About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 1:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is a map I found on Wikipedia, which cites the CIA as a source:




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Wednesday, August 20, 2008 - 10:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So?

Post 2

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 12:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I enjoyed Dr. Machan's article. His personal experiences, having visited and lived in the shadow of the bear give a poignancy, and emotional reality to the situation. I agree with everything he said in his article (with one possible exception that I'll get to).

He made these points:
  • Today's Russia is not the Soviet Union in important ways,
  • Russia is capable of change,
  • That Russia has a bad habit of being a bully and of expansionism
  • That emotions run high for Russia's neighbors (with good reason)
  • It is in our interest, and clearly the interest of Russia's neighbors and Europe to reason with Russia
  • The Russians may see an Expanded NATO as a threat even if it isn't
  • That Expanding NATO might not be a good move now
  • That Russia may also need to see some muscle to go with the reasoning

Doctor Machan concludes with this paragraph: "So it is going to be necessary, at least for a while, to not only be reasonable with the Russians but also back up reasonableness with sufficient muscle. Whether NATO is the answer or something else, I am not sure. All I am sure about is that the leadership of the Republic of Georgia has good reason to want to gain protection against Russia’s current government."
--------

Dr. Machan doesn't say explicitly if he thinks the US should be flexing it's muscle or exactly what that might be, or if we should stay in NATO - but I believe his article adds valuable information for considering the questions.

-------
I would support using the offices of the US to bring the parties to the table, to provide a forum for offering Russia good choices and for helping all of those in Europe and all of the neighbors of Russia to organize in some fashion that demonstrates muscle that can be exercised if Russia chooses old habits. If I were an Estonian I'd want to be in NATO. But I don't believe it is time for the US to use its muscle or to intervene militarily. While I believe that NATO is good for the Europeans and that it might be good for Russia's neighbors (maybe a matter of timing on this) that it is no longer in our interests.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Thursday, August 21, 2008 - 8:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"So?"

Well, that's a typical Objectivist comment. The reason I put that map up is to give people some idea of what we are dealing with. There are 28 languages shown on the map in an area that is smaller than Texas. Over the years, the Russians have done some very nasty things to quite a few of those different groups. At the same time, those groups also don't like each other very well.

South Ossetia is an especially interesting case because it's the only group that appears to be evenly divided on both sides of the mountains. North Ossetia is part of Russia. For whatever reason, the Ossetians seem to trust the Russians more than the Georgians.

Neither South Ossetia nor Georgia is innocent in this war. Both "leaders" are engaging in repression of their own dissident movements. South Ossetian troops have attacked ethnic Georgians in South Ossetia. Georgia attacks South Ossetia.

The animosities go back long before the breakup of the Soviet Union. The more I look at this whole mess, the more I see it like the mess known as the former Yugoslavia. You have people who seem to like to fight and kill. This mess has more languages and higher mountain ranges.

Back in the 1990's, when most Objectivists still believed in an America-First foreign policy, people like Leonard Peikoff criticized American intervention in the Yugoslavian mess. Now in this new "bizarro world," Objectivist champion the same kind of interventionism.

Russia has a long and sick history of human rights abuses that go way back before 1917. It especially troubles me that Russians seem to want to ignore that. You'll rarely see a German carrying a poster of Hitler in public, yet you can certainly see plenty of Russian idiots carrying ones of Stalin.

The countries that share a border with Russia are especially concerned. They don't trust the Russians, with good reason. This issue is not nearly as black and white as the issue would be if Russia tried to invade Finland, Poland, or Estonia.

Estonia is one of about ten countries left in the world that I think is worth defending. They respect civil liberties and have a 10% income tax. If we lost Estonia, it would definitely be a loss.

And, of course, the last time the Russians attacked Finland, the very immoral British actually sent troops to help the Russians. They also let the Russians keep the land they stole from Poland.

I don't think Russia has any moral right to get involved. But the USA also got involved when they gave aid and training to Saakashvili's goon squads. The best solution is to let the little guys fight it out among themselves. In the end, the USA will just have the animosity of all the people involved--Georgians, Ossetians, and whoever else gets killed.

Switzerland has three languages all under one flag. These people live together because Switzerland largely respects the rights of individuals. Taxes are low, and there is freedom of speech and religion.

Meanwhile, the democratic socialist republic of Belgium is a manufactured country populated by mostly Dutch and French speakers. Belgium has some of the highest taxes in Europe. They have political correctness baloney that doesn't even allow peaceful public rememberances of 9-11. It's about ready to crack, and it definitely should as it would show the total failure of democratic socialism.


Post 4

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Typical Objectivist comment." That is a great slam, congratulations. Of course, I am anything but a typical Objectivist--just ask around ARI or The Atlas Society.
The point is that just sticking a map up with no comment fails to help. Certainly it is not obviously relevant to my article.


Post 5

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 2:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's a subliminal message in the map, Tibor. It says: "This is not a black and white issue."

I am looking for a good guy in this mess. I have not found one. It's not much more than a silly family feud, which has been going for a long time actually. Bigger countries get involved, and that only guarantees more hostilities.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 5:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bring Russia to the table and offer them good choices? What the hell does that mean? Good choices like what, stop invading your neighbors? And how do you let them know we will flex our muscle if need be? By withdrawing from NATO? Yeah, that'll show 'em we mean business! Tell them we are no longer going to help defend any NATO countries from aggression but offer them good choices. That's just brilliant.


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 7:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Here is John's latest contribution to the debate: "Bring Russia to the table and offer them good choices? What the hell does that mean? Good choices like what, stop invading your neighbors? And how do you let them know we will flex our muscle if need be? By withdrawing from NATO? Yeah, that'll show 'em we mean business! Tell them we are no longer going to help defend any NATO countries from aggression but offer them good choices. That's just brilliant."

There isn't much of value to be pulled from that because it is mostly just a steaming pile of sarcastic attitude.

- But you can get that he is interested in the US flexing it's muscles as opposed to a combined Europe and Russian neighbors finding their muscles to be flexed.

- And you can get that he doesn't see Russia as a rational entity - that is, as a body that it makes any sense negotiating with.

- And reasoning from there you see that his position is that it must be up to us to use military might (muscle) to stop Russia.

- The only other thing that is there to be inferred, other than his emotional reaction to anything I write, is that he chose to lump together my position that we should leave NATO with the suggestion that US offer to help Europe, Russia, and it's neighbors find long-term solutions together as if they were part of the same package, same time, same deal. That is just arranging an argument differently than how I presented it for the sole purpose of making it look bad rather than to look at the ideas separately or provide any discussion of principles.

Post 8

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 8:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John - you a dog person or a cat person?

Post 9

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 9:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Steve continues to flap his gums yet not back up any of his tripe with concrete actions.

-What the hell does bringing Russia to the table and giving them good choices entail exactly?

-And what would it mean for the U.S. to flex its muscle? And how would withdrawing from NATO fit into this "flexing of US muscle if it needs to" plan of yours work? Do you think Russia would take the US seriously at all if it withdrew from NATO?

Steve I think you have the wrong profile picture. I think this would be more suitable.







(Edited by John Armaos on 8/22, 9:25pm)


Post 10

Friday, August 22, 2008 - 9:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This article has an interesting take on this. I'm pasting the two charts here:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JH19Ag04.html

Since the breakup of the USSR, we are still seeing people leave Russia in droves. This perhaps was best exemplified by the gold medal won by Nastia Liukin at the Olympics. Both her parents were Russian Olympians, and the Soviets used to dominate gymnastics at the Olympics.. Nastia was born in Moscow, and they came here after the USSR fell apart. I saw a video of their house on Youtube--it's quite nice. It's also in the very snobbish Collin County, Texas. The Liukins came here and started coaching professionally and have made a whole lot more money than they ever could have made in Russia.

Here's a Putin quote: "You know that our country's population is declining by an average of almost 700,000 people a year. We have raised this issue on many occasions but have for the most part done very little to address it ... First, we need to lower the death rate. Second, we need an effective migration policy. And third, we need to increase the birth rate."

The author points out that Russia has more abortions than births, "a devastating gauge of national despair." Of course, no country in Europe, as far as I know, is currently experience positive population growth. It's the slow suicide brought about by social democracy. He also writes: "Some demographers predict a Muslim majority in Russia by 2040, and by mid-century at the latest."

He seems to think that Russia will try to get some of its population back by convincing others to join them, like South Ossetia. About 15 million Russians live in places like the Ukraine and Belarus. The Russians who have moved outside the former USSR have little or no interest in going back there, even though Russia is making citizenship easy for them. (Other countries in Europe are also doing this.)

Ultimately, does one really believe that Russia can be powerful considering all this? Rand often believed that a collectivist country like Russia could never be powerful enough to beat a country like the USA, provided the USA sticks to its principles.


Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 24, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 7:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


Tibor Machan has asked Gia Jandieri, a free market economist, the vice-president of a think-tank New Economic School in Georgia, for this exclusive report, to be published where his columns appear.

Georgia versus Russia: A Georgian Voice
By Gia Jandieri

Unfortunately the Republic of Georgia has become a sticking point again. In 1989 the murder of 21 peaceful protesters in the streets of Tbilisi played a serious role for a political collapse of the Soviet Union. That time the Soviet government was weakened and restricted by the international press. After some resistance it surrendered and declined its positions so far that in two years it collapsed. Then everybody was so happy with the event that no one mentioned Russia’s new efforts to rebuild the empire--Russia successfully and brutally implemented progressive conflicts in the Caucasus and Moldova and increased aggression towards of all ex-soviet countries.

I personally participated in the movement for independence of Georgia (joined it at the late stage in 1980s) and clearly remember the little attention by the West to disastrous events unfolding in Georgia at that time. The deal was that the Soviets and their western counterparts admitted Baltic republics and the whole Eastern Europe to leave the soviet bloc but the destiny of other republics of SU was to stay under the influence or even as a part of the empire.

We Georgians made a huge effort to convince everybody that this deal was not right and fair. I must admit that most of the other nations in the Soviet Union bloc then were less interested in independence than were the Georgians but received it as granted by Russia. Georgia made a great job to prove it deserved freedom. This fact was unsettling and uncomfortable for many Russians. The nations aspiring to and demanding freedom from the Soviet Union were understood by many Russians as enemies of the Russian people. To punish these nations Russian KGB and military forces organized several provocations and masterminded the conflicts, as well as directed them. Conflicts in Georgian regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were very good examples of the new ways Russia was using so as to pursue its interests. They openly supported the separatist movements in the regions, equipped and trained them enough to resist Georgia for a while and finally used Russian military forces for implementing "peacekeeping".

There is no doubt that Georgian authorities made many mistakes back then and we, [the] population of Georgia, suffered from these mistakes ourselves in a drastic way. Unfortunately our mistakes and very strong propaganda from the Russian authorities made us hardly trustworthy in the eyes of Abkhaz and Ossetians. Later in time these frozen conflicts in Georgia were certainly not in line of free market reforms Georgia was implementing. Georgia is open to anybody to come and live and work without restrictions and the freedoms of any person, with any ethnic origin or nationality, is equally protected as that of ethnic Georgians.

The core of the problem regrettably lay not only in the propaganda and skillful provocation activities of Russia, and not in the past mistakes of Georgian side, but it was in the passive role of the West itself:

-        who ignored all clear signals of revival of the Russian authoritarianism and tyranny. I personally attended several meetings where Russian liberals (libertarians) were trying to warn everybody about the increasing powers of the Russian authorities and a[bout the] new threat developing as a consequence. Unfortunately nobody took this into account seriously except Georgians.

-        who was ready to doze in the smell of oil and gas;

-        who tried to close eyes on hundreds of provocations, shootings, bombings of Georgian territory, economic blockade, cutting of energy supply and many more aggressive actions from the side of Russian authorities.

-        who ignored the fact that it was Georgian nation demanding NATO membership not its government and this was due to feeling very unsafe and vulnerable.

NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 requested from Georgians to resolve these frozen conflicts and in exchange promised open doors for it to join the alliance. Regrettably this was understood by Russian authorities in the opposite way--blow up conflicts or Georgia will join the NATO they decided. The competition was open and as a consequence we now face a much bigger problem.

Some defend Ossetians and Abkhazians in their separatist movement. I am sure Russians can easily bribe them with their oil money as they used to for them to forget about Beslan where they killed 300 children at school or in Chechnia, where they killed tens of thousands of children deliberately targeting schools and kindergartens. Irony is that Russians will come (they are already there--all the authorities of the region before the war were KGB people) and end up totally with their imagined paradise.

Abkhaz can forget about us and the centuries we lived together without violence and in friendship (before Russia) if they wish to, but their problem of self-identification will remain. Unfortunately in the hands of Russians they have almost lost their traditions and culture, speaking mostly in Russian and educated in Russian. This "paradise" can be extended by implementing a political system of apartheid; without this Abkhaz, who remain in minority even after ethnic cleansing of Georgians, will not be able to control the situation. They of course don't consider allowing Georgians to return and participate in referendums and elections, but the reality is that, with refugees back or not, they know they would lose all referendums and elections to separate from Georgia. So what they have been doing instead? Selling houses of Georgian refugees to Russians is one of the solutions.

The sad thing is that South Ossetians and Abkkhaz are very mistaken if they think that Russia cares about them; what it care about is to have Georgia and effectively the whole Caucasus under their control; they care about Caspian oil and gas and how to control its flow to Europe. Who cares about people and innocent children? Definitely Russia isn’t bothered about individuals--Death solves all problems--no man, no problem.

The same way we tell Ossetians and Abkhaz, we can tell the world--don't believe in Russian propaganda, they will not be satisfied with just Georgia, they will go much further. This is the time--we will either stop them now or never!

And lastly--we are not trying to disturb the world as some regrettably see Georgian actions but we are trying to survive the catastrophe and warn others about it too. To think that Georgians need any conflict with Russia is simply madness.

 



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 10:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

 

Abkhazia v. Georgia


Post 13

Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 11:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks for the link, Stephen. Thank you for the advanced article, Tibor.

I've seen some good arguments for the Georgian case. Ultimately, the Russians do not have the high ground here. They lost it big time when they crossed over from South Ossetia into Georgia.

Is there anything out there about the history of this region before 1900? It's been quite sparse. I still think the comparison of this region to Yugoslavia is valid, but at least it wasn't that hard to find stuff on Yugoslavia.

How many Americans are fluent in Georgian, Ossetian, or Abkhaz?

I found a little information on a conflict between Georgia and Ossetia in 1918-20. I also found some stuff on a conflict between Ossetians and Ingush after the breakup of the USSR.

Interestingly enough, it was the Caucasian War of the 1800's that inspired Tolstoy to write War and Peace.

I doubt the Russians care about the Ossetians anymore than Hitler cared the Slovaks when he helped them gain independence temporarily.

I would like to see some evidence that Georgia is committed to the principles of free minds and free markets. But as long as Saakashvili uses riot police against peaceful demonstrators, I will not see him as a good guy.



Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 12:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would like to see some evidence that Georgia is committed to the principles of free minds and free markets. But as long as Saakashvili uses riot police against peaceful demonstrators, I will not see him as a good guy.


If you want evidence that he's committed to free minds and free markets, the question first to you is what proof do you expect would satisfy as evidence? And would you compare him to Western democratic leaders commitment to the same principles? What do you want to compare it to? To whom and to what? If you're looking for an Objectivist utopia, you won't find it there, or anywhere. But..

Since Saakashvilli's Rose revolution state owned companies were sold off to private entities.

It was ranked by the world bank 18th for most pro-business environment ahead of democratic nations such as the U.K., and that was coming from a previous rank of 112, on par with nations like Nigeria.

Government orruption was significantly cut back.

http://www.doingbusiness.org/ExploreEconomies/?economyid=74




Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Saturday, August 23, 2008 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"I would like to see some evidence that Georgia is committed to the principles of free minds and free markets." Well, Georgia is a country in which happen to live about 4 million people with various convictions, beliefs, etc.  Among those some are definitely committed to free minds and free markets, probably a higher percentage than in Russia or even in Norway!  Gia is one of them and his organization holds seminars and conferences on free minds and free markets and cooperates with the Cato Institute and various independent scholars in such endeavors. (I lectured for an entire week to about 35 Georgians and a few others.  Then I went to do same in Armenia and Azerbaijan.)


Post 16

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Since Saakashvilli's Rose revolution state owned companies were sold off to private entities.
That's certainly a step in the right direction, John. It's also important to ask how they were privatized. The right kind of privitization takes place in the open with a chance for everyone to bid on the property and with the highest bidder winning. The wrong kind of privitization is when the politicians sell stuff for peanuts to their politically-connected friends. I believe this is the kind of privitization that has taken place in Russia.

I had not heard of your source, John. Thank you for providing it.

The Fraser Institute publishes "economic freedom of the world." Georgia is tied for 44th place in their index out of 141 countries ranked. Unfortunately, their latest is from 2005. Zimbabwe is last on their list. Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand and Switzerland are the top four.

The ratings from Reporters Without Borders seem to be a good rating of press freedom. Georgia is rated 66th out of 169. Their ratings have been improving since 2004. The latest rating is 2007. However, their rating in 2003 is still better than their rating of 2007.

Tibor, I'm always happy to hear from someone who has actually been to these places. I also agree that the mere existence of free-market organizations is a positive thing. But as the USA sadly proves, the existence of free-market organizations definitely does not indicate that a country believes in them.

Perhaps, Tibor, you could write something encompassing all of your experiences in this very volatile region. It's a region most Americans know very little about. And there isn't much information out there to find.


Post 17

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 10:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Reports from around the world concerning developments toward greater economic and other freedoms are aplenty these days. The Cato Institute features such on its website--http://www.cato.org/foreign/index.html.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Sunday, August 24, 2008 - 5:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
From CATO institute:

Radical Economic Reform in Georgia



The nations of the former Soviet Union include some of the world’s most interesting free-market reformers. Estonia is famous for its laissez-faire approach, but Georgia deserves attention as well - and not just because I went to the University of Georgia (a different Georgia, I’ll admit, but let’s not get bogged down in details). A few years ago, it implemented a 12 percent flat tax. But it still had a problem of a very high 20 percent payroll tax rate, so Alvin Rabushka reports that Georgia has lowered the combined 32 percent flat tax/payroll tax rate to 25 percent this year. But why stop there? According to the Wall Street Journal, Georgia now plans to lower the 25 percent tax rate to 15 percent over the next five years and also abolish the capital gains tax:

Newly re-elected Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili wants to slash taxes, speed privatization, ease foreign-investment rules and tap international capital markets as part of a radical plan to shake up the economy of the Black Sea country, his prime minister said in an interview. “The state will basically do everything to support business and investments instead of standing in the way of it,” said Prime Minister Lado Gurgenidze… The government last week signed off on a proposal that would cut average income taxes to 15% from 25% over the next five years. Capital-gains taxes, currently at 20%, would be abolished altogether.



Chris I don't know the minutia of how Georgia privatized it's previously state-run industries (note this was in direct contrast to Russia that did the opposite, nationalizing what were previously private industries) but since Georgia's corruption rating has also dropped significantly, I'd like to know again what is your basis for evaluation? It also has a flat-tax instead of a progressive tax, and had plans to abolish the capital gains tax altogether. Can we say the same about America? You can certainly find a detail here and there that is contrary to free market and free mind principles (if you'd like to research how it privatized these state-run companies I'd like see what you come up with) but if you look at these details in a vacuum irrespective of everything else Georgia has done and how it compares to the rest of the world, then I think you ought to re-evaluate your epistemology on these things.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Monday, August 25, 2008 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris uses a very simple system - if it supports his anti-US or conspiracy theories, it is a good source.  Otherwise he doubts its authenticity.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.