My thinking, and its only my thinking, is that the cold war never ended. We've only switched players in the game. And if these areas are to be free from colonial domination, a proxy war will not be so ineffective provided we can assure them victory and actually get that.
Something with an assured victory is quite effective at a lot of things. I'm not really sure how you can assure it, though. Particularly in Central Asia. When you look at how much worse things tended to be at the height of proxy war fever, practically all of the immense levels of advancement in Central and South America can be traced back to the US and USSR no longer fucking with them to anywhere near the same degree. And there's been a massive amount of advancement. Starting up the Great Game again would lead to far more horrible results than the alternative of not doing that.
You demand that people who hold cards to play should take action in the region. Well, Western governments are not these card-holders. I'll tell you one class of people who do have cards to play: the Turkmen, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Kyrghz, and Uighur people themselves, who should not support policy around ethnic nationalism as you so advocate.
There is no point attempting to expel the influence of superpowers and nascent superpowers when one lives next to two of the three. It is especially insensible to advocate doing so in order to enforce some concept of ethnic and cultural purity with a government's territory.
The key policy problems facing the states within Central Asia have little to do with how ethnically pure they are relative to some period however many centuries ago and everything to do with the standard litany of problems facing developing countries: education, housing, and so on.
You demand that people who hold cards to play should take action in the region. Well, Western governments are not these card-holders. I'll tell you one class of people who do have cards to play: the Turkmen, Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Kyrghz, and Uighur people themselves, who should not support policy around ethnic nationalism as you so advocate.
There is no point attempting to expel the influence of superpowers and nascent superpowers when one lives next to two of the three. It is especially insensible to advocate doing so in order to enforce some concept of ethnic purity with a government's territory.
You fall into the Soviet Trap then by expecting the Soviet divided groups to work with each other when they have been so conditioned not to do so. That is why there is such discord between the groups. I have not advocated that western governments play any role, I want them to do so themselves. I do not like "Western" intervention, why would I advocate something I highly distrust.
Old Soviet mindsets of what constitutes Uzbeks or Kazakhs should be dismantled and new forms of tribalism should be encouraged, something with a basis in History rather than what the Soviet Anthropologists think it is.
There needs to be an expulsion of superpower influences on these regions, trade and only trade should be allowed, but nothing else. These superpowers, Russia and China are detrimental to Central Asian freedom and improvement.
So you want a proxy war without the proxy part? That's just called a war. Maybe a civil war depending on circumstances, but not a proxy war. I'm also not really seeing how encouraging tribalism is beneficial in pretty much any way whatsoever.
Nomad, I'm curious what exactly you are attempting to achieve in this thread. you seem to want russia and china to reduce their sphere of influence but aren't interested in discussing how to go about this in a realistic manner. Might I suggest creating a live journal account for topics like this, since the folks at penny-arcade are having considerable difficulty discussing these matters with you?
Nomad, I'm curious what exactly you are attempting to achieve in this thread. you seem to want russia and china to reduce their sphere of influence but aren't interested in discussing how to go about this in a realistic manner. Might I suggest creating a live journal account for topics like this, since the folks at penny-arcade are having considerable difficulty discussing these matters with you?
His views on pretty much everything are absurdly biased. His tribe can do no wrong western ideals are corrupt blah blah
King Riptor on
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
Nomad, I'm curious what exactly you are attempting to achieve in this thread. you seem to want russia and china to reduce their sphere of influence but aren't interested in discussing how to go about this in a realistic manner. Might I suggest creating a live journal account for topics like this, since the folks at penny-arcade are having considerable difficulty discussing these matters with you?
His views on pretty much everything are absurdly biased. His tribe can do no wrong western ideals are corrupt.Frankly if he seemed at all competent in these arguments I'd be worried he was recruiting for a terrorist cell.
Please don't do the striked stuff.
And I'm familiar with Nomads Posting style, but still it's interesting to have him around so that I can gain insight into the philosophies of an iranian who isn't pro-west.
This thread on the other hand, is just kind of mystifying to me in it's purpose, since Nomad has no interest in debating or discussing the matter with westerners despite the fact that he must be aware that the overwhelming majority of posters on these here forums are from europe and north america.
Edit: out of curiosity Nomad, how would you propose these nations expel the regional superpowers? Force of arms wouldn't work, and lord knows that china isn't bothered by using brutal force to put down the slightest hint of descension.
Since Nomad's thinking on these tribal (or is it ethnic? sectarian?) matters is so alien to me; is there a name for that disposition? I want to read a little background on that philosophy and how relatively common it is.
Since Nomad's thinking on these tribal (or is it ethnic? sectarian?) matters is so alien to me; is there a name for that disposition? I want to read a little background on that philosophy and how relatively common it is.
I think it's a philosophy known as trolling, but I still can't be certain.
Since Nomad's thinking on these tribal (or is it ethnic? sectarian?) matters is so alien to me; is there a name for that disposition? I want to read a little background on that philosophy and how relatively common it is.
It's definitely tribal. Once I said I consider myself half muslim( which I don't see as incorrect for various reasons) and he actively denied that there is a muslim culture.
Elitisim maybe?
I have a podcast now. It's about video games and anime!Find it here.
You fall into the Soviet Trap then by expecting the Soviet divided groups to work with each other when they have been so conditioned not to do so. That is why there is such discord between the groups. I have not advocated that western governments play any role, I want them to do so themselves. I do not like "Western" intervention, why would I advocate something I highly distrust.
Old Soviet mindsets of what constitutes Uzbeks or Kazakhs should be dismantled and new forms of tribalism should be encouraged, something with a basis in History rather than what the Soviet Anthropologists think it is.
I do not think an inability to get along with other ethnicities is a positive trait.
What new forms of tribalism do you envisage? Do you mean building a sense of multicultural and multi-ethnic nationhood along current national borders, or do you want a national identity with a basis in history? Because you're not going to get both.
Since Nomad's thinking on these tribal (or is it ethnic? sectarian?) matters is so alien to me; is there a name for that disposition? I want to read a little background on that philosophy and how relatively common it is.
Ethnic nationalism? A sense of national identity drawn primarily along ethnic lines, and therefore a denial of the validity of any other sense of nationhood?'
It is not really so foreign, or incomprehensible: e.g., one might say: I am German and believe in an independent and united state to be a national homeland for all Germans, regardless of where political borders are now. Or, to be more recent: I am Irish and believe in an independent and united Ireland to be a national homeland for all Irish, etc.
What we currently have is a bunch of government headed by former Soviet lackey's still asking Moscow to call the shots. This is especially true in Kazakhstan which has changed its demographics so much that almost half of its population is Russian. Especially in Siberia and east of the Urals, their colonialism has not ended and not only is it political domination but language domination is hugely evident with the continually loss of independent languages in the face of Russian. There are even large swaths of land which do not have any Russians but are still dominated by them. Religious colonialism has affected them so much that they have in effect "lost" the religions of the land in return for Atheism.
The idea that, say, a second-generation Kazakhstani Russian has an exactly as valid a claim to be Kazakhstani and on what it means to be Kazakhstani as a Kazakh descended from a nomadic tribe native to the territory for the past millenia, is a rather recent idea... also the idea that assimilation into a culture regardless of one's racial parentage is possible. Recall that Western governments only began rejecting population transfer on humanitarian grounds after World War II.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I support any civil war in TheNomadicCircle's country that upends the caste system and disrupts the date trade.
Central Asia is going to be seeing more, not less of colonialism. They are underdeveloped, weak central governments, have large untapped natural resources and sit next to other large powers.
A New Great Game is afoot. It isn't just Russia and China that are involved. The US has military bases throughout the region, not to mention its occupation of Afghanistan. Iran and India as well have been making huge political and especially economic inroads to the region. Things will be changing there soon, and there will be several wars.
I'll post more on this later once I actually read the thread, not much time at the moment.
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
and when you're done with Central Asia, free 'us' from the government of my country next please
the 2008 Georgian-Russian war still baffles me, especially because it was Georgia that initiated the first attacks (against the second (third by now?) largest military force in world). What were they thinking?
and when you're done with Central Asia, free 'us' from the government of my country next please
the 2008 Georgian-Russian war still baffles me, especially because it was Georgia that initiated the first attacks (against the second (third by now?) largest military force in world). What were they thinking?
You mean georgia initiated attacks againt Russian proxies within Georgia, right? Because I believe that the war started because the new president was trying to restore central control over the Russian-dominated separatist region of Abkhazia.
0
Options
Alfred J. Kwakis it because you were insultedwhen I insulted your hair?Registered Userregular
I'm not terribly well-informed about the exact details of the conflict, but this is what wiki (yeah) has to say about it:
The majority of experts, monitors and ambassadors agreed that war was started by Georgia shelling Tskhinvali, but Russia responded with disproportionate measures. Tagliavini commission concluded that while Georgia could have responded to separatist attacks, it could not justify full scale attack on Tskhinvali.
I'm not terribly well-informed about the exact details of the conflict, but this is what wiki (yeah) has to say about it:
The majority of experts, monitors and ambassadors agreed that war was started by Georgia shelling Tskhinvali, but Russia responded with disproportionate measures. Tagliavini commission concluded that while Georgia could have responded to separatist attacks, it could not justify full scale attack on Tskhinvali.
Yes, but Tskinvali is a city inside the region that most international observers say is "Georgia". Not Abkhazia, as I originally thought, but South Ossetia. So whether or not the shelling of it was "just", it wasn't an attack on Russia, any more than Russia bombing Grozny was an attack on Georgia or the US or whoever might have an interest in the region.
But this is a digression, I suppose. In light of the topic, is Russia's meddling with separatists in Georgia (and Moldovia and the baltic states) colonialism, or is it just your usual great-power meddling? Is there a difference? And either way, what can reasonably be done about it? I don't really know what the answer to the first few questions is, but the last answer is "probably not a whole hell of a lot", since that's been the nature of powers ever since the Sumerians started meddling in the affairs of the Elamites for fun and profit.
"What can be done about it? Nothing." was the whole point of the Georgian excercise. Russia slapped Georgia back into line and taught the countries on their frontier an abject lesson:
No matter how cozy you get with the West, they will not come protect you. Even if they've promised to.
"What can be done about it? Nothing." was the whole point of the Georgian excercise. Russia slapped Georgia back into line and taught the countries on their frontier an abject lesson:
No matter how cozy you get with the West, they will not come protect you. Even if they've promised to.
Really just a repeat of the lesson learned in 1956 Hungary then.
and when you're done with Central Asia, free 'us' from the government of my country next please
the 2008 Georgian-Russian war still baffles me, especially because it was Georgia that initiated the first attacks (against the second (third by now?) largest military force in world). What were they thinking?
You mean georgia initiated attacks againt Russian proxies within Georgia, right? Because I believe that the war started because the new president was trying to restore central control over the Russian-dominated separatist region of Abkhazia.
The war started in South Ossetia, which is a breakaway repuublic inside Georgia. It is in the north of the country, whereas Abkhazia (another breakaway republic inside Georgia) is located in the north-east.
Georgia shelled the capital of the republic. Most of the population there have Russian passports (generously donated by Russia, of course) and the area was under protection by Russian peacekeepers. Several of which were killed in the shelling. Russia already had a mobalized force just across the border, and counter attacked fast.
Provoking Russia so brazenly wasn't the best idea. I think they were betting that their allegiance with the US protected them, and gambled Russia wouldn't get involved because it may bring in NATO. It was a poor gamble.
Attempts to naturalize or otherwise assimilate a population which is actually older in an area are hardly new, and are hardly restricted to Central Asia, even now.
Invariably it involves frequent injustice. Rarely is it effectively resisted. The PRC is already well aware of separatism within its territory; while Russia now prefers to encourage separation of disputed areas along its own border (whilst the separated territory's government remains in the Russian sphere of influence), the PRC is still very hot on territorial integrity. Hence all the moving around of ethnicities.
Erm, I don't think I agree with this. Russia certainly doesn't allow seperatist Chechnya, Ingushetia or Dagestan to leave, despite fighting a long simmering, occasionally boiling rebellion there (which will also be flaring up again in the next few years). As discussed above, Russia obviously supports the seperation of parts of other countries it shares borders with. But then again, strongly opposed the separation of Kosovo.
Yes, Russia certainly opposes secession from itself, as a practical matter. But unlike China it does not do so on the broad grounds of a sovereign right to manage its own internal affairs, since it also supports secession within bordering countries.
Notice that Russia goes to great pains to accuse Chechens of all sorts of human-rights violations (while denying that Russians engage in such).
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Speaking of colonialism, apparently Michelle Bachmann thinks that we should have helped Mubarak stay in power
It seems the GOP is doing a full-court press to woo Jewish voters by painting Obama as anti-Israel. The conservative Israeli view of Mubarak (and the view of pretty much every previous American administration) was that as long as he kept the peace with Israel it didn't matter what he did domestically. Those same folks are seeing the Egyptian uprising as the inverse of that, where nothing positive can come from it if it makes the treaty with Israel less secure.
Posts
Something with an assured victory is quite effective at a lot of things. I'm not really sure how you can assure it, though. Particularly in Central Asia. When you look at how much worse things tended to be at the height of proxy war fever, practically all of the immense levels of advancement in Central and South America can be traced back to the US and USSR no longer fucking with them to anywhere near the same degree. And there's been a massive amount of advancement. Starting up the Great Game again would lead to far more horrible results than the alternative of not doing that.
There is no point attempting to expel the influence of superpowers and nascent superpowers when one lives next to two of the three. It is especially insensible to advocate doing so in order to enforce some concept of ethnic and cultural purity with a government's territory.
The key policy problems facing the states within Central Asia have little to do with how ethnically pure they are relative to some period however many centuries ago and everything to do with the standard litany of problems facing developing countries: education, housing, and so on.
So you want a proxy war without the proxy part? That's just called a war. Maybe a civil war depending on circumstances, but not a proxy war. I'm also not really seeing how encouraging tribalism is beneficial in pretty much any way whatsoever.
His views on pretty much everything are absurdly biased. His tribe can do no wrong western ideals are corrupt blah blah
And I'm familiar with Nomads Posting style, but still it's interesting to have him around so that I can gain insight into the philosophies of an iranian who isn't pro-west.
This thread on the other hand, is just kind of mystifying to me in it's purpose, since Nomad has no interest in debating or discussing the matter with westerners despite the fact that he must be aware that the overwhelming majority of posters on these here forums are from europe and north america.
Edit: out of curiosity Nomad, how would you propose these nations expel the regional superpowers? Force of arms wouldn't work, and lord knows that china isn't bothered by using brutal force to put down the slightest hint of descension.
I think it's a philosophy known as trolling, but I still can't be certain.
It's definitely tribal. Once I said I consider myself half muslim( which I don't see as incorrect for various reasons) and he actively denied that there is a muslim culture.
Elitisim maybe?
I do not think an inability to get along with other ethnicities is a positive trait.
What new forms of tribalism do you envisage? Do you mean building a sense of multicultural and multi-ethnic nationhood along current national borders, or do you want a national identity with a basis in history? Because you're not going to get both.
Ethnic nationalism? A sense of national identity drawn primarily along ethnic lines, and therefore a denial of the validity of any other sense of nationhood?'
It is not really so foreign, or incomprehensible: e.g., one might say: I am German and believe in an independent and united state to be a national homeland for all Germans, regardless of where political borders are now. Or, to be more recent: I am Irish and believe in an independent and united Ireland to be a national homeland for all Irish, etc.
I mean, look at this:
The idea that, say, a second-generation Kazakhstani Russian has an exactly as valid a claim to be Kazakhstani and on what it means to be Kazakhstani as a Kazakh descended from a nomadic tribe native to the territory for the past millenia, is a rather recent idea... also the idea that assimilation into a culture regardless of one's racial parentage is possible. Recall that Western governments only began rejecting population transfer on humanitarian grounds after World War II.
A New Great Game is afoot. It isn't just Russia and China that are involved. The US has military bases throughout the region, not to mention its occupation of Afghanistan. Iran and India as well have been making huge political and especially economic inroads to the region. Things will be changing there soon, and there will be several wars.
I'll post more on this later once I actually read the thread, not much time at the moment.
the 2008 Georgian-Russian war still baffles me, especially because it was Georgia that initiated the first attacks (against the second (third by now?) largest military force in world). What were they thinking?
You mean georgia initiated attacks againt Russian proxies within Georgia, right? Because I believe that the war started because the new president was trying to restore central control over the Russian-dominated separatist region of Abkhazia.
Yes, but Tskinvali is a city inside the region that most international observers say is "Georgia". Not Abkhazia, as I originally thought, but South Ossetia. So whether or not the shelling of it was "just", it wasn't an attack on Russia, any more than Russia bombing Grozny was an attack on Georgia or the US or whoever might have an interest in the region.
But this is a digression, I suppose. In light of the topic, is Russia's meddling with separatists in Georgia (and Moldovia and the baltic states) colonialism, or is it just your usual great-power meddling? Is there a difference? And either way, what can reasonably be done about it? I don't really know what the answer to the first few questions is, but the last answer is "probably not a whole hell of a lot", since that's been the nature of powers ever since the Sumerians started meddling in the affairs of the Elamites for fun and profit.
No matter how cozy you get with the West, they will not come protect you. Even if they've promised to.
The war started in South Ossetia, which is a breakaway repuublic inside Georgia. It is in the north of the country, whereas Abkhazia (another breakaway republic inside Georgia) is located in the north-east.
Georgia shelled the capital of the republic. Most of the population there have Russian passports (generously donated by Russia, of course) and the area was under protection by Russian peacekeepers. Several of which were killed in the shelling. Russia already had a mobalized force just across the border, and counter attacked fast.
Provoking Russia so brazenly wasn't the best idea. I think they were betting that their allegiance with the US protected them, and gambled Russia wouldn't get involved because it may bring in NATO. It was a poor gamble.
Erm, I don't think I agree with this. Russia certainly doesn't allow seperatist Chechnya, Ingushetia or Dagestan to leave, despite fighting a long simmering, occasionally boiling rebellion there (which will also be flaring up again in the next few years). As discussed above, Russia obviously supports the seperation of parts of other countries it shares borders with. But then again, strongly opposed the separation of Kosovo.
Notice that Russia goes to great pains to accuse Chechens of all sorts of human-rights violations (while denying that Russians engage in such).
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20107699-503544.html
It seems the GOP is doing a full-court press to woo Jewish voters by painting Obama as anti-Israel. The conservative Israeli view of Mubarak (and the view of pretty much every previous American administration) was that as long as he kept the peace with Israel it didn't matter what he did domestically. Those same folks are seeing the Egyptian uprising as the inverse of that, where nothing positive can come from it if it makes the treaty with Israel less secure.