in the book and I am sad to say that our collective intelligence seems to be that of a low grade moron.
      • fuzzmeister, on 08/18/2008, -1/+2gwolf, by Western point of view, I meant the prevailing political views of the NATO governments.
    • Barackalypse, on 08/18/2008, -5/+4""Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said, according to Interfax News Agency."
      Damn, NATO propaganda is pretty damn effective if they're getting a Russian General to claim Poland is exposing itself to a strike. You get a bury for your critical thinking skills or your reading comprehension skills.
      • RusskiGuy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2And you get a bury for lack of research. FYI the statement was taken out of context. The general was explaining that in case of war, Poland would be open to a strike because they have allied themselves with the U.S. - a nuclear power, as per the doctrine.

        http://in.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idINIndia- ...

        FTA:

        The Russian government revamped its national security doctrine in 2000, broadening the range of conflicts in which nuclear weapons could be used.

        "It is written clearly: We will use it in instances against governments that have nuclear weapons; against allies of countries with nuclear weapons, if they somehow enable them," he said.

        In agreeing to deploy elements of the U.S. missile shield, Poland "becomes an actionable object. Those targets are destroyed in the first order," Nogovitsyn said.
    • identifiedlogo, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2AP cam go ahead and royally F*** themselves. if you want to be scared go ahead.
  • jlhoben, on 08/17/2008, -5/+16To paraphrase Gandhi: Western democracy is a great idea, we should try it here.
    • pahasnag, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Using and cultivating FEAR to get things moving still could be called a democracy, common.
  • macwac, on 08/17/2008, -11/+35Trust me its not just the Eastern European countries.. Scandinavian countries are also concerned. Russia has been showing increased military power in the Barents Sea as well as on Spitsbergen / Svalbard, which they haven't done since the 1980s - none of which they have legal right or claim to. Russia is still stuck in the age of imperialism, as shown by planting their flag under the pole. No matter who initiated the South Ossetian war, it clearly shows that Russia went far beyond the line of Peace Keeping. They kept rolling until they were 50km from Georgia's capital. That should be a cause for concern...
    • futureisours, on 08/17/2008, -3/+8There's little to fear from Russia apart from its nukes. Have you seen the primitive tanks and equipment used against Georgia? It's like 60's technology?
      • orlyfactor, on 08/17/2008, -3/+3Seriously. Despite their oil wealth, their military is in serious disarray. If anyone with semi-modern weaponry and a decent army were to put up resistance, they'd have problems.

        The US should enlist their help in Afghanistan, since they're so familiar with that country.
      • orbitalia, on 08/17/2008, -2/+16So wrong. History is littered with examples of countries that underestimated Russia.
      • djoobacca, on 08/18/2008, -1/+8Maybe Russians didn't want to take out their new toys? Maybe primitive tanks and equipment were enough for the job? They did force the aggressors off South Ossetia, didn't they?
      • caveman84, on 08/18/2008, -2/+0i cannot wait to see T 84 vs M1A1, it might be primitive but it gets the job done.
      • HeavyWave, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1USA uses M-16 which is exactly from the 60's...
      • thebaron2, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3"...apart from its nukes."

        What, that's not a big enough of a reason right there? I'm not as scared of a nuclear holocaust that's a result of retaliatory politics and pissing contests. I'm worried about some psychopath with nothing to lose finally muttering to himself, "Ah, ***** it," as he initiates the end of civilization as we know it.
    • rex84, on 08/18/2008, -3/+4"Russia is still stuck in the age of imperialism..."

      Yeah, it's Russia that's stuck in the age of imperialism. Holy *****.
      • Abram730, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1As one finger points
        "Russia is still stuck in the age of imperialism..."
        3 fingers point back.
        "America is still stuck in the age of imperialism..."
    • KataLieb, on 08/18/2008, -2/+4Russia? Imperialism?
      Oh really, last I checked it was the USA who had over a hundred military bases ALL AROUND THE WORLD.

      USA has a huge base in Kosovo - Camp Bondsteel. Thats the same as Russians having a huge base in Montreal. And now USA wants to build more bases, more missiles, all around..

      And USA is already waging a couple illegal wars of conquest, as well as meddling in the affairs of tens of other countries, by sending weapons, drugs, propaganda, military instructors, spies, and covert operators.

      USA is waging an imperialistic resource world war, together with its allies Nato, EU, Australia and Canada and Israel. That the other big block. Russia is part of the other block, along with likes of China, India, others..

      But you live in that West bloc, so you seem to think theyre the good guys. Sorry, but in this game, there are no good guys. Its ***** em all around, little people die, ***** happens.
    • zeero, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2you retarded monkeys brainwashed by your US media are truly stupid. How many countries has russia invaded in the past 100 years? how many wars did they start? how many army bases did they put all over the world? - probably 100x less than the USA.

      check your own ***** up country out before blaming russia.
  • Managua8Green, on 08/18/2008, -6/+5And it starts...
  • haydukeqc, on 08/18/2008, -4/+5Some things never change.
    • univers3man, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3War. War never changes. The end of the world occurred pretty much as we had predicted.
    • univers3man, on 08/18/2008, -1/+2bury this. Stupid reposts.
    • Excessive, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1I love you for Fallout quote.
    • pahasnag, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Things like spreading fear to archive set goals?
  • cakesecret, on 08/18/2008, -12/+17Russia claimed the Georgian attacks on Tskhinvali were comparable to the siege on Stalingrad and called it a Holocaust. Hmm...the local hospital (the only one open during the battles) reported 40 deaths (where Russia claimed over 2000). Russian propaganda? Ya think??

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/48860.html

    • djoobacca, on 08/18/2008, -5/+6your source is weak. try again!
    • pahasnag, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2The hospital itself was shelled and evacuated during the Georgian attack.
      Seems that everyone believes, what they want to believe, and the mass media on both sides provides a wide spectrum. It is information war. FEAR is being used again to make things go into the 'right' direction.
  • mikepoint3, on 08/18/2008, -22/+18Georgia attacked Russia
    • ZerawBanned, on 08/18/2008, -1/+6... in soviet Russia?
    • theboyjlowe, on 08/18/2008, -5/+9No they attacked Ossetia which is not apart of Russia it is a territory. By all means can anyone be on the Russians side. They signed a truce and are still attacking
      • BabyWookie, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2They deliberately targeted and killed Russian peacekeepers. That was an act of war against Russia, in itself. Also, the Russians are NOT attacking any one right now. They are driving around Georgia unopposed.
    • sultanknish, on 08/18/2008, -5/+6yeah that's plausible

      tiny Georgia attached Russia, just like Poland attacked Russia
  • ufia, on 08/18/2008, -13/+6Russia will kick all your sorry asses. Running to mommy is futile.
    • Barackalypse, on 08/18/2008, -2/+4Russia is the same one trick economic pony that Iran is. Sever the oil and the head will collapse. It doesn't take a lot of special forces to take out some critical pipeline or port facilities and cripple Russia economically.
      • UltramegaOK, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3You either meant:

        A) Sever the sale of oil from Russia?

        That would do wonders for gas prices. You thought $4.50 /gal was bad, just wait.
        Russia is the worlds second largest exporter of Oil. The American people would go ballistic.


        B) Cut Russia off from other countries oil

        They produce far more oil than they need. The practically don't even need imports of ANY KIND from ANY COUNTRY. It is the largest country on the planet (geographically) @ 1.8 x the size of the United States.

        Good luck trying to do that.

        http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/index.cfm



        I
      • RusskiGuy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Thus starting a ripple effect that will cripple the entire world economically...
      • rwac, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1How about dropping the price of oil.

        That will hurt Russia in the pocketbook.
  • ObamaWins08, on 08/18/2008, -1/+9Well, at least we have both sides of the story hitting the front page. It at least shows that there is one subject that doesn't have a bury brigade and the DIGG community is willing to have good discourse on the subject.
    • xerigen, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Yeah, my head is spinning reading both sides. It's hard to quite get a grasp on what is actually going on here considering I don't know a whole lot about the history of the whole situation.
      • observed45, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1a little study would help that problem. Don't take the word of those who scream loudest, actually get the facts, then make up your own mind.
  • HappyScrappy, on 08/18/2008, -9/+11This doesn't surprise me. Even though Georgia triggered this skirmish, Russia isn't going to hold off forever. Russia is a power-drunk mob-run government (even worse than the US!) and won't restrain themselves from future exploratory skirmishes for much longer.
  • godseyeview, on 08/18/2008, -3/+4We still have Poland!
  • Anonemousk, on 08/18/2008, -23/+14Georgia is to blame, not Russia for protecting it's own people.
    • jerrycurley, on 08/18/2008, -5/+3I LOVE it when people embarass themselves by making such definitive statements like this.
  • djoobacca, on 08/18/2008, -21/+12Everybody knows Georgia started this and got what it deserved. The fact that some East-European countries are scurrying around in fear isn't an indication of Russia's hunger for conquest. Countries like Poland are ***** that rely on others to sustain themselves. Like Israel, without a big backer like US, it would cease to exist. In order to sustain themselves, these little ***** start panic to get freebies like free military equipment and training (Poland) from US, NATO, and EU, usually by screaming THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING! (in Europe) or TERRORISTS!!!! (in Middle East).
  • Spoomeister, on 08/18/2008, -22/+15How is any of this different from America in Iraq?
  • DarkReign16, on 08/18/2008, -13/+21The most interesting thing from this is seeing how much utter ***** is used to manufacture a lust for war.

    Few seem to realize that Georgia is the ***** one who started the conflict with Russia, and you can stop with the fear mongering propaganda now. No, Russia isn't on a power hungry quest for expansionism, and no, we don't need to go to war to stop them, because there's nothing to stop. The neo-cons just want another war, please don't buy into the ***** yet again. PLEASE.
    • jerrycurley, on 08/18/2008, -11/+1Few seem to realize that it is not all cut and dry "Georgia started it"

      Of course, given EVERY single fact being excactly the same, if Bush was on Russia's side, you would be on Georgia's side. You are pathetic, and even you ralize it at this point.
    • Crowlos, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3Wow that made no sense at all don't attack him because he actually believes the truth.
    • Rapter09, on 08/18/2008, -2/+1As was said somewhere above, whatever righteousness Russia had behind it has long since passed. If they had moved their troops into South Ossetia and then meticulously stopped at the border - or gave a couple kilometer buffer zone - and demanded a ceasefire then they probably would have come off as saviors - more or less - but charging into Gori, blowing up that bridge, and the difficulties signing the ceasefire to begin with and even actually getting the troops to stop shooting have removed their claims to being 'right'. Now they're just the bully.

      Nobody said we needed to go to war: the conflict in South Ossetia is hopefully more or less over, but if Russia keeps doing this, it's Russia who will provoke the world; Georgia may have 'awoken the bear' as they say, but only Russia can get itself into enough trouble to see Ol' Dubya get an excuse to mobilize the full military power of the western nations; and for that I'm terrified for Russian citizens, and for us.
      • KataLieb, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Any righteousness the US had to invade Iraq is years gone. And Afghanistan as well. Theres hundreds of thousands of civilian dead already, murdered by US troops.
        - come off as saviors - more or less -

        Ha.
    • grendelboogie, on 08/19/2008, -0/+1You are correct that Georgia started the conflict. However, that doesn't mean that Russia isn't looking to expand its influence in the region. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

      Also, even if Russia is playing a little game of diplomatic Chicken right now, it's not an excuse for war. So far, they have damaged a great deal of Georgian infrastructure, because they can. I'm betting they push things a little farther and then pull out.

      I think their goal is to make the point that they can do this at any time and that they want to make sure Georgia is concentrated on repairing its infrastructure rather than attempting to reclaim the breakaway regions.


  • krolm, on 08/18/2008, -4/+5JEBAC ROSJE!!!
  • tama00, on 08/18/2008, -7/+1Does it matter who started it first. It takes two to tangle.

    Both countries are as bad as each other. Just dont let them get anyone else whos not involved in it hurt.
    • nirvanix, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Like America and Iraq are both bad?
    • tama00, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1If you look at the history, Georgia and Russia have been back and forth at each other for a long time.
    • dhughes, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2 The saying is "It takes two to Tango."
    • rwac, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1Georgia and Russia are most certainly not as bad as each other.
      One of them is a democracy with no expansionist goals, the other is run by the KGB.
      How are they similar ?
  • lineweight, on 08/18/2008, -8/+7Well don't run over the border of a country that they are allied with. I mean, *****, the US invaded a country on the other side of the globe that didn't do anything to us, so there you have it.
    • ElDiablo6870, on 08/18/2008, -2/+1Except for the fact that Iraq violated a cease fire agreement put in place after they invaded Kuwait. But, then libtards seem to forget this fact.
  • PainToad, on 08/18/2008, -2/+4I thought this was merely a little flex of the muscles by Russia, am I being ignorant, should I be more concerned?
    • Kohraiyu, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Nah, you shouldn't be concerned. Russia won't care what Eastern European nations will do. As long as the US and Russia use little places like Georgia and South Ossettia to be their pawns in their games so each can flex their muscles, we shouldn't be concerned. I doubt either US or Russia would be dumb enough to actually engage each other. So yes, just another First World nations penis size competition. Nothing to be scared of.
    • JohnFour, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2In my opinion it was just a flexing, as you said. Russia wants to be considered in negotiations/
    • tightscrummy, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2No, go back to the Olympics/WoW/Wanking.
      • PainToad, on 08/18/2008, -0/+2Well I hate WoW and Sports...what was the third option?
  • Telmarine, on 08/18/2008, -4/+10JOHN TITOR
  • chubbybubba, on 08/18/2008, -14/+4Obama better know how to kick some rusky ass. (or we're in big trouble.)
    • akamurph, on 08/18/2008, -5/+4Either way, if Obama wins we're in HUGE trouble
      • theboyjlowe, on 08/18/2008, -3/+0Obama wouldn't attack them. He would try to be best friends with them.
    • obliviousfool, on 08/18/2008, -3/+7Are you seriously so retarded that you want war? With the Russians? And somebody dugg you up?

  • luckless, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4I wouldn't worry as much, all these countries hate the Soviet Union because of what Stalin did.
    They forget that Stalin was born in Georgia, in Gori actually.
    So because of all this ***** in Georgia, there is no need to worry that another Stalin will rule Russia for a long time.
  • peestandingup, on 08/18/2008, -5/+4Russian Attack, huh? Would you even say its a Rush n' Attack??

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UR983mCz-3o

    Sorry, had to. This trying to be clever on Digg things gotta hold on me. By which I always fail at.
  • roboneal, on 08/18/2008, -15/+20What is this fascination with defending Russia?

    Putin is keenly interested in the resurgence of the grand "Soviet" empire responsible for the +actual+ death and repression of MILLIONS of people. The legacy of human misery left behind by Soviet-style communism is unmeasurable.
    • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -3/+11Weird huh. Peoples attitudes are way too extreme. If russia isnt evil any more... they must be good!

      Given russias assassination of a British citizen and military flights over europe, along with it claiming neutral land, im surprised the world isnt at their throats.

      The problem is everyones been distracted by the complete ***** in charge of the USA. While the world has had to spend time trying to stop the USA ***** everything up, russia has been up to something.

      With any other country you might conclude its all a pissing match, but russia is packed full of neo nazis and anti western youth. Thousands of nuclear warheads are falling into the hands of these people over time.

      (Just want to add that like the USA russia has a lot to offer, but all the good is overshadowed by extreme nationalism. There are a lot of parallels between russia and the US in the eyes of europeans.)
    • jgzman, on 08/18/2008, -3/+5I do not defend Russia. I feel it is necessary for the true facts to be told, rather than slanted to support "the good guys." My current information is that Georgia started this war. I would prefer not to 'spin' that data to support Georgia simply because we are nominally friends with them.
      • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3There are no good guys and bad guys and in this case the war wasnt started by either side, it is an on going separatist conflict.

        The reason everyone is focussing on russia is their INVASION of georgia. Both russia, georgia and the separatists have dealt with the situation badly, but russia really pushed the boat out the trumped everyone. Hence the widespread condemnation. It doesnt mean people think georgia is the good guy...

        The sad thing is that russia could have come out of this with widespread approval, by moving more peacekeeping and humanitarian forces into S Ossetia. Their inability to halt their advance has extreme connotations.
    • JohnFour, on 08/18/2008, -1/+2Does Putin want the soviet empire or the power that the soviet empire had? I would think the power.
  • theboyjlowe, on 08/18/2008, -5/+7This is the reunion of the Soviet Union. Just think it has only been 17 years since they broke up and I would imagine many to most of the leaders then are still around. Putin is the new Stalin and I predict them going after all of the countries that broke off of the Soviet Union. The time is now to interact.
    • Kohraiyu, on 08/18/2008, -2/+0Umm, Stalin was a juggernaut that was responsible for the deaths of millions of people, including his own, and instituted Fascist-like institutions in his government. I think comparing Putin (power hungry politician) to Stalin (scary ultra-angry killing machine beast) is going a bit far. Really, there are plenty of other world leaders like Putin (some even worse-Mugabe and Omar al-Bashir perhaps?), the only reason Putin is focused upon is that he is in a greater seat of power. Really, the man is no different than Bush or Hu Jintao. Just your run of the mill politician who clings onto power for as long as he can. Nothing to piss your pants over.
  • Shirleycakes, on 08/18/2008, -5/+5Maybe the rest of Eastern Europe could launch offensive during cease fire conditions and invade areas widely accepted to be part of Russia. That sounds like a good idea, it'll help Russia's "impending" invasion happen sooner.
    • theboyjlowe, on 08/18/2008, -1/+0The problem with that is that we don't know what Russia has up its sleeve militarily and how they are willing to use it. For all we know that if they get attacked then they cold go for all of Europe.
      • Shirleycakes, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Like how the United States used September 11th to declare war on the Middle East?
    • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3"invade areas widely accepted to be part of Russia."

      South Ossetia isnt recognised at part of russia by anyone INCLUDING russia...

      Youve just demonstrated the problem with being a "good vs evil" idiot.
      • Shirleycakes, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Oh, come on. Don't mince words, the region has been a protectorate of the Russian's since they declared the independence no one else would grant them. Russians and Ossetians live together in the province.

        Russia wasn't unprovoked in this, they were helping their own especially when the South Ossetians started evacuating into Russia.
      • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1That would be a valid argument if russia treated S Ossetia as an independent state. Also, russia opposes integration of separatist states and independence of separatist states when anyone else is involved... But when it suits russia its OK?
  • coveteran32, on 08/18/2008, -13/+4Russia only came in to save Osetia from being bombed by Georgia, U.S. and Israel. What the HELL is the FBI doing there? CIA is foriegn intelligence, FBI is National. Georgia, U.S. and Israel poked at the BEAR one time too many.
    • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 08/18/2008, -2/+2The US and Israel have nothing to do with the bombings in Gerogia. They are the fault of the Georgian Government.
  • IRoaChI, on 08/18/2008, -5/+1Their dead..
  • NightVortez, on 08/18/2008, -3/+6NATO has been attempting to set up missile bases around Eastern Europe for ages, and Russia has always been against it, for obvious reasons, this has nothing to do with the recent Georgian conflict and if anything just a grab of opportunity by NATO to sway countries in.
    • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -1/+3Why should we halt our plans for a harmonious bloc of nations because russia doesnt like it?....

      We dont like a lot of what russia does but we dont threaten them...
      • NightVortez, on 08/18/2008, -2/+4We're building a harmonious bloc of nations by putting missile bases in their country? Come on, you know if Russia was doing the same thing in Cuba we'd be going crazy.

        I'm not saying Russia has the right to overreact, but who the hell is going to like a faction which you were once at war with setting up missiles in the country right next to your own?
      • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -3/+2Well yes, we are.. we cant be naive, we have to be prepared.

        The USA offered for this base to be stationed inside russia with russian co-operation, but of course that would totally mess up russias plan to use this as a justification for war.

        At the end of the day NATO members, the US and the EU share a common goal and common values. We might hate each other in a sibling rivalry kind of way, but we share.

        Russia doesnt share our goals, it has had so much opportunity to integrate into world politics. It has even correctly defended many situations in my opinion, but recently there has been a scary deviation from the norm.

        Its hardly a democracy, theres very little good coming out of its nationalistic propaganda. The youth are being indoctrinated to the point theyre told to have sex with each other in special summer camps to boost the population, while they listen to ex KGB talk about how evil the west is....... Its a far cry from our cub scouts....

        Theres nothing left to say... We are open to peace and normality, anything else is going to be met with defence, and rightly so.
      • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -2/+1DEFENSIVE missiles are not a threat to anyone. Also... Poland has three buffer states between it and the Russian Federation -- it is not right next to it!
      • NightVortez, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4Why would Russia co-operate on setting up a US missile base in their country? Would the US do this with a Russian missile base? I surely would hope not, I don't think anyone is trying to justify a war, but it's pretty obvious why they don't want this to happened. Defensive or not, war breaks out and there are missiles stationed right next to them with the presumptive enemy having the switch.

        As far as the KGB talk and the forced re-population, I'd like to see some actual reliable sources on this because that's pretty much all *****, but even then, it doesn't exactly have anything to do with the conflict, other than once again attempting to turn an international conflict into a good vs evil/black vs white fight.
      • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -2/+1NightVortez, I dont think you understand what kind of missiles these are, or the firepower that the EU has ALREADY sitting next to russia.... These missiles are not only defensive missiles, they are a drop in the ocean when compared to the combined firepower the EU could focus on russia.

        And as for the youth camps:
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashi_(Ours)

        The fact youre calling VERY well known facts ***** sums up your arguments nicely.

        As i said, NATO and the EU have no reason to halt development for russias sake.
      • jemman, on 08/18/2008, -0/+3JohnP, if I an correct it was Russia who offered that the missiles to be located within their borders, not the US. The United States turned down the offer leading Russia to believe that the missiles were really aimed at them.
      • JohnP, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1jemman, interestingly ive just found a few articles stating the same thing. Russia DID offer a base in Azerbaijan.

        Its strange that it was turned down by the US, but not exactly surprising given the current US agenda. Also, its a little far removed from NATO operations, but still it seems like a valid offer from the russians.

        Still, turning down an offer for a joint base, and threatening a country with military action are not exactly comparable. Its confusing that the russians put up a valid compromise and then responded with these threats. After all this whole operation is defensive. Why has russia just made itself the enemy if it was so interested. Weird.
  • r0t8, on 08/18/2008, -12/+5Russia needs to protect itself from Europe.
  • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 08/18/2008, -16/+6Buried as inaccurate. Russia had all the right to attack Georgia. This article is pure speculation and warmongering.
    • geekee, on 08/18/2008, -3/+4I'm sure you had the same opinion about the 1st gulf war.
      • OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 08/18/2008, -1/+1Saddam provoked that by his genocide of the Kurds.
  • r0t8, on 08/18/2008, -7/+0To all the fat bitches from Finland who post garbage like this: no one cares.
  • DarkJesus, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4Buried as duplicate.

    http://digg.com/world_news/East_Europe_tries_to_pr ...
  • Crowlos, on 08/18/2008, -11/+5Russia did nothing wrong, stop believing the ***** you bunch of misled idiots.....
  • acudoc, on 08/18/2008, -7/+11Georgia bombed Russian civilians in Tshinvali. Russia proceeded to pound the ***** out of the American and Israeli-backed Georgian military. Western press ***** up the story so we are all supposed to be hopping mad at Russia, justifying more spending on war-related industries. Who benefits? Not our sons and daughters who will be conscripted by the ruling class, abetted by state-loving journalists, to feed with blood and bone the insatiable appetite of the banking class. Wake up you stupid sheeple (so much for publicly-funded mass education)!
    • Crowlos, on 08/18/2008, -2/+5Nicely said.
    • Arcnsparc, on 08/18/2008, -0/+0This is what is happening in all of the wars. Soon we will have to voice our objections to these wars from all over the world instead of the falling for the same tricks over and over. Ive been reading about what is REALLY happening there and every mass media station here in the U.S.A. is saying the opposite. I guess it must be time to stop listening to those MSM pundits all together.
  • mhummel, on 08/18/2008, -0/+0Turkey says: "Fleet Constantinople to the Black Sea"

  • Grolsch, on 08/18/2008, -2/+4Why do I get this feeling that West just cant wait to add fuel to fire?
  • JohnFour, on 08/18/2008, -4/+6This is why Russia attacked Georgia. They wanted everyone to start taking it seriously again, and they wanted european countries to realize that America can't defend them while it's in the middle east. If the US does anything Russia sells weapons to Iran, and that's our point of interest right now. http://www.infowars.com/
  • DuffyDirect, on 08/18/2008, -1/+4Russian "peace keeping" and "mediation" in South Ossetia is like when Bush calls a bill a "clean air act" (that involves removing all pollution regulation from factories!)
  • NotGibbwake, on 08/18/2008, -5/+7Mindless propaganda. The US backed genocidal Georgia attacked Russian settlements and people in S Ossetia. It was genocide, there are only 70,000 people there and over 2000 were killed by the georgians. Russia going in to stop genocide is not something to fear unless you're a genocidal tie eating maniac.
    • atdigg, on 08/18/2008, -4/+1Russia incited and armed Ossetians, and now they claim they are "peacekeepers" *rolls eyes*
      • NotGibbwake, on 08/18/2008, -0/+1They are Russian citizens. Georgia wants they land, doesnt care about the people. The president of gerogia even said that in a quote. You arent pro genocide, siding with the US and Israel here are you?
  • Grolsch, on 08/18/2008, -3/+7Lets see, NATO trying to expand, US supports Georgia in genocide, Poland gets some help from US, Ukraine is all worked up now and because of what? West needs to let them deal with Caucasus on its own, they have big history with that region for about 200 years and US stepping in now is not going to change anything. So why start another Cold War? Whats with NATO expansion since its Cold War is over? Do you guys really think Russia will just sit and watch all this? They see the threat themselves and this is why West getting such opposition from Russia. I just dont see why everyone is so surprised, maybe, just maybe Russia shouldnt be provoked because its going to be just another millitary or geopolitical race for nothing
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 73 of 73 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.