what is really funny is that russia can afford to get isolated but EU can't

Supporting an ally is worth a world war.

He's saying Georgia was attackign Ossetia so needed to be conquered by Russian tanks.

russian economy would not collapse even if all foreign trade halted
russia is self sufficient country
the only problem that a new "iron wall" would cause for russia is technological advancement would slow down considerably

in fact EU should be thankful to russia for its continuous non-interrupted supply of energy and other resources. BTW russia even while at war with georgia continues to supply georgia with electricity and other resources needed to keep georgian economy from collapse

"Promises to USSR died with the USSR

Though we renewed many of them"

Can this work both ways?

"I prefered the mutual agreement to destroy parts of the atomic arsenal, rather than this cold war tactic."
me to alan, but at this point in time, its not going to happen. They never destroyed enough to ensure human survival. If they do, its a whole other story. Till then, we have to decide if we want a peacefull sollution to russian agression or if we just let things go by. The second is a lousy option if you can solve future conflicts peacefully without huge military costs or civil casualties.

One peacefull sollution would be include georgia within the nato so it will be far less easy for them ignite a war or to be attacked. Another peacefull sollution is a trade embargo to russia. It doesn't need to last for long. We just need to show the EU will react if they invade another any country.(even if the EU doesn't react in the end). The strength of a despotism is they can easely test then withdraw

Goes to show how calculating Putin is. He has the Euros by the balls, and the Euros fell for it because their politicians are more concerned about moral politics and short-term economic deals than they are power politics, which Putin is a mastermind of.

The EU needs another Bismarck.

The Yell is spot on: Red Tape is something we use to tie you up so we can get to the task unmolested.

The Yell is not: 70% of us in the UK enjoy Russian gas, oil and some electricity without direct pielines. Georgia still has gas, oil, and electricity, and they will continue to have it even if the Russians decide to secure the whole country aggressively. To cut them off would be inhumane (no irony intended: remember the mindset you're dealing with, these aren't mere Nationalists).

> Alan Statham wrote:

> "The EU needs another Bismarck."

Someone who leads us into war wich only realisation was a moral victory against a weakened France? Somehow, I don't see how that applies to this current situation.
Bismarck's realpolitik would fail miserably nowadays. It's horribly outdated and originates from days where every country was able to fulfill it's own needs, and every country was thus far more independent than we are nowadays..

I don't know how you see it, but in case of an actual conflict against Russia, we're pretty much screwed. You might have noticed thi that having no oil or gas, usually leaves quite a strain on a military operation. We'd be cut off, our reserves would be able to get our armies going for a few weeks at most. The US wouldn't be able to supply us enough, and the oil they do supply would be extremely expensive (you can't claim that your brotherhood would stretch that far).
>>

Realpolitik is about commitment to power principles, and considering the practical reality the country faces when making decisions on domestic and foreign policy. It is an empirical and goal orientated way to practice politics, and whatever is done is adapted to the practical circumstances faced by the leaders making those decisions. What a politician practicing realpolitik would do is very different from what Metternich or Bismarck would do, because the circumstances they face is different from theirs.

Realpolitik is:
adaptable
empirical
not committed to moral principles, but power principles
goal orientated

Realpolitik is not warmongering as you seem to imply. War is only practiced when it is useful for reaching larger strategic goals, not when it is going to be costly and accomplish nothing. Bismarck, for example, waged war on France to pacify them and unite the Germans. But he also tried to use diplomacy and avoid an arms race to minimize the risk of war, and the noob Wilhelm II was the ideologue behind WW1. It would be more fair to compare realpolitik with the practical policies generally implemented in the Roman Republic before Caesar.

And it is because of European commitment to moral principle and short-term economic gain that Putin outmaneuvered you and has you by the balls. Moreover, since the US is entangled in two countries, Putin has a lot of freedom to do as he pleases on the international scene. Putin is perhaps one of the few national leaders who is committed to realpolitik, and only realpolitik leader of a major power, and he so brilliantly outmaneuvers everyone and gets what he wants.

Why would we need your military to bomb Russia into submission?  When Putin can't stop us from bombing canal traffic in Moscow--and he can't-- then he's through.

But we'er too degenerate to fight, Bush sounds like a spoiled bitch "I'm leaving you!  I'm walking out of your life! You can't treat me like this!---Aren't you going to say something?"

@yell:
It is never my intend to harm russian civilians. Its my intend to make a dictatorship more democratic or at least hold it from turning other countries into dictatorships.

@justinian:
putin will fall because the west will react in the end. It was stupid to play the powercard now. That shows what a looser he is with all the power he's got.

By playing bully, he allows western leaders to justify actions against russia.