BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 10:27 AM

Okay! How does any of that involve American civilians trying to stir things up?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:33 AM

...."unhealthy desire to control others". Gee, that's an interesting interpretation of a request for evidence to back up an off-the-wall theory. As I said, somebody is rather supersensitive about a request for facts-- which is not in fact an ad hominem attack. She might want to do some research on that term.

No, I'm not about to try to control what others post--somehow I think it might not be successful anyway--except in the lively imaginations of certain Mudcatters.   Though a bit more concern for sense and logic would be a welcome change.

And I'm still waiting for just an iota of evidence supporting the Scheunemann theory so many people seem to think is wonderful.   Or just possibly an admission that the theory in fact has absolutely no evidence to back it up.

As I said, I'm no fan of McCain. But I am a fan of facts and logic.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:45 AM

Interesting Article BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586662.stm

Excerpt 1:
"The Russians' strongest argument in defence of its armed intervention is that blame for the outbreak of a shooting war is shared.

Most observers agree it is, and that Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili acted rashly or wrongly in ordering his army to bombard and take the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali.

He was wrong, too, to speak of Russia "exterminating" his nation.

But in many other ways, Russia's defence of its armed intervention has been found wanting or false.

Russia's official charges of "genocide" by Georgian forces against the South Ossetians were quickly discredited by Human Rights Watch.

Broken promises

Moscow's South Ossetian allies still claim that nearly 1,700 people died in the Georgian assault but evidence has yet to be produced."

Excerpt 2:
"Mr Medvedev argued that Russia had been forced to use force to protect its own nationals in South Ossetia.

But Russia has deliberately engineered that situation by handing out Russian passports to large numbers of local inhabitants."

Excerpt 3:
"Finally, Russia's claim that its motive in Georgia was purely humanitarian was exploded by this week's decision to recognise the independence of the two breakaway regions."

Now how long ago was it that Russia stated that it would withdraw it's troops from Georgian territory? Have they done it yet? Does anybody seriously think that they are ever going to?

This whole thing has been engineered by Russia and they have to shown that they will not be allowed to get away with it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:46 AM

Until someone provides any evidence that the Scheunemann scenario is false, it remain in the realm of possibility, and is therefore fair game for speculation. The only person who has advanced an actual argument on this subject is the one who is dismissing this scenario out of hand. Since arguments require facts to support them and speculations and opinions don't, the person who is making the argument that the Scheunemann scenario is false is the only one required to provide any evidence.

So far this person has not provided any evidence whatever. So we may dismiss that person's argument as having no basis in fact.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:50 AM

It wasn't engineered by the Russians. Saakashvili has said all along that he was going to do precisely what he just did. He campaigned on that promise. We've been over all of that already in this thread. Some people need to learn to read threads before posting.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 11:59 AM

"This whole thing has been engineered by Russia and they have to shown that they will not be allowed to get away with it." - My opinion CarolC which I am perfectly entitled to thank you very much.

That someone campaigning to become the President and Head of State of a Nation should promise to resolve internal conflicts within the country he hopes to lead is both perfectly reasonable and understandable.

By the bye what about "right of return" to those Georgian refugees who have had to flee from both "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" - Population of the latter plummeted from 525,061 in 1989 to just 215,972 in 2003 damn near 200,000 Georgians fled the area, ever heard of ethnic cleansing?

Of course the whole bloody situation was engineered by the Russians, you'd have to something slightly more than bone-thick to believe anything otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:23 PM

If it's only an opinion, I won't try to argue with it. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion. When someone prefaces an opinion with the words, "of course", it looks like the person is stating something they regard as fact, and not as opinion.

There is, of course, more than ample evidence that the US and Georgia had planned this whole thing for a long time. And it dovetails perfectly with the geostrategic goals the US has in the region. The Russians are perfectly justified in thinking that the US is working to undermine Russia's national security.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:28 PM

CarolC,

YOU state: "
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:03 AM

Here's a more complete timeline than the one in the above post..."



1. you have presented the same level of supporting evidence for your "facts" as T has. ie, NONE.

2. Since you each list numerous "facts" that are not listed by the other, you cannot claim that it is more complete. T does not make that claim- so it is up to YOU to prove your assertion.



The TWO post TOGETHER might actually provide an accurate picture of what happened, but yours alone is certainly NOT a complete report of even what the RUSSIANS are claiming.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

scheunemann

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:40 PM

more scheunemann

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:42 PM

Here's another (I tried getting them onto one post but it didn't work)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 12:44 PM

last one ... I promise ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:08 PM

from CarolC: "Until someone provides any evidence that the Scheunemann scenario is false, it remain in the realm of possibility, and is therefore fair game for speculation."


ok. and until it is proven false, it remains in the realm of possibility that Iraq had WMD- right?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:40 PM

I believe that one has been proven false.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

No, most of the missing material is just that- missing and un-accounted for. So I can still speculate.

If I was russia, and chose to ACT on that speculation, can I depend on your support?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:42 PM

On the subject of supporting documentation for my timeline as opposed to the other one - precisely. Nobody has offered any supporting documentation. If we discard mine for lack of supporting documentation, we will also need to discard the other one for the same reason.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:44 PM

I did not DISCARD either- but I deny that yours is "more complete" as you claim.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:46 PM

Comparing WMD in Iraq to whether or not the US engineered the recent war in Georgia in order to help get a Republican candidate elected is a straw man argument.

Nobody is suggesting that Russia did what it did because it believed that the US was helping Georgia attack South Ossetia in order to get the Republican candidate elected.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 01:51 PM

Better tell the Russians that.


Since they mobilized BEFORE the Georgian attack that you claim was the couse for their invasion.


You seem to think that you can present only one side, and deny that the other side exists. IF you look at both sides, you MIGHT be able to arrive at the truth. If you look at only one side, you will never find out what the truth is.

Both your and T's timelines are proabley valid- but you have to accept his if you want to have yours accepted- or show FACTUAL evidence that his is in error- at which point T can show FACTUAL evidence that yours is also in error.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 05:40 PM

Did the West miscauculate by trusting Putin?

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/World/1075763.html

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 06:29 PM

"Since they mobilized BEFORE the Georgian attack that you claim was the couse for their invasion."


                   If seems to me like it's a really big undertaking to mobilize an army. If they thought they might need to confront the Georgians, they would probably mobilize, and then call it off if it wasn't necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 29 Aug 08 - 06:36 PM

Russia had good reason to mobilize. Georgia was ratcheting up its attacks on South Ossetia and its violations of the previous cease fire, and the US and Israel were training and conducting military exercises with the Georgian military, as well as arming them rather massively (in proportion to the size of the country).

However, the Russians have not said that they moved into South Ossetia because the US was doing all of this in order to help the Republicans get their candidate elected. They have said they did it because of Georgia's attack on and invasion of South Ossetia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 03:54 AM

"....the US and Israel were training and conducting military exercises with the Georgian military, as well as arming them rather massively (in proportion to the size of the country)." - CarolC

A US Government source to substantiate that statement?

As far as I have seen reported US equipment and training was confined to a single battalion of the Georgian Army specifically charged with protection of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan Pipeline.

Now that hardly seems to accord with the US and Israel arming them (Georgia) rather massively - hardly armed them at all it would seem.

One other indication into the great likelyhood that this whole thing was engineered by Russian in cahoots with the South Ossetian seperatists. As stated by BB:

"....they (The Russians) mobilized BEFORE the Georgian attack that you claim was the couse for their invasion."

South Ossetia's only source of income is derived from the collection of tolls for transit through a tunnel on the main road from the Russian border to Tblisi. In the days prior to intervention by the Russians that tunnel was packed with Russian armour and military vehicles - Russia was reacting to nothing, they knew something was going to happen because they and the South Ossetians were going to make damn sure they were going to provoke the Georgians.

From the South Ossetian point of view, you do not cut off your only source of income unless you know for certain that it is for a very short period and you know that the outcome of that temporary closure will be to your ultimate benefit.

From the Russian point of view, you have to have all your pieces in play to guarantee the outcome. Main access is via a road tunnel, the distances being talked about here are tiny, the Russians could not afford to run the risk that the Georgian Army reach the South Ossetian end of the tunnel before themselves, hence the Russian Forces involved (58th Army, I believe) could not be tucked up in their barracks and garrisons at the time Russia felt it had to react, they had to be in place inside that tunnel safely out of sight until they were called on to intervene.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:51 AM

Ethnic Cleansing in South Ossetia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2646422/Russian-backed-militias-looted-and-burnt-Georgian-villages.html

Possibly CarolC will now post with regard to "Right of Return", or compensation, or demand that those responsible be brought to justice - somehow I rather doubt it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 08:11 AM

Aw shucks it now turns out that the South Ossetians and Abkhazians (excluding the 193,919 Georgians; 31,671 Armenians and 13,181 Greeks they "ethnically cleansed" from the Georgian province sometime in between 1989 and 2003) didn't want "independence" after all - they wanted to be part of a United Russian State - How convenient for Mr Putin.

Makes "Right of return" a bit easier?

Payment of Compensation? At least the Russians have the wherewithal to pay it.

Naked land grab, pure and simple. Message should be pressed home by the world and it's dog to Russia - Not one more square centimetre, get your troops out of Georgia now and if in future you are going to issue foreign nationals with Russian Passports supply the one way airline tickets with them so that those new "Russians" can transport themselves back within the borders of Russia to live, they are that much easier to "protect" there.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 08:32 AM

It's Kosovo all over again, but the other side wins this time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 11:23 AM

I'm being asked for government documentation from someone who almost never produces any documentation for their posts whatever. How rich.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:11 PM

As you've said elsewhere YOU don't need evidence.

So far there is absolutely nothing at all that substantiates as you have claimed that the US has "massively" equipped and armed the perfectly legitimate armed forces of Georgia.

Reality check here CarolC - You have said that they have done that please provide substantiation or retract the statement or clearly state that that is simply your opinion - but unless substantiation is provided by yourself, whatever you do do not present it as FACT.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

I'll provide documentation from the US government when the poster demanding this documentation provides documentation from the Russian government in support of their assertions.

I'll provide other documentation later on when I have time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 30 Aug 08 - 06:29 PM

So we can take it that it is purely CarolC's opinion that the US and Israel massively armed the Georgian forces.

Truth is they didn't.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 04:01 AM

It's not my opinion at all. I already provided documentation right here in this thread, which anyone who has actually bothered to read the thread would know. So the statement that there is absolutely nothing substantiating what I have said would appear to be another one of those "made-up facts" that I've come to expect from the poster who made the statement.


The assertion that the people who fled South Ossetia and Abkhazia were "ethnically cleansed" from those areas was also addressed previously in this thread, which anyone who could be arsed to actually read it before spouting off, would know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 04:55 AM

"The assertion that the people who fled South Ossetia and Abkhazia were "ethnically cleansed" from those areas was also addressed previously in this thread"

Eh No it wasn't, somebody said they would get back to on it - they never did - Volgadon I believe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 05:06 AM

No, it was definitely addressed. By me. Read the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 06:59 AM

Ah CarolC would that be your post of - 13 August:

By the way, here is some background on Abkhazia...

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670692

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900SID/RMOI-6BT2W3?OpenDocument

"In 1992, Abkhaz separatists and Georgian national army began a war that lasted two years, with sporadic violence continuing until 1999, displacing all ethnic groups within Abkhazia. Both militaries were responsible for targeting the other's ethnic population by burning villages and destroying buildings and farm land. According to the Soviet government census of 1989, the pre-war population in Abkhazia was 525,000, 45% of which were classified as ethnic Georgians and 18% classified as ethnic Abkhazians. Post-war Abkhazia is 80-90% ethnic Abkhazian with the rest comprised of a mixed Abkhaz-Georgian population and some 30,000 Georgians on the border who return for harvesting during times of security.

While the numbers of displaced people is controversial and disputed by both sides, some conclusions have been reached. The largest number of displaced were ethnic Georgians. In addition, between 1992 and 1993 approximately 75,000 Russians and 75,000 Armenians fled to Russia, while close to 15,000 Greeks returned to Greece after centuries in Abkhazia. Ethnic Abkhazians also became internally displaced during the prolonged conflict." - cut'n'paste from www.reliefweb.int link

"The people who fled to Russia, Albania, and Greece were not necessarily fleeing from Abkhazians. Most likely, they were simply fleeing the conflict area." - CarolC's Opinion

Pity that for balance and objectivity CarolC didn't similarly cut'n'paste the following excerpt from the economist link she provided:

"When the Soviet Union fell apart, various ethnic time-bombs planted by Stalin across the Caucasus began to go off. In August 1992 Georgia, itself in near anarchy, began a war in Abkhazia. Nominally under the rule of Eduard Shevardnadze, the country was run by nationalist warlords who recruited criminals to their armies. These troops pillaged Abkhazia, defeating the ill-armed Abkhaz. When the tide of the war turned and the Abkhaz, helped by Chechens and Russian mercenaries, stormed back, they massacred ethnic Georgians. Atrocities were committed on both sides, and some 250,000 of the pre-war Georgian inhabitants (who accounted for 45% of the total population) were forced out through ethnic cleansing. But the Abkhaz look back on the conflict as a war of independence and show little sympathy for Georgian refugees. Their mistrust of Georgia is boosted by Russia's anti-Georgian propaganda.

Russia, which fanned the conflict first by encouraging the Georgians, then backing the Abkhaz, has throughout played a highly dubious role. It claims to be an impartial peacekeeper, but it has strong vested interests. The Russians have ignored sanctions on Abkhazia meant to force the Abkhaz to take back their refugees, and have also given most Abkhaz Russian passports that let them travel abroad. With 90% of the population enlisted as "Russian citizens", watching Russian television, using Russian money and receiving Russian pensions, Abkhazia is barely autonomous. And though the Russians often talk about Kosovo as a precedent, they do not really want to see Abkhazia's independence."

From which I would put a certain emphasis on the following sentence:

"Atrocities were committed on both sides, and some 250,000 of the pre-war Georgian inhabitants (who accounted for 45% of the total population) were forced out through ethnic cleansing."

Now is Abkhazia going to be "independent" CarolC, or is it going to be incorporated into the current Russian State?

You seem to hold great regard for Referenda to decide what is what CarolC. Now with regard to South Ossetia and Abkhazia you feel as though the wishes of the population of those areas post-1991 conflict should stand, i.e. after the refugees have fled. Now in your opinion does the same thing hold good for Israel CarolC? If a Referendum was held in Israel today would you argue so vociferously for the result to stand?

Oh by the bye:

- still no substantiation or verification of the 2000+ South Ossetians killed by the Georgians (International Red Cross reportedly puts the number at 45).

- still no substantiation or verification that the armed forces of Georgia were "massively armed" by Israel and the US.

- still no sign of Russian troops withdrawing from Georgian Territory.

- And as the dust settles we find that neither South Ossetia or Abkhazia will be independent.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 08:44 AM

The UK media have already re-written history.
There is now no mention of the Georgian attack on Ossetia.
Russia has "occupied" Georgia...Russia is evil...We are squeaky clean.
Nice and black and white as usual!

This whitewashing is an attempt at face saving by the West, what fucking hypocrits we are!
Mr Putin has taught us a swift hard lesson. I only hope our leaders have learned something...Won't hold my breath tho'....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:02 PM

Exactly what lesson has Mr. Putin taught us Ake?

Fact Russia has invaded Georgia.

Fact Russia has annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia, it certainly has not "liberated" them.

Land grab pure and simple, nothing else.

Mind you if their (Russia's) actions stand as precedent, my my, the Israelis have got loads of scope to finally resolve disputs relating to the West Bank, all they would seem to have to do apparently is print up a whole rake of Passports.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:38 PM

My stance on Israel is exactly the same as my stance on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Palestinians have a right to self-determination in the place where they've been living for many centuries, as do the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians.

I expect that the refugees who left that area would be welcomed back in again if Georgia and the world would recognize South Ossetian and Abkhazian independence (or reintegration back into Russia, if that's what they want), and would sign a non use of force agreement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:46 PM

Amnesty Internationals perspective to the question of war crimes can be found here

And their synopsis of events can be found here

Amnesty is about the only source I trust implicitly.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:53 PM

And here's the official summary of their concerns about Georgian human rights abuses in Abkhazia and South Ossetia over the last 10-12 years.

A.I. summary

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 12:58 PM

and here's just one more on the subject of human rights abuses

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 10:17 PM

"Amnesty is about the only source I trust implicitly."


                     Trust for what?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Aug 08 - 10:24 PM

Now, don't be cute, Rig. ;-) You know perfectly well what the poster meant.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 02:57 AM

Mr Putin has taught us to remember the geography ...both physical and political, before attempting to threaten or intimadate other nations whom we perceive to be "weak".

It can all be explained in this message Teribus!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: akenaton
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:11 AM

From: akenaton - PM
Date: 14 Aug 08 - 05:22 PM

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:08 AM

Interesting article in the Times Online...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4607471.ece

Don't pick a fight you can't finish, Mr Miliband

Before making his speech on policy towards Russia in Kiev, Ukraine, later this week David Miliband would do well to ponder some wise advice from a great predecessor. Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the days of the British Empire, dispensed immense global power; but that did not mean that he liked playing about with that power.

Faced with proposals for British policy that he understood to be deeply damaging to the interests of other great powers, Salisbury would look his colleagues in the eye and ask simply: "Are you really prepared to fight? If not, do not embark on this policy."

If the events of the past fortnight in Georgia have demonstrated one thing clearly, it is that Russia will fight if it feels its vital interests under attack in the former Soviet Union - and that the West will not, and indeed cannot, given its conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Other Western threats are equally empty. Russia itself pulled out of co-operation with Nato. If a real threat is made of expulsion from the G8, Russia will leave that organisation too - especially since a club that does not include China and India is increasingly meaningless anyway. The threat of being barred from joining the World Trade Organisation is a bit stronger - but Russia has done so well economically without membership that this goal too has lost much of its allure.

Moscow has reminded Nato of the importance of Russian goodwill to secure the supply lines of the US-Nato operation in Afghanistan through Central Asia. Alternatively, Nato can become wholly dependent on routes through Pakistan. From where I am sitting, that does not look like a very good move - and where I am sitting at this moment is a hotel room in Peshawar, Pakistan.

By siding fully with Iran, Russia has the capability to wreck any possibility of compromise between Tehran and the West, and to push the US towards an attack that would be disastrous for Western interests - and enormously helpful to Russia's.

However, if only he will take it, Mr Miliband's speech could be a magnificent opportunity to set British policy towards Russia on a footing of sober reality - strengthening Western unity and resolve on issues such as reducing our energy dependence on Russia; but eschewing empty promises and shelving hopeless goals such as restoring Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and forcing Russia to change its Constitution to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, accused of killing the former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.

Russia, for its part, will have to abandon or shelve its own hopeless goals such as restoring Serbian sovereignty over Kosovo and forcing Britain to change its laws to extradite Boris Berezovsky and the Chechen leader Ahmed Zakayev.

Above all, Mr Miliband needs to think hard before committing Britain to support Nato membership for Georgia and Ukraine. He should look carefully at the widespread Western belief that Russia "set a trap for Georgia" in South Ossetia. There was no Russian trap. In recent years Moscow has made it absolutely, publicly and repeatedly clear that if Georgia attacked South Ossetia, Russia would fight.

The obvious trap was set by President Saakashvili for the West, and was based on the belief that if he started a war to recover Georgia's lost territories, the West would come to his aid. This didn't work as well as Mr Saakashvili wished, because we have not gone to war for Georgia. On the other hand, every Western government statement offering future Nato membership is an implicit promise that we will do so in future if necessary. How can we make such a promise to a man who tried to involve us in a war without even asking us first?

On Ukraine, Mr Miliband should study carefully a range of reliable opinion polls showing that by a margin of about three to one, ordinary Ukrainian voters are opposed to Nato membership. This is not only because they want good relations with Russia, but because they fear being dragged into disastrous American wars in the Muslim world.

Even when it comes to the wider question of alignment with the West rather than Russia, the Ukrainian majority in favour of the Western line is slim - about 53 to 47 per cent to judge by the last Ukrainian presidential election. We should have learnt by now from the ghastly examples of Bosnia and elsewhere that a narrow numerical majority is simply not enough when existential national issues are at stake.

In other words, it is Nato's eastward drive, not Russian ambition, that is the greatest threat to Ukrainian stability and unity. A realistic British policy towards Ukraine should mean a genuine commitment to help it to develop economically, socially and politically in ways that will gradually draw it closer to the West and may one day make European Union membership possible. Under no circumstances should it mean plunging Ukraine into a disastrous crisis for the sake of a Nato alliance that cannot and will not defend it anyway.

Viewing this conflict from Pakistan gives some interesting perspectives. The first is the absolute insanity of the West's stoking a crisis with Russia while facing such intractable problems in the Muslim world.

It is also striking that the Pakistani media have been very balanced in their coverage of the crisis, despite their traditional hostility to Moscow.

Is this because they have suddenly fallen in love with Russia? Not a bit. It is because when it comes to international lawlessness, bullying and aggression, they no longer see a great difference between Russia and America. The moralising of Western leaders, therefore, no longer cuts much ice in Peshawar - or anywhere else much outside the West itself.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 07:26 AM

"Trust for what?"

A balanced non partisan pespective and therefore accurate non exaggerated reporting.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 08:21 AM

Amnesty International:

"Continuing abuses against civilians

Reports of inter-ethnic reprisal attacks by various sides were a feature of the conflicts in Georgia in the early 1990s over the same disputed territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The first signs of such ethnic targeting have now been reported, including the burning of ethnic Georgian villages in the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

In Russia, there have been unconfirmed reports of Georgians being the targets of violent attacks in North Ossetia and in Moscow. On 11 August a cafe called 'Georgian cuisine' was reported to have been set on fire in Nazran, Ingushetia. Previous heightened tensions between Georgia and Russia have also led to the detention and deportation of Georgians from the Russian Federation in 2006.

Looting has also been reported in South Ossetia, and in the town of Gori and surrounding villages in Georgia proper.

Amnesty International is particularly concerned at the apparent formation in and around South Ossetia of irregular, locally-organized armed groups able to act with impunity, increasing the potential dangers for civilians."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 09:31 AM

"...wise advice from a great predecessor. Lord Salisbury, Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister in the days of the British Empire,..."


                     A brilliant man, they named a steak after him!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:26 PM

BB,

If you check out all the links, you find exaples of human rights abuses on both sides.

Georgia's record in Abkhazia and South Ossetia is not nice, and Russian attitudes o Georgia could do with some improvement too.

To me the whole thing looks like a bunch of pigs fighting over a trough.

Europe is the only true victor in all this. Abkhazia and Ossetia aren't worth much to either Russia or the USA.

They're a couple of spoilt fatsos having a fight in the playground.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:29 PM

700 ;-)