Slashdot Mirror


Russian Invasion of Georgia Might Jeopardize Space Station

mknewman writes "Sen. Bill Nelson, one of NASA's biggest proponents on the Hill, is openly questioning how Russia's military intervention in Georgia will affect our access to the space station after the Shuttle is retired in 2010. Currently, NASA is able to use Soyuz vehicles for crew access and lifeboat operations thanks to an exemption from the Iran Non-Proliferation Act. The exemption expires in 2011, only one year after the Shuttle is due to head to the museums."

92 of 515 comments (clear)

  1. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The summary makes absolutely no sense.

    Can anyone shed light on what is going on?

    1. Re:What? by mcvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can anyone shed light on what is going on?

      In particular, I'd like to know what non-proliferation in/of/for/by Iran has to do with Soyuz or Georgia.

    2. Re:What? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ok, here goes. Most of the international community thinks that Russia is either over reacting or taking advantage of Goergia's internal conflict with a Goergian province that declared independence. This may lead to repercussions, possibly including not renewing the exemption to the non-proliferation treaty. If the internation community chooses not to renew that exemption, based on what the summary says it sounds like Russia will not be able to launch Soyuz vehicles after the exemption expires.

      Keep in mind that this is based on the summary and a quick look at what Wikipedia has to say about the conflict and it's repercussions. Therefore, I might be completely wrong so this should be taken with a big grain of salt.

    3. Re:What? by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm not sure that even not renewing the exemption (i admit I have no idea the details of it) will do that much. A lot of countries have broken treaties without blinking an eyelid. I can't see much being done against Russia, except issuing diplomatic statements. The UN will be paralysed by Russia's veto, and I can't see China being in a rush to side against Russia (or side for it). Russia and China (perhaps with Brazil and India - the BRIC countries) could just go it alone - they have a lot of the world's population in them.

      I think the Georgians (or at least the president) were completely foolish to try and invade when Putin was at the Olympics and think that he wouldn't do anything. Compounding it is the fact that they seemed to be carrying out (from what I gather from the BBC) seems like ethnic cleansing by firing on the civilian population, and then killing Russian troops in the process. They burnt their bridges to some of their possible allies, who were also allies who being militarily over-extended aren't really in a position to help.

      What I think will happen is that giving it a few weeks people will forget about this. The whole situation will be framed as Ossetians (sp?) are just like Kosovo - they have a right to be independent, and with Russian influence in the region they will eventually become re-united with Russia. The issue of the ISS is just a distraction - everything will stay the same.

    4. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Clinton signed the Iran Non Proliferation Act penalizing any country doing weapons-related business with Iran. Russia has been selling missiles and nuclear fuel which meant we couldn't do business with them. Hence the exception.

      The exception was a tough sell the first time and NASA concerned it's dead in the water when time comes to renew it.

    5. Re:What? by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 4, Funny

      The summary makes absolutely no sense.

      Can anyone shed light on what is going on?

      Well, you see, it's like this: Chewbacca is a Wookie from the planet Kashyyyk...

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    6. Re:What? by camperdave · · Score: 4, Informative

      In particular, I'd like to know what non-proliferation in/of/for/by Iran has to do with Soyuz or Georgia.

      Basically, the US pays Russia a retainer for having the Soyuz craft docked at the ISS. The Iran non-proliferation act more or less forbids the US from dealing with any country that trades in arms and weaponry with Iran. Russia has a history of dealing in arms with Iran, so there are provisions and exceptions. I'm guessing these are in jeopardy with the recent conflict in Georgia.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    7. Re:What? by mea37 · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's about a U.S. law (the Iran Nonproliferation Act), not an international non-proliferation treaty.

      Congress has expressly forbidden the U.S. from making ISS-related payments to Russia unless it determines that Russia is taking steps to curb proliferation of weapons technoogy to Iran. On something of a "we have to or we're screwed" basis, they enacted a temporary exemption so we could pay Russia to carry our crewmembers to the ISS.

      So when the exemption expires, Russia's authority to launch Soyuz vehicles will not fall under question. US authority to purchase passage on those vehicles will be gone, though.

      So:

      1) If current events create enough antipathy towards Russia in the US Congress, then they may be unwilling to extend the exemption. Essentially they'd be re-enacting an economic sanction even though we don't have an alternate vendor for the service in question.

      2) Even if Congress extends the exemption, there's some question about Russia's ongoing willingness to sell us passage on their rockets (at a reasonable price, or maybe at all) if diplomatic relations worsen.

    8. Re:What? by Master+Of+Ninja · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But does logic really matter in international politics? Serbia invaded Kosovo, which was part of Serbia, and got a kick in the teeth for their efforts. Kosovo is the precedent and a very dangerous one now. As they say rights are only guaranteed by power, and in this case might is right.

      From the rough discussions I've seen is that Georgia has been historically very territorially aggressive, only limited by the fact that the Russians directly sit next to them. The region of Ossetia at least is from a different ethnic group (not sure about Abkhazia) and by the standard of Kosovo have the right to self determination. The most cynical view that I've seen is that Georgia wanted to make sure that any referendum on the future of Ossetia goes their way by essentially wiping out anyone who would vote to join Russia.

      The current invasion of Georgia is due to their initial act of aggression, gambling wrongly, and losing it all. They're in for many years of re-building at the moment.

    9. Re:What? by shallot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What I think will happen is that giving it a few weeks people will forget about this. The whole situation will be framed as Ossetians (sp?) are just like Kosovo - they have a right to be independent, and with Russian influence in the region they will eventually become re-united with Russia.

      I wouldn't use the word independence in this context. If the Ossetians want actual independence, they want it for both the southern and the northern part of their homeland, and the northern part is part of the Russian Federation. Moscow is very much unlikely to allow any such change, because this is Caucasus we're dealing here - they can't allow any sort of major independence drives in there because it would lead to a major mess. There are so many ethnic groups which could claim precedent, it's just not an option. Even if there was no geostrategic value in the region (which there is now because of the oft-mentioned oil and gas pipelines), it would still be delicate.

    10. Re:What? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most of the international community thinks that Russia is either over reacting or taking advantage of Goergia's internal conflict with a Goergian province that declared independence.

      A better way to put it: people think that Russia is supporting Georgian separatists (from two regions, not one) as a means of interfering in Georgian internal affairs, with an eye to resuming their historical domination of Georgia, one that lasted from 1812 to the break up of the Soveit Union in 1990 (with minor interruptions). In the past, this has been limited to giving the separatists military backing and granting residents of breakaway regions Russian Federation passports. Now this has escalated into an actual war (provoked by Georgian actions that can be characterized as an unprovoked attack on Russian-protect regions or as a legitimate attempt to secure Georgian borders, depending on who you talk to), complete with a full scale military incursion, in which the Georgian forces are totally outclassed by the Russian invaders. There are also accusations that Russian-backed separatist militias are attempting to force ethnic Georgians out of the breakaway regions. There have also been reports of massacres.

      Last, but certainly not least, Russia is demanding that Georgia pick a new President. Since the current guy is democratically elected (and a strong advocate of closer ties to the west), this amounts to a demand that Georgia become a client state.

      The effect on the ISS is miniscule compared with the other ramifications. NATO has agreed to allow Georgia to join, once they've met "technical requirements". If this had already happened, the U.S. would have a treaty obligation to help defend Georgia against the Russian invasion. We're talking world war here, not unlike the way a dispute between Serbia and Austria escalated into the first world war. It seems likely that one of the purposes of the Russian invasion is to make the U.S. think twice about its policy of expanding NATO eastward.

      Barring a world war, there's not a lot anybody can do about this. The party line in Russia is that the west is determined to keep down all the Slavic countries. (In this narrative, the NATO attack against Serbia was about that, not about preventing genocide in Kosovo.) Putin's defiance of the west only makes him more popular, all the more so if we impose sanctions.

      But of course the sanctions will happen: western leaders have to take action, no matter how symbolic, or look ineffectual. (Yes, they are ineffectual, but they can't afford to look it.) That pretty much brings to an end any Russian-western cooperation in space exploration.

    11. Re:What? by martin-boundary · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do you invade your own territory?

      Be careful how you state this. If Georgia has truly invaded its own territory, then it follows that Saakashvili bombed his own people. Saddam was hanged for this.

  2. NO wonder nerds have a bad rep by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe that a slight pertubation to the timeline of the hopeless ISS is what really troubles nerds when two countries are at war. Seriously..!

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:NO wonder nerds have a bad rep by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe that a slight pertubation to the timeline of the hopeless ISS is what really troubles nerds when two countries are at war. Seriously..!

      Or, you could look at it this way. Overall human progress is being delayed because two countries are involved in a pissing and "my-dick-is-bigger-than-yours" contest. Or, similar to what Ernest Rutherford said, we've got more important things to worry about than another stupid war.

      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    2. Re:NO wonder nerds have a bad rep by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's right! No web site, anywhere, should ever talk about anything besides people dying, because people are always dying and it's always the most important thing happening.

      Sheesh. You realize humans are capable of paying attention to more than one thing at a time?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    3. Re:NO wonder nerds have a bad rep by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Is that sarcasm? Things like nuclear power and landing on the moon came out of a "my dick is bigger than yours" contest between countries.

  3. When push comes to shove by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am sure we will invent a new piece of legislation so we don't have to acknowledge our pesky integrity or morals.

    After all, its just some little piss ant country, aren't the G8s allowed to run over one a year?

    Whats next? Having doubts about going to the Olympics based on China's treatment of Tibet and other ethnic/religious minorities? Oops, looks like we forgot that one too, there G8 as well. I know, New G.... oops, can't go there... uh...

    Oh yeah... Russia will have a hissy because we bitched, people will claim that talking would have worked or did work (ignoring the fact Russia got what they wanted and killed lots of people - but talking sure brought them back to life), and threaten to not allow us to fly but will cave in when we pay more.

    Yeah, US foreign policy has been pretty much spineless when dealing with Russia since Reagans day... somehow since then we aren't allowed to piss them off. Peace sucks for the little guys as it means the big boys get to trample the little guys without worry about another big guy actually doing something about it.

    I know, lets get the UN involved, they can write a strongly worded letter, well as long as none of the words offend the Russians and the Russians approve it of course.

    Sheesh.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:When push comes to shove by couchslug · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Yeah, US foreign policy has been pretty much spineless when dealing with Russia since Reagans day... somehow since then we aren't allowed to piss them off."

      We didn't risk much for the trivial players back then either. Some game pieces are expendable, while others have more value.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    2. Re:When push comes to shove by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Having doubts about going to the Olympics based on China's treatment of Tibet and other ethnic/religious minorities? Oops, looks like we forgot that one too, there G8 as well.

      No, China's not part of the G8. They're part of the O5 ("Outreach 5"), a group of less developed nations recognized by the G8.

      --
      "I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
    3. Re:When push comes to shove by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, US foreign policy has been pretty much spineless when dealing with Russia since Reagans day...

      I know it's fashionable to rail against the US, but in truth the European countries have shared this shortcoming due to their addiction to Russian oil.

      Economic realities drive foreign policy for most countries in the world. We only manage to stand up in righteous indignation when we've got nothing really to lose. It's why we (eventually) were willing to isolate Apartheid South Africa, but never took any measures of consequence against China for {choose any one of many offenses}.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    4. Re:When push comes to shove by ShibaInu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And, what are we going to do? The US military is tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan, and even if they weren't, getting to Georgia isn't going to be easy. The Euros don't have the balls to do anything meaningful to their largest energy supplier. So, what do you suggest? WWIII?

      This is a larger part of a regional conflict that includes Chechnia. There are layers of ethnic hatred in the region that go back a long way and I find it hard to believe anyone's side of the story. This is a tragedy, but at this point the best thing to do is just to get the shooting to stop.

    5. Re:When push comes to shove by kesuki · · Score: 4, Informative

      just so long as you realize these 'freedom fighters' of south osetia had won a majority election, which was then overturned by the Georgia government by holding a special election where the polls were guarded by armed guards to 'elect' a pro-Georgia government.

      just so you realize only 28% of the population of south osetia is actually Georgians and that the entire reason for this war is that Georgia wants the tax revenue on all the freight lines that run from Russia to Georgia through south osetia.

      yeah,yeah russia made the population of south osetia russian citizens so they could invade goergia, and possibly grab a significant portion of their oil fields, but it's not like georgia are good guys either.

    6. Re:When push comes to shove by Bemopolis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, US foreign policy has been pretty much spineless when dealing with Russia since Reagans day...

      Yeah, I'm sure glad we had the foresight to arm and fund the muhajadin in Afghanistan. I mean, that went great and NEVER AFFECTED US EVER AGAIN...

      --
      "I guess the moral of the story is, don't paint your airship with rocket fuel." -- Addison Bain
    7. Re:When push comes to shove by X.25 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why don't you ask somebody from Poland, the Baltic States, Finland or Ukraine what they think of recent Russian actions?

      Why don't you ask someone from Balkans what they think about US actions in regards of bombing sovereign nation, taking part of their country and allowing it to declare independence?

    8. Re:When push comes to shove by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the Finns, Estonians, and Poles were engaged in ethic cleansing and genocide when Stalin decided to try and conquer them?

      I don't pretend to have all the answers for the Balkans but I think trying to compare Bosnia and Kosovo with Finland and the Baltic States is a bit of a stretch. Do you even remember what the Serbs were up to back in those days? The images of people in camps starving to death?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    9. Re:When push comes to shove by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Kosovo was essentially created by Marshall Tito, as an autonomous region. The borders were drawn to limit Serbian power and domination of Yugoslavia, but it was still majority Albanian. It had never been a part of Serbia properly. Kosovo autonomy was revoked by Milosevic (giving him one extra vote in the Yugoslavian presidency). At which point Albanian was removed as an official language, Serb was taught in the schools, etc. There was a period of resistance, terrorism, crime, etc, after this.

      The UN had resolutions regarding Kosovo, there were the Dayton agreements, Kosovo Verification Mission, etc. There was a long time-line here. Both sides were at fault. Things reached a climax after the massacre at Rachak, and NATO decided it had to step in and force a peace; force Serbia and Milosovic to stop acting like thugs, and threaten the KLA to behave or they'd be abandoned, and restore the pre 1990 autonomous status of Kosovo. Further peace talks were attempted. All before any bombing. The bombing was by NATO, an alliance, not a US unilateral action. The US is not the boss of NATO, and NATO was acting in the interests of Europe in this case.

      The difference here from Georgia and South Ossetia is the time line and number of parties involved. Russia acted immediately after the attacks on Tskhinvali, with no negotiations, no UN consultations, no diplomacy, no formal protests, no attempted peace process, etc. Russia responded in less than one day. Russia acted unilaterally.

      There are very interesting similarities though: Kosovo was never really a part of Serbia, and South Ossetia was never really Georgian, except by the drawing of borders for political reasons. Both Kosovo and South Ossetia had armed separatist/resistance movements. Both Serbia and Georgia attempted harsh crackdowns. Both Serbia and Georgia badly underestimated the backlash that they would get from NATO or Russia.

    10. Re:When push comes to shove by shallot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why don't you ask someone from Balkans what they think about US actions in regards of bombing sovereign nation, taking part of their country and allowing it to declare independence?

      Your quick retort is off base there, because it implies that only Serbians who are against those things live in the Balkans. Other people from the region generally saw those acts either as salvation or as interventions necessary to get things fixed.

      Indeed, many a Croatian, Bosniak or Albanian will tell you that the US and others should have intervened in the Yugoslav wars much before and with much more force, than they did.

      Foreign intervention by great powers(tm) is a historical fact of life, anyway, and they are hardly ever universally right or universally wrong.

  4. moral decline by polar+red · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These problems occur, when a country prouding itself to be the greatest, democratic nation on earth, breaks its own rules(like : not intruding on other nations Sovereignty), which lead to other nations breaking those same rules, ... This empire is on its way out i fear, and the results won't be pretty.

    --
    Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    1. Re:moral decline by couchslug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "which lead to other nations breaking those same rules, .."

      Our Cold War opponents broke them at will in the recent past anyway, because it served them well and they could.

      "Rules" are window dressing to amuse the earnest and naive people who believe in them. Power is what matters, because to the extent one has power one can make up and enforce rules.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  5. priorities man! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Shit, if germany decided to kill the jews again, CmdrTaco would be wondering how this affects his BMW's warranty.

    1. Re:priorities man! by eln · · Score: 5, Funny

      To be fair he did get the extended warranty protection, and that shit ain't cheap.

    2. Re:priorities man! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, if you're more passive you get to use them. You get mod points more if you read stories but don't post in them (giving them to people who post in every story they read doesn't make sense, since they will never be able to use them). I usually post in stories, and rarely get mod points. When I'm busy and only have time to read a few comments in a story and not to post, I get them all the time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. US manned spaceflight ends in 2010 by Animats · · Score: 2, Insightful

    US manned spaceflight will end in 2010, when the Shuttle is retired. There won't be any follow-on for at least a decade. The US can't afford it any more.

    NASA might be able to sell their interest in the ISS to China or Russia.

    1. Re:US manned spaceflight ends in 2010 by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The US can't afford it any more.

      What bullshit! The US doesn't want to pay it any more. It can certainly afford it. Bringing NASA up to Apollo levels of funding would be a virtually unnoticeable drop in the current federal budget.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    2. Re:US manned spaceflight ends in 2010 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is bogus, I work in astrophysics, and rocket design. There wont be available human travel because nothing we have currently is man-rated. Not due to the us money issues. Ares, although total crap will be ready to take the human flight crown in 2014, and if the us would take even 1% of the current DoD budget and place it toward the development of ares, it would be ready within a year.

  7. Russia has ultimate weapon. by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...somehow since then we aren't allowed to piss them off.

    Russia has the greatest weapon of our time: oil. They have more than the Saudis. Nobody is going to piss them off and disrupt their supply.

    1. Re:Russia has ultimate weapon. by Erwos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is exactly it, and it's even more true for Europe. Europe is extremely dependent on Russia for their energy needs. That's why the reaction has been relatively quiet compared to the usual shrill screams that they have when a large country runs roughshod over a smaller one (even one that might have deserved it). It's the same reason they kowtow to the Arab states, and it's the same reason they can't seem to find it in themselves to do anything serious about Iran (notice the comma - I know Iran isn't an Arab state).

      You can call it pragmatic or whatever, but I laugh a little every time I hear some smug European government official tell us how he or she is "principled" when it comes to foreign relations. The principle they're practicing ain't the same one they're preaching. The principle is, of course, "advance my country by any means possible". (Which is how it's always been, really.) The Russians and Chinese, however much I dislike their governments, at least tend to be up front about it.

      --
      Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
    2. Re:Russia has ultimate weapon. by mcvos · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ...somehow since then we aren't allowed to piss them off.

      Russia has the greatest weapon of our time: oil. They have more than the Saudis. Nobody is going to piss them off and disrupt their supply.

      Oil is what the Russia/Georgia conflict is actually about! There's lots of oil and gas in the Caspian Sea and central Asia. There are a couple of ways to get it, but two of the most important ones are:

      1: through Kazakhstan and Russia
      2: through Azerbaidjan, Georgia and Turkey

      There's your conflict, including the reason why the US and EU want Russia out of Georgia.

    3. Re:Russia has ultimate weapon. by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oil is a big part of it, but it's hardly the only element. The real cause of it is that a reascendant Russian Empire is telling all the fledgling statelets that broke off during a decade of political and economic chaos after the collapse of the Communist Dynasty are being reigned back in. This is a pattern of behavior for Russia that is centuries old now. It has long viewed every region with Slavic populations as being either an integral part of Mother Russia or a client state. This was the case under the Muscovite Princes, under the Russian Czars and under the Communists (and in particularly under Stalin and the later Soviet leaders).

      Oil certainly is a motivator, but I'm not even sure it's the main one. We're dealing with cultural and political forces and ideals that survived the Tatars, basically foreign rule under German noblemen (and in Catherine the Great's case, noblewoman), the upheavals of the late 19th century, the revolution and the civil war, the Bolshevik takeover, the harsh reign of Stalin and the inept rule of his successors, and even the near collapse of central authority after the fall of the Soviet Empire. It is has been a basic tenet of Russian foreign policy for centuries that wherever you find Slavs, they ultimately should owe their allegiance to the Muscovite Princes (whatever form that might take at any particular moment in time). Unfortunately, in a world of petroleum-dominated economics, we tend to think of things in terms of dollars and cents, and yet one should never underestimate the power of nationalism. Oil is simply the current coin by which Russia can exert its muscle, but the situation is no different than it was twenty years ago or two hundred years ago.

      Russia may be forced to release its hold on some of the Western Slavic peoples like the Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Ukrainians (the first three have long been more Western European in culture and religion, the latter is of greater pain to the Russian identity, many seeing the Ukraine as an organic part of Russia), but you can be goddamned sure that everywhere else where there is some sort of ethnic Russian minority or some pro-Russian Slavic population we're not likely going to be able to have as much luck.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Russia has ultimate weapon. by jabithew · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, I'm really disgusted with the EU, they've been spineless on Russia. The fact that a lot of our energy market is state owned (though not here in the UK) means the Russians can use a divide and rule strategy to isolate protesting countries (see the routine bad treatment of the ex-Soviet states). They know they can sell the gas to another state instead.

      If the companies were private, they wouldn't have that leverage as they would have to stop all gas exports to Europe, as opposed to being able to do it nation-by-nation. This would hurt Europe a lot, but it would hurt Russia a lot too. At the moment Russia could stop selling gas to Germany at the drop of a hat and not have any effects elsewhere in Europe.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    5. Re:Russia has ultimate weapon. by steelfood · · Score: 5, Funny

      Since the fall of the U.S.S.R, Russia's been working hard at westernizing. They're just completing the transition by invading another smaller country for oil under the pretext of national security.

      Tongue-in-cheek of course.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:Russia has ultimate weapon. by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course use of force is wrong... that is it's wrong when it's by someone we don't currently like against someone we do currently like.

      You and a lot of other people seem to have been living in a rather strange fantasy land. The world doesn't function the way any current group of peace protesters, free market advocates, neo-Conservative geopolitical reactionaries or cynical political hacks want it to be. Here's the low down. Russia has been an empire for centuries. At various periods it has lost control of its hinterlands (which have been ever-expanding ever since the Tatars were overthrown), but it has always regained that control as a new regime (at one point the Muscovite Princes, later the Czars, later still the Soviets and now the Putin-dominated republic) consolidates power. This has only been exacerbated by the West's ill-thought out strategy of enlarging the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe and further right into the Caucusus.

      I suppose this is in part because a whole bunch of very foolish people thought Russia was permanently relegated to bankrupt second-rate power. But the formula we have been seeing since Putin took power is extremely familiar to those who have even a cursory knowledge of Russian history. That all these folks, some of them in such supposedly well-informed places as the State Department and Britain's Foreign Office only goes to show you that somehow over the last seventeen years those with meaningful knowledge of Russia have either been pensioned off or are busy giving lectures at universities.

      I'm not saying that Russia is right. Of course its not. Under not just the Soviets, but even under the Czars, peoples like the Georgians (like the Estonians, Ukrainians and so forth) have suffered. In a perfect world things would be much different. But we don't live in a perfect world, we live in this world, a world where wealth, power, nationalism and if nothing else, the sheer force of history itself pushes events along on an inertia which we often can only watch in impotence and disbelief.

      The long and short of is this. Russia is not going tolerate NATO moving right into its geographical kidneys. It may permit the illusion of independence for the former Soviet republics, providing they recognize where the real authority lies. It's possible that the Western Slavic and Baltic countries may indeed be able to escape the resurgent Empire (though I wouldn't lay money either way yet), but for countries like Georgia, forget about it.

      The Balkans War and everything that followed was a direct result of the Soviet collapse. NATO was able to yank Kosovo out of splintered Yugoslavia only because Russia was still in serious turmoil. I'm not defending the Serbians. They, collectively, can be an insanely vicious, hateful and ultimately self-destructive people (and don't think the Russians don't think so either). Their atrocities against the ethnic Albanians earned them the loss of Kosovo and the permanent obliteration of the uber-nationalistic Greater Serbia claptrap. But the window of opportunity for such events has now closed, and the job of the foreign offices/ministries/departments of every nation and extranational agency in the world better understand that very quickly. Foreign policy should be based on reality, not on pipe dreams.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. need space taliban? by wardk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    if only there was a terror threat from space. NASA would be up to their eyeballs in no-need-to-account-for cash.

  9. Shit, I forgot... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 3, Informative
  10. might have to keep flying shuttles a little longer by jollyreaper · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I still have my doubts as to whether the shuttle replacement will pan out.

    --
    Kwisatz Haderach
    Sell the spice to CHOAM
    This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
  11. I doubt this will really matter by Bullfish · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I doubt this will really matter in the end. Especially long term. The Russians will likely leave by the end of the week as soon as the Georgian military is dismantled. In the end, Georgia started this, and really, what effect did the crushing of the Prague spring, the Hungarian uprising of 56 etc really have on relations between the west and Russia?

    And as others have pointed out, the Georgians started it with an area of effect attack on a city populated by ethnic Russians. If there is trouble with the ISS, it will be for other reasons.

    1. Re:I doubt this will really matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      While Georgia attacked an area populated by ethnic Russians, it wasn't an attack on the ethnic Russians. It was an attack to keep that population from declaring independence from the rest of the state.

      It's like if the areas predominately populated by mexicans tried to become their own state. You're sure as hell that the U.S. would attack them, but we are not attacking the mexicans due to their ethnicity.

    2. Re:I doubt this will really matter by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Informative

      and really, what effect did the crushing of the Prague spring, the Hungarian uprising of 56 etc really have on relations between the west and Russia?

      It seriously dried up the amount of people in the west sympathetic towards communism and marxism in general. It deprived the Soviet Union of most of their left wing political support, as well as their supply of spies.

      How many Rusophiles will change their opinions after this particular incident?

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  12. Squeal like a pig! by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Informative
    'NASA's plans to launch new manned missions to the International Space Station three years after the space shuttle retires in 2010 aren't panning out.'

    'Officials at the space agency said Monday that they will still hold to their word that the Constellation program--a mission of the newly developed Ares 1 rocket and Orion crew capsule to the ISS--will happen by March 2015, five years after the space shuttle program shuts down. But a previous goal of an early launch in 2013 has now been moved to 2014 because of budget constraints. NASA officials are also leaving wiggle room there.'

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-10015009-76.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

    Hard to believe those culturally insensitive crackers managed to go from zero to the Moon in eight years using 1960s technology...

    1. Re:Squeal like a pig! by justdrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      is it any wonder? We should have been working on the next gen replacement for the shuttle since 1990 at least. We've fucked up and now it's all going tits up.

  13. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by jgtg32a · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Just like every other war?

    All that's needed is some almost plausible BS to go in.

  14. Re:Russian Retaliation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    And the Russians just HAPPENED to have their Black Sea fleet ready to sail, and 40K men at the border - just as Georgia attacked....

  15. There is a big problem actually by thermian · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Due to the desire of the US to use the space shuttle to service the ISS, it was placed in a much lower orbit then would otherwise have been the case. Certainly it was much lower then most interested parties wanted.

    As a result of this it is constantly being slowed by friction caused by contact with the outer atmosphere. We are talking very slight friction, but at the speed of the ISS that slight friction is enough to bring it into a lower orbit over time.

    One of the main worries after the challenger disaster was that space shuttle had been used to correct this reduction in orbit periodically by firing its thrusters whilst docked. Instead they had to use Soyuz capsules to try and do the same thing.

    Its bad either way, but if there is tension and both countries stop going there, the orbit will deteriorate to the point where only a specialised mission to boost it would work. That may not be possible, or indeed successful.

    While it would have to drop a long way to re-enter the atmosphere and burn up, it wouldn't have to drop too far to start being prohibitively complicated and expensive to get it back into its normal orbit.

    --
    A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
    1. Re:There is a big problem actually by TorKlingberg · · Score: 4, Informative

      The European Automated Transfer Vehicle can also re-boost the station. If I remember correctly, even more than the shuttle can.

    2. Re:There is a big problem actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You got it assbackwards. The iss is in a construction orbit right now. That means it's lower so its easier to lift stuff to there. When it's done, its altitude will be doubled.

      Its orbit is inclined in a way that gives Russia a much easier time getting to it, while the US needs to spend more energy and fuel. this was done to convince the Russians to get on board with the whole project.

      Look at any ground track of the iss, it goes parallel to the earths rotation when it's at Russian latitudes, not US ones. This means that at liftoff the Russians can use more of the momentum of the earths rotation for orbital insertion.

      Also there was no iss when Challenger was destroyed in the 80's. You probably meant Colombia.

    3. Re:There is a big problem actually by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Due to the desire of the US to use the space shuttle to service the ISS, it was placed in a much lower orbit then would otherwise have been the case. Certainly it was much lower then most interested parties wanted.

        False The ISS orbit was lowered because a) the increase in orbital inclination to allow the Russians to participate lowered the effective cargo capacity of the Shuttle and b) the original orbital altitude was too high for Soyuz and Progress to reach anyhow.
       
       

      As a result of this it is constantly being slowed by friction caused by contact with the outer atmosphere. We are talking very slight friction, but at the speed of the ISS that slight friction is enough to bring it into a lower orbit over time.

        Misleading Even at the original planned altitude ISS would have required periodic reboost. You have to go pretty far out before you don't need reboost.
       
       

      One of the main worries after the challenger disaster was that space shuttle had been used to correct this reduction in orbit periodically by firing its thrusters whilst docked. Instead they had to use Soyuz capsules to try and do the same thing.

        False The primary method of reboost is the Progress, not Soyuz. Shuttle provides large reboosts in order to reduce the amount of fuel required by Progress and thus to increase the amount cargo Progress can carry. The main worry after the Columbia accident was that the ATV, which also backed up Progress, was running behind schedule - which meant there wasn't any backup at all.
       
       

      Its bad either way, but if there is tension and both countries stop going there, the orbit will deteriorate to the point where only a specialised mission to boost it would work. That may not be possible, or indeed successful.

        Misleading ATV is now available to backup Progress and Shuttle, so barring another Shuttle accident, this concern is years away. (The bigger concern is that in the unlikely event both countries stop going, the ISS isn't designed to operate autonomously for significant periods.)

  16. American planning in action by HiggsBison · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is the United States of America, mister. We do not think ahead. We do not plan ahead.

    Our shuttle was a marginally workable exercise in pork barrel politics. And now it's up for retirement long before it can be replaced. Probably to be replaced by another pork barrel exercise, eventually. Or obsoleted by a burst of finesse from Europe or the third world. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

    Russia thinks ahead and plans ahead. Now they're holding all the space exploration cards. Of course now they're the only ones who can get to the ISS, or to put it another way, they got stuck with the task. I wonder how well they thought that through.

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.
    1. Re:American planning in action by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Funny

      Russia thinks ahead and plans ahead.

      I believe the phrase you're looking for is, "Russians don't take a dump, son, without a plan".
      - Adm. Painter, The Hunt for Red October

      Ahhh, Permanent UN Security Council members and their toys...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  17. Re:I'm thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    OSSD (Open Source Spaceship Design) anyone? Could throw up a solid, reusable ship for 1/100 the cost AND on time! (There's plenty of concepts around the net if you look, surely). Except that would be way too economically viable.

    Yeah, I'd trust my ass to "ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY, MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE".

  18. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Both sides are guilty here, no doubt.

    But Russia made it worse by their actions.

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
  19. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by krazytekn0 · · Score: 2, Informative

    don't bother replying to me in anger I see that my numbers are wrong...

    --
    Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
  20. Re:Russian Retaliation by dunkelfalke · · Score: 3, Informative

    please look up the geographical position of georgia.
    it directly borders to chechnya where russia waged two wars in the last 15 years and where still lots of troops are in a ready state.

    also, a couple of ships of every military fleet are ready to sail.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  21. Re:typically, your numbers are dead WRONG by Columcille · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The ethnic cleansing thing was one of the most amusing statements ever to come from Russia. Ethnic cleansing? Whatever. Georgia responded to separatists who once again launched terrorist attacks on Georgia. Russia, still pouting about Kossovo and unhappy to see a working democracy, decided to take the opportunity to show (1) Putin is still running things and (2) about all he knows how to do is drop bombs.

    --
    I love my sig.
  22. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by dunkelfalke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    now please explain to me how georgia could kill only 6 people by shelling a sleeping capital city at midnight?

    also of note is the fact, that georgia borders chechnya where lots of russian troops are waiting for any action.

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  23. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by DustoneGT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If the United States government supports Georgia, we should rescind our Declaration of Independence and rejoin the British Empire.

    Let's look at a similar situation in history. A renegade province of Mexico rebelled and kicked the Mexican government out. A strong ally to the North took them in and waged war with the Mexican military, killing many and eventually taking much more land. I'm talking about Texas.

    If we want to back Georgia on this one, we should give Texas back to Mexico.

    The South Ossetians want to be an independent country. The voted overwhelmingly to do so in 2006. The Russians respect that. The Georgians and their allies (read: us) do not.

    The right of a people to choose their leadership should not be overlooked here.

  24. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The right of a people to choose their leadership should not be overlooked here.

    Is that why the Russians are busy trying to undermine Saakashvili?

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  25. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Atilla · · Score: 5, Informative

    Did you get these numbers from a bubble gum machine?

    There were about a dozen of Russian peace keeper troops dead, along with over 1500 civilians, all of which died either during the "hailstorm" barrage from Georgia side, or directly by Georgian troops... But who cares about civilians, right?

    --
    --- sig moved for great justice.
  26. your idea of democracy is a guy who wins with 97%? by justdrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

    sounds like bullshit show elections to me.

  27. Georgian Invasion of South Ossetia May... by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Jeopardize Space Station, would be an equally valid title. I'm sure the Russians have suspicions that the US was ultimately behind the Georgian bombardment and invasion of South Ossetia.

    Watching the media reporting on this has been fascinating. If Russia had been the Western Ally rather than Georgia, the media would have been focusing on the Georgian bombardment and invasion of South Ossetia and all the casualties it caused. People killed in Russian air-strikes would get a mention in words, but certainly not pictures. When the media report on official enemies, the gloves come off. The BBC's Newsnight program called Russian announcements Orwellian Newspeak. I can't recall the BBC ever calling US or UK announcements Orwellian Newspeak, no matter how propagandistic and dubious they sound. Instead the media is happy to band around phrases like "Winning Hearts and Minds" without question.

    For anyone interesting in the way the media works, watch the documentary "Manufacturing Consent" (based on the book by Herman and Chomsky). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wksCW3ooJ5A

  28. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Russians are very closely aligned with the rebels in South Ossetia (the Russians sign most of their paychecks). They used the rebels to provoke Georgia into attacking (which they did because their leader thought the US would back them up).

    So Georgia attacks first, and Russia gets to attack back while looking like the good guys.

    Meanwhile, the rest of the world is not willing to risk too much to defend Georgia. Although Europe is more willing to do so than the US because of the pipeline going through Georgia.

    The situation is very complex, with lots of ego on both sides.

  29. Re:your idea of democracy is a guy who wins with 9 by BLAG-blast · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No! In a "real" democracy, the guy with 49% beats the guy 51%.

    sounds like bullshit show elections to me.

    More or less BS sounding show elections than the guy winning with 49%....?

    --
    M0571y H@rml355.
  30. Re:Russian Retaliation by Kohath · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was Georgia, with support from USA...

    Yes. Everything bad that happens is the fault of the USA. It's the answer that's always available. It works for dictators. It works for their sympathizers on US university campuses. It works for any aggressor in any situation. It saves having to think or understand any situation and provides an excuse for any action.

  31. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Bruha · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd love to know where you get your intelligence.

    Oh you're taking Russia's word that they were only responding to Georgian aggression. Great thinking there buddy.

    Russia will occupy these two provinces and suddenly there will be new breakaway regions adjacent to these. Russia will rinse and repeat, while the west begin a process of appeasement or hollow diplomatic actions and Russia will eventually forcefully integrate Georgia back into the fold.

    Yeah our commitment to democracy goes only so far.

  32. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by tomz16 · · Score: 5, Informative

    it should have no effect on our relations. WE should apologize for egging Georgia on./ Those cowards staged a missile attack on a city in the middle of the fucking night. After 10+ years of peace. fuck Georgia, they got what they deserved.

    EXACTLY! I've been shocked by the abysmal coverage we've been getting from the major news outlets in the US! I felt sorry for the Georgians until I did some of my own research.

    This is a simple story FULL of douchebaggery on all sides...

    Background:
    - Russia has bad bad bad history with Georgians

    - The South Ossetians have wanted to split from Georgia for 10+ years now via several democratic votes, and identify themselves with the Russians (use the same currency, etc.).

    - Russia is sympathetic to South Ossetia, and again, HATES GEORGIA.

    - Russia has tactical incentive to stop Georgia from joining/bringing NATO into Russia's backyard. They are looking for an excuse to mess Georgia's shit up, and it's no secret.

    - Russia has been flexing its war muscle for the past year or two after having run into some petro dollars.

    - Georgia doesn't want to let South Ossetia break away, and there has been sporadic fighting in the region related to this fact.

    - AGAIN, Russians hate hate hate the Georgians, and are kind of partial to the South Ossetians.

    What happened:

    - Georgia KNOWS that Russia is amassing troops on the border (big time), and is just looking for an excuse.

    - Georgia KNOWS that Russian peacekeepers are in South Ossetia.

    - Georgia is counting on the fact that its western ties will keep Russia out... maybe even hoping that we will intervene on their behalf if they start shit.

    - Georgia sucker punches South Ossetia in the middle of the night with heavy weaponry (probably supplied by us or our allies). Kills 1500+ civilians, and about a dozen Russian Peacekeepers. (keep in mind that 1,500 civilians is a significant percentage of all South Ossetians, making this a borderline genocidal act)

    - Georgia acts all surprised when Russia completely tank fucks them the next day. They act even more surprised when Russia doesn't stop at repelling their attack on South Ossetia and keeps messing their junk up.

    - The USA airlifts Georgian troops from Iraq into the theater of combat to fight AGAINST the Russians (SERIOUSLY! WTF GUYS? Let's mind our own business. If you were a Russian, how would you feel about the USA right now?)

    and the media reports "Russia invades Georgia"

    Bullshit.

    The worst part is that if Georgia had actually made it into NATO, we could have very well gotten ourselves tangled up in WWIII here.

    p.S. if you need it in pictures :

    here

  33. Re:your idea of democracy is a guy who wins with 9 by patrik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We all signed on to the same game: that is a representative democracy, the candidates know the rules and they know they go for electoral votes and not popular votes. Bush was the last person I wanted to see in office, but it's stupid to say it was invalid because you can't use the correct metric.

    There were other issues that occurred in the US elections that make them suspect, but that does not excuse irregularities (especially much larger ones) in other people's elections.

    --
    ----------
    Just your ordinary BOFH ;)
    http://killertux.org
  34. Re:typically, your numbers are dead WRONG by Columcille · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most of the world recognizes Israel. Most of the world does not recognize South Ossetia. This isn't just the US throwing its weight around. Russia is trying to force things its way. Russia could choose to recognize the People's Republic of Texas if it wanted to but that wouldn't change the fact that Texas remains part of the US. And I know all the Russians living in South Ossetia do not want it to be part of Georgia, but there is something odd about Russian Citizens getting to say what Georgia should do with its territory.

    --
    I love my sig.
  35. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by mea37 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Consistant foreign policy would be nice, yes.

    But as long as you're trying to put things in first-person perspective, how would you expect the U.S. to respond if one or more states were to suddenly declare independence?

    "Ok, no worries about the federal money and infrastructure build-up from which you've benefitted. We'll just relocate any strategic military assets we might have placed within your borders." I doubt it. More likely, a civil war.

    Any "democratic" government probably ought to have a specific procedure for secession. Absent that, any attempt to break away from ones parent country has always been, and will always be, a morally grey area. While the U.S. certainly has benefited from, and engaged in the role of being, foreign aid to one side in a civil war, that doesn't make it right in the general case.

    I'm not convinced either side (Georgia or Russia) is taking the "high road". I also don't claim to have the historical -- or even current event -- perspective to weigh all the factors in the rights-and-wrongs of a border dispute. Given the one-sided nature of most of the posts here, I'd wager most of the posters are in that same ill-informed boat.

    My two cents: By default, I assume national sovereignty. If a population wants to secede, I generally consider it an internal affair; and just because the local population expresses a wish to be separate, that doesn't automatically make it so from a sound international standpoint.

    But were there human rights violations, war crimes, etc. going on between Georgia and Southern Ossetia? That would certainly weaken any sovereignty claims... Lacking those things, what were peacekeepers doing on Georgian soil in the first place? Did Georgia accept their presence, or were they essentially an occupying force?

    If I put my troops in harms way, can I really claim the right to retalliate when they get hurt? Can Russia draw a strategic connection between bombing near the Geogian capital (something like 30 miles out of their way) and protecting those in Southern Ossetia?

    Simply too many questions to justify all the "Country X is good and Country Y is evil" rhetoric around here.

  36. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Insightful
    also of note is the fact, that georgia borders chechnya where lots of russian troops are waiting for any action.

    Keep in mind that Russia attacked on two fronts: one in South Ossetia, and one in Abkhazia, and it took place on land, on air, at sea, and electronically. From a tactical standpoint, the electronic warfare campaign probably didn't do much, Georgia isn't heavily wired like other countries. What is unsettling is that, according to a New York Times piece, the information attacks began weeks before the actual hostilities. It's clear that the Russians were just waiting for an excuse to go into Georgia.

    Did Georgia behave irresponsibly? Sure. But Russia's response- launching a second front in Abkhazia, driving deep into Georgia and cutting the country in half by occupying Gori, bombing the airport in Tblisi, and hitting civilian targets (intentionally or not)- is disproportionate. It would be as if you challenged someone to a fistfight and then he beat you with a baseball bat so badly you ended up in the hospital, and kept beating you after you asked for mercy. And it's one thing when a tiny nation of 30 million does something irresponsible, but Russia is a major economic and military power. What's reallydisturbing about Russia's behavior in Georgia is that it isn't an exception, it's part of a pattern. Look at what we've seen recently: poisoning of a dissident with radioactive Polonium, the media put under strict government control, political dissent largely crushed, the poisoning of an opposition candidate in the Ukraine with dioxin, and now a major military offensive into Georgia. Of course, the way that the Bush Administration has behaved in recent years- suspending the rule of law, 'regime change', domestic spying, and torture- means that America isn't in much of a position to lecture other countries on how to behave. On the other hand, America's international policy is almost guaranteed to improve in November, whereas there is no indication that Putin is surrendering his grasp on power anytime soon.

  37. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by arth1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    My questiosn is, why is war between Russia and Georgia any of our damned business, anyway?

    As always, oil.
    The big BTC (Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan) pipeline is a way to get oil to the West without dealing with Russians, and the pipeline is 13% owned by US interests.

    Plus, of course, Russians are the traditional enemy, which the US is against, no matter what. Remember how we protested so heavily against the invasion in Afghanistan, and supported the poor oppressed Taliban in their noble fight against the godless commies? No? People tend to forget...

  38. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by defaria · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Proportionate" wars yield stalemate by definition. Disproportionate wars are how wars are won!

  39. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by sm62704 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I guess you don't have any Russian ancestors who immigrated to the United States.

    My anscestors were Irish, but you haven't heard me calling for war against England for their opression of the Irish.

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  40. Putin's a Bully by tjstork · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What Georgia is really all about is Putin sending a signal to all the states bordering Russia that they could be next, and to also test the resolve of NATO in a public way that is safe for Russia.

    It's obvious that the Russian invasion of Georgia was pre-planned and that they baited Georgia into doing what they do. Attacks of the scale the Russians have done take time to organize, and the Russian response was immediate. How else, one might ask, do the Russians suddenly appear not even a day after the crisis, with several hundred tanks and thousands of men, without first having had a plan.

    Putin baited. Georgia foolishly took the bait and provided Putin an excuse to smash Georgia in such a way as to intimidate those NATO states that are actually bordering Russia, and those states that might join NATO (like the Ukraine).

    Anyone thinking that this is about Russia defending its own people is a fool. I thought we'd learned from the Sudetenland that this sort of an argument is crap. This is an effort by Russia to bully the states on its borders, as they have been doing now for the last few years with things like turning off the gas, turning on the gas, issuing passports in bulk to people in one's own country...it's classic Soviet Era stuff.

    AS far as the Space Station goes, well, the Shuttle is just going to have to keep flying until Ares is ready. That's it. The only reason the Shuttle is being grounded is because the Congress mandated panel did what Congress told it to do, and, the Congress can easily change those parameters to allow for new geopolitical realities. The shuttle will fly, it won't be safe, but, Alan Shephard rode a fricking ICBM during the cold war "built by the lowest bidder", and that's what space shuttles do.

    What happens is this: USA continues shuttle, kicks the Russians out, probably keeps the Russian modules, and the NATO countries have a nice little space station.

    --
    This is my sig.
  41. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by ganjadude · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you do not do what the international community wishes.... We will have to write you a very stern letter telling you how unhappy we are!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  42. Re:typically, your numbers are dead WRONG by tindur · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obviously to Russia?

  43. Understanding Russians Designs on Asia and Europe by reporter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Read the shocking essay titled "Welcome Back To the Great Game" and just published by the "Wall Street Journal" (WSJ).

    The author insightfully wrote, "We could walk away from [savage Russian brutality against Western nations], hoping for things to cool off, and let the Russians impose sway over the lower Caucasus for now. But no one will fail to notice our weakness. If we don't draw the line here, it doesn't get easier down the road with any other border or country. We would be risking the future of Afghanistan, and the stability of Iraq, on the good will of Moscow and the mullahs in Tehran. This is how the game of grand strategy is played, whether we like it or not."

  44. Only on /. ... by toby · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Would that be considered more newsworthy than the fact that over 1000 civilians died in the first attack. :(

    --
    you had me at #!
  45. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 2, Informative

    They attacked. Georgia broke no treaty, as it had already been broken.

  46. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by serialdogma · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They only became a part of Georgia in 1921 under the Soviet Union. Pretty much since the fall of the USSR and Georgian independence the South Ossetians have expressed their wish though referendums (in 1992 and 1998) and a full-blown war in 1992 to seek independence from Georgia and reunite with North Ossetia which is currently a part of the Russian Republic of North Ossetia-Alania.
    They only fell into Georgia proper with end of the Soviet autonomous oblast of South Ossetia in 1990. There was only two years that they had been in Georgia proper before the start of their fight for independence from Georgia.
    Really the border should of been redrawn with Georgia independence in late 1991.

  47. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by megaditto · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Its simply amazing that given the history of soviet behavior in the post ww2 period that any of you dopes believe in anything the Russians say especially the Russian shills here.

    So they did invade a few countries and overthrew a few democratically elected governments, but so what? I mean, which country wouldn't do the exactly same thing if given a chance?

    Life is not fair, but in this world you either fuck with people, or they fuck with you.

    You should stop bitching and join the club of all the other weak countries shafted by the Roman Empire, the British Empire, the French Empire, the Russian Empire, and the United States (who invaded some 30+ countries since 1946)...

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
  48. Re:Russia's ressponse was reasonable and justified by Kesha · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Reuters video of Georgian troops firing Grad rockets at Tskhinvali: http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=88607&videoChannel=1

  49. Re:typically, your numbers are dead WRONG by aralin · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I don't think you have all the facts here. The people who now call themselves the government in Kosovo are the very same terrorists blowing up trains in Serbia few years ago. So Kosovo is a perfect parallel for the South Ossetia. Russians were against Kosovo being separated from Serbia, but when US, NATO and EU said that it is ok, they took it as a precedent and went for the same in South Ossetia. Bush just cannot have it both ways as he pleases.

    Now I would prefer if Kosovo remained in Serbia, the Albanians, who were moved there by Mussolini as part of the WWII Nazi relocation efforts to neutralize problematic countries (eg Serbia) could go back to Albania and South Ossetia could remain part of Georgia for all I care.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  50. Re:typically, your numbers are dead WRONG by aralin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    See Israel vs Palestine, West Bank and Gaza settlements.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.