BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:21 AM

Playing chicken with a serious nuclear power for the sake of a few votes puts all that in the shade.

Damn - it really is the battle of Chicken Valley.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 09:09 AM

"And if it is true it must be made available to the public as it shows McCain to be a danger to America and the world."

Considering the man was tortured and now condones the use of torture as a legitimate method of gathering intelligence, you'd hope the message might have got through already.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 05:36 AM

Yes Carol. Your best post yet.

And if it is true it must be made available to the public as it shows McCain to be a danger to America and the world.

We said of Sakashvilli "what the hell did he think he was doing" and described him as reckless.

But for a potential leader of the USA to behave like that is reprehensible beyond my vocabulary's ability to express.

America, you must do everything you can to stop this guy getting into office.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 22 Aug 08 - 03:58 AM

That is chilling Carol C . . .

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 09:20 PM

The term "New World Order" has been in use since the very lat 1800s.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 03:59 PM

Another interesting perspective...


"Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the US presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the US Iraq invasion.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new cold war, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Hussein to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new cold war to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But it will provide the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that ramps up its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Joseph Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a "revanchist Russia" that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.

How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori, they would have found a museum still honoring their local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed, five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori's Stalin Square on Tuesday.

It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo's independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia's invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.

For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann's neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible."

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080818/scheer2/print

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 03:22 PM

Washington Post:

Georgia, Between Hope and Fear

Days After Cease-fire, Russian Troops Remain in Gori
Late last week, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili agreed to a cease-fire with Russia. President Dmitry Medvedev vowed to "begin the withdrawal of the military contingent" starting Monday, Aug. 18, yet Russian troops still occupy the central Georgian city of Gori.
By Redjeb Jordania
Thursday, August 21, 2008; Page A15

I cannot help being anxious about what's happening to Georgia. My daughter is in Tbilisi with my grandson. Her husband, Sandro Kvitashvili, is the minister of health and social services. I don't know how dangerous his job is each day, whether he is on the streets, possibly exposed to gunfire. I don't know how he will cope with all the dead and wounded, how he is helping the refugees. All humanitarian activities are his responsibility, and Russia has blocked many of the routes necessary to transport goods. My daughter communicates with me online and assures me that Tbilisi is relatively calm. She thinks that she is not in danger. But there are frequent disruptions to our connections, and I would worry even if there were not.

Our family's ties to Georgia run deep. My father, Noé Jordania, was president of the first democratic republic of Georgia. He was forced into exile in 1921 when the Red Army invaded and incorporated Georgia into the Soviet empire. I was born in Paris and later moved to the United States; our family could not safely return to Georgia until the Soviet Union fell. Nevertheless, the country of my ancestors was never far from my mind.

When I was a child in French schools, my friends were the children of Georgian exiles. In everyday conversations, Georgia was constantly mentioned. My father told me so many stories about his birthplace, Lanshkhuti, that this village became more real to me in many ways than my French surroundings. The most important day of the year, after my own birthday, was May 26, Georgian Independence Day.

As I became older and learned more about our culture and history, the 1921 invasion of Georgia and even the 1805 takeover by the czar became so clear in my mind that they could have been events I had actually witnessed.

My first visit to Georgia was in 1990. The country was gripped by revolutionary fervor. Demonstrations were taking place everywhere; the Georgian Communist Party was in full retreat. The most significant and emotional moment of my life came then at age 69: I was invited to address the newly elected Parliament as a symbol of continuity between the first republic, of 1918-21, and the free republic about to be reborn. Afterward, I wrote in my diary:

I made a conscious effort not to feel, to hold myself tightly, not to give way to emotion. I knew that if I allowed the slightest chink in my armor, I could easily be overcome. . . . Then I spoke, in my faltering Georgian, and was greeted with tremendous ovations. Only later I realized that it was not what I was saying that counted the most, but the reality of my being there in the flesh, addressing deputies who had been freely elected by a free electorate.

The prospect of a free electorate was unthinkable just months before I addressed the Georgian Parliament. Now, the hard-won freedom that was such a heady prospect 18 years ago is in danger of being suppressed again -- by the same Russians who suppressed our nation and people for almost 200 years. This is extremely painful for all who love Georgia. But it helps that the situation is different this time.

In 1805, the West did not even notice the takeover of Georgia. In 1921, the so-called great powers did not care enough to do anything except make verbal protests. But this year, the whole Western world, led by France and the United States, has taken notice. They have intervened to achieve a cease-fire and are sending humanitarian supplies.

I want to believe that my family will be safe, that diplomacy will prevail and that Georgians will remain basically free. But in what conditions? With what restrictions? I am heartened that people everywhere are paying attention. But history is not on our side. I am filled with as much apprehension as hope.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 12:34 PM

Russia blocks Georgia's main port city

By BELA SZANDELZSKY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Aug 21, 7:07 AM ET



POTI, Georgia - Russian forces blocked the only land entrance to Georgia's main port city on Thursday, a day before Russia promised to complete a troop pullout from its ex-Soviet neighbor.

Armored personnel carriers and troop trucks blocked the bridge to the Black Sea port city of Poti, and Russian forces excavated trenches and set up mortars facing the city. Another group of APCs and trucks were positioned in a nearby wooded area.

Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised that his forces would pull back by Friday, Russian troops appear to be digging in, raising concern about whether Moscow is aiming for a lengthy occupation of its small, pro-Western neighbor.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili told The Associated Press that Russia was thinning out its presence in some occupied towns but was seizing other strategic spots. He called the Russian moves "some kind of deception game."

"(The Russians) are making fun of the world," he declared.

Nonetheless, a top Russian general troops were moving out in accordance with an EU-sponsored cease-fire.

"The pullback of Russian forces is taking place at such a tempo that by the end of August 22 they will be in the zones of responsibility of Russian peacekeepers," Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of the general staff, said at a briefing.

The truce says both Russian and Georgian forces must move back to positions they held before fighting broke out Aug. 7 in Georgia's separatist republic of South Ossetia, which has close ties to Russia. The agreement also says Russian forces can work in a so-called "security zone" that extends more than four miles into Georgia from South Ossetia.

Poti is at least 95 miles west of the nearest point in South Ossetia.

Russian tanks, trucks and troops, meanwhile, continued to hold positions around the strategically key city of Gori and in Igoeti, about 30 miles west of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi.

Several thousand people rallied Thursday in Sukhumi, the capital of Georgia's other separatist region of Abkahzia. A similar rally was expected in South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali later in the day.

Russian officials, including Medvedev, have indicated Moscow will recognize the regions as independent.

Nogovitsyn said Georgia has "no moral right" to return its soldiers to South Ossetia, where they had held some swaths of land as part of a peacekeeping mission.

The warfare in a nation straining to escape Moscow's influence has sent tensions between Moscow and the West to some of their highest levels since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.

On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart signed a deal to build an American missile defense base in Poland. Last week, a top Russian general warned Poland was risking an attack, possibly a nuclear one, by developing the base.

A spokeswoman for Norway's defense ministry said Russia had told its embassy that Moscow plans to "freeze all military cooperation" with NATO and its allies. Later, Russia's Interfax news agency cited Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying Moscow was reconsidering its cooperation with the military alliance.

About 80,000 people displaced by the fighting are in more than 600 centers in and around Tbilisi. The United Nations estimates 158,000 people in all fled their homes in the last two weeks — some south to regions around Tbilisi, some north to Russia.

A U.S. official in Turkey said three U.S. military vessels were heading through Turkey's Bosporus, a strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Black Sea, to deliver aid to Georgia. Two of the ships were leaving Crete on Thursday. He declined to be named because he was not authorized to give that information to media.

Since Aug. 19, the United States has delivered aid to Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, on 20 flights.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 11:23 AM

This is getting interesting!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 07:55 AM

Yes - I agree with everthing stigweard says here.

                  Also, I think Mikhail Gorbachev is right about this:
    "Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here's the independence of Kosovo for you. Here's the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:29 AM

I largely agree with this Paul, although I would argue communism has never been practised in it's purest form as the so-called communist countries were actually brutal dictatorships (and in the case of China still are - it's just the PR is better these days). You can bet Marx and Engels didn't have what Stalin and Mao did in mind when they wrote the Communist manifesto.

Also, I don't think we're looking at a bipolar world, but a multipolar one; the old US-Russian axis has been unsettled by the arrival of China and the far east economies on the world stage as major players. This might have some positive outcomes in the terms of it's never good to have one dominant nation in any world order, but I suspect this will be tempered by the fact that the world's population are fast becoming consumers rather than citizens; it's this issue that will ultimately affect the living conditions of our fellow human beings.

Until we find a working alternative to unregulated capitalism, we could be in trouble.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Paul Burke
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 05:08 AM

Unfortunately I can't see the POSITIVE aspects of a bipolar world disorder being repeated this time. I bet you've forgotten what they were, even though most of us (both UK and American) have benefited from it. While communism presented an alternative model of economic and social systems - and it doesn't matter whether that was real or illusory- capitalism was forced to respond by appeasing the population. They simply wouldn't take the social discipline imposed during the Industrial Revolution without a share of the wealth created. The gap between rich and poor narrowed significantly, and this produced the increased social cohesion which led to the affluent and relatively contented societies of the 1940s to 1970s.

Since communism ceased to be a viable alternative in the west- which took from the mid 1950s (Hungary) to the 1980s (taking in such as Dubcek and Walensa on the way), wealth distribution has become decidedly less egalitarian, both worldwide and within developed countries. One result has been competition between ethnic groups of the type typified by the Yugoslavian breakup and rising racism in Europe.

It seems that nationalism, racism and religion will be the tools used in the new model to play off one group against another, preventing concerted socio- economic movements from being effective, and maintaining the control of the oligarchies while they dispute their shares of the proceeds.

And it's clear from other threads that there are plenty of people around willing to help them out.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Stu
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 04:49 AM

Mark this moment: we're witnessing the end of the unipolar world order.

Regardless of who started this fracas and who's right or wrong, Putin has been shrewd in his actions since the crisis started. His destruction of the military infrastructure in Georgia isn't really an attempt to neutralise a protential threat to Russian security, but is a message to the world the USA is no longer the world's policeman.

Politics aside, the US lost any moral integrity it had when it sanctioned torture and invaded Iraq in the pursuit of non-existent WMDs, so across the world ordinary people don't believe it has the right to impose it's will across the globe any longer. The 'War on Terror' the White House has spent so long propagandising has allowed the balance of power on the world stage to shift; Russian spent all that time dismantling

Georgian military bases built by the USA to show the world US influence in the region is waning. In Europe, people are under no illusion about the potential threat Russia poses as the cold war is not such a distant memory and a return to those dark days is rightly feared. The fact is, if Russian tanks roll into the Ukraine tomorrow, who's going to able to stop them? Not Europe: They would seek a negotiated settlement rather than risk open war in it's own backyard. Not the US; tied up in Afghanistan where it will never win and still committed to clearing up the mess it made in Iraq.

Putin's actions have demonstrated to the world the days of a belligerent US as the key shaper of world events is over. The foundations of Putin's power may be shaky: Russian hydrocarbons won't last forever and the ethnic makeup of the country means many of it's own citizens aren't overly fond of Moscow (and remember the Chinese are not keen on the idea of a resurgent Russia), but with the KGB active internationally again and the world economic clout shifting ever eastwards he is wiley enough to play what aces he holds to his own advantage.

The multipolar world is back; time to get on with making sure it's better managed this time around than the unipolar one it's replacing.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 02:49 AM

Also in NYT- Mikhail Gorbachev weighs in:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Russia Never Wanted a War
comments (411)               E-MailPrint Save Share
LinkedinDiggFacebookMixxYahoo! BuzzPermalink

By MIKHAIL GORBACHEV
Published: August 19, 2008
Moscow

»THE acute phase of the crisis provoked by the Georgian forces' assault on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is now behind us. But how can one erase from memory the horrifying scenes of the nighttime rocket attack on a peaceful town, the razing of entire city blocks, the deaths of people taking cover in basements, the destruction of ancient monuments and ancestral graves?

Russia did not want this crisis. The Russian leadership is in a strong enough position domestically; it did not need a little victorious war. Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of the Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.

The decision by the Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to now cease hostilities was the right move by a responsible leader. The Russian president acted calmly, confidently and firmly. Anyone who expected confusion in Moscow was disappointed.

The planners of this campaign clearly wanted to make sure that, whatever the outcome, Russia would be blamed for worsening the situation. The West then mounted a propaganda attack against Russia, with the American news media leading the way.

The news coverage has been far from fair and balanced, especially during the first days of the crisis. Tskhinvali was in smoking ruins and thousands of people were fleeing — before any Russian troops arrived. Yet Russia was already being accused of aggression; news reports were often an embarrassing recitation of the Georgian leader's deceptive statements.

It is still not quite clear whether the West was aware of Mr. Saakashvili's plans to invade South Ossetia, and this is a serious matter. What is clear is that Western assistance in training Georgian troops and shipping large supplies of arms had been pushing the region toward war rather than peace.

If this military misadventure was a surprise for the Georgian leader's foreign patrons, so much the worse. It looks like a classic wag-the-dog story.

Mr. Saakashvili had been lavished with praise for being a staunch American ally and a real democrat — and for helping out in Iraq. Now America's friend has wrought disorder, and all of us — the Europeans and, most important, the region's innocent civilians — must pick up the pieces.

Those who rush to judgment on what's happening in the Caucasus, or those who seek influence there, should first have at least some idea of this region's complexities. The Ossetians live both in Georgia and in Russia. The region is a patchwork of ethnic groups living in close proximity. Therefore, all talk of "this is our land," "we are liberating our land," is meaningless. We must think about the people who live on the land.

The problems of the Caucasus region cannot be solved by force. That has been tried more than once in the past two decades, and it has always boomeranged.

What is needed is a legally binding agreement not to use force. Mr. Saakashvili has repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement, for reasons that have now become abundantly clear.

The West would be wise to help achieve such an agreement now. If, instead, it chooses to blame Russia and re-arm Georgia, as American officials are suggesting, a new crisis will be inevitable. In that case, expect the worst.

In recent days, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and President Bush have been promising to isolate Russia. Some American politicians have threatened to expel it from the Group of 8 industrialized nations, to abolish the NATO-Russia Council and to keep Russia out of the World Trade Organization.

These are empty threats. For some time now, Russians have been wondering: If our opinion counts for nothing in those institutions, do we really need them? Just to sit at the nicely set dinner table and listen to lectures?

Indeed, Russia has long been told to simply accept the facts. Here's the independence of Kosovo for you. Here's the abrogation of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, and the American decision to place missile defenses in neighboring countries. Here's the unending expansion of NATO. All of these moves have been set against the backdrop of sweet talk about partnership. Why would anyone put up with such a charade?

There is much talk now in the United States about rethinking relations with Russia. One thing that should definitely be rethought: the habit of talking to Russia in a condescending way, without regard for its positions and interests.

Our two countries could develop a serious agenda for genuine, rather than token, cooperation. Many Americans, as well as Russians, understand the need for this. But is the same true of the political leaders?

A bipartisan commission led by Senator Chuck Hagel and former Senator Gary Hart has recently been established at Harvard to report on American-Russian relations to Congress and the next president. It includes serious people, and, judging by the commission's early statements, its members understand the importance of Russia and the importance of constructive bilateral relations.

But the members of this commission should be careful. Their mandate is to present "policy recommendations for a new administration to advance America's national interests in relations with Russia." If that alone is the goal, then I doubt that much good will come out of it. If, however, the commission is ready to also consider the interests of the other side and of common security, it may actually help rebuild trust between Russia and the United States and allow them to start doing useful work together.

Mikhail Gorbachev is the former president of the Soviet Union. This article was translated by Pavel Palazhchenko from the Russian.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 01:56 AM

Here's an interesting perspective...

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3649.shtml


Excerpt -

"Vladimir Putin must have been astounded at how Georgia and its American puppeteers fell head over heels into the Caucasian trap. Ingenuously, facilely, Saakashvili, America's puppet leader of Georgia, sent his US armed troops into South Ossetia shooting wildly at anything moving and challenging Moscow on its home territory. What could be crazier? On that first day, European media showed the Georgian "invasion" of South Ossetia, just as the next day it showed the crushing Russian response that reduced Georgia to the virtual reality of the US proxy state it has become.

For the first time since the collapse of the USSR, Russia went on the offensive. Its victory accomplished in a few hours rewrote the global balance of power. Yet, the American public knows little or nothing of these earth-shaking events. The New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, speak only of a Russian invasion of Georgia, a country of wine growers and tourism operators. Don't American people even wonder why this sudden outburst of military operations in peaceful Georgia which all of a sudden decided to challenge powerful Russia and invade territories inhabited by Russian citizens? Don't people wonder why and how come Russian tanks are in no hurry to leave "independent" Georgia?

The result of these events is that two decades after the fall of Soviet Russia, the heart of Europe -- I refer to Germany, France and Italy -- despite their warnings to Moscow to withdraw, have never been closer to Russia. If the most pro-American European leader, Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi, must choose between Bush and Putin, he will unfailingly choose Putin. This European heart is not about to build the anti-Russian alliance Bush and Cheney dreamed of. Washington doesn't grasp the elementary fact that Russia is an integral part of Europe which today is overflowing with Russian tourists, replacing in many places, such as Venice, the missing Americans. Maybe this unpleasant combination of events is why the NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox, didn't tell the people the reality of the two-day military action -- the first day, the Georgian incursion into South Ossetia, and the second, the crushing Russian response. That was the war! Instead, the US media described in Cold War terms the fiction of an unprovoked Russian imperialist invasion of peaceful Georgia.

Only America, its tiny allies of the Baltic region, Georgia, to a certain extent Ukraine and pliable right-wing Poland, believed Russia would do nothing. Poland and the Czech Republic, and most probably the Baltic states, too, today still intent on pushing Russian borders back to the gates of Moscow, will soon come to terms with their European history and their rightful place in it. They will soon realize that their future is Europe, not the America that considers them territory for military installations.

The break between the heart of Europe and these temporary American satellites splits NATO, the European Union and the West in general. But it draws the heart of Europe and Russia nearer. The "war" in Georgia makes this tendency explicit. As soon as Moscow's victory was evident, French President Sarkozy, also current rotating president of the European Union, flew to Moscow, then to Tbilisi, as Europe's representative. Not a peace mediator, his mission was in effect to ratify the Russian victory, to recognize its sphere of influence in the Caucasian region and to seal America's defeat. Georgia can now forget South Ossetia and Abkhazia, as well as its ambitions for NATO membership. Who wants America's satellite in NATO anyway?

This real Europe of Germany, France and Italy are not what imperialist neocon America dreamed of. Most certainly New World Order America didn't count on a resurrected Russia capable of the reconquest of lost territories of the Russian Empire and of a new relationship with Europe. Moreover, not even in its worst nightmare did America dream of exchanging its alliance with real Europe for a string of powerless satellites on the Baltic or happy-go-lucky, romantic Georgians.

Official reactions from Brussels are NATO reactions, that is, US-dominated NATO. And even NATO words are unexpectedly mild -- "firmness" and demands for Russians withdrawal. Russia answers facetiously that its peace-keeping mission in Georgia may last a few more days. Meanwhile in Rome, without haste, Berlusconi plans a trip to Moscow too, in early September. Georgia is not to interfere with the vacation period.

Saakashvili is known to be more American than Americans, his nation armed and supported by the USA. But armed and supported for what? Only for its oil and gas pipelines, of dubious value and a dubious future? Not at all.

The sad truth for Georgia is that its leader overestimated American support for his stupid attempt to retake the disputed territory of South Ossetia peopled by Russian citizens. In a way, this was also a case of the tail wagging the dog, As if the USA, already bogged down by Iraqis and Afghans, would seriously go to war with Russia over Georgia! Something about this reminds me of the American-instigated Hungarian uprising of 1956, crushed then by Soviet tanks.

Russia today is confident. It is not afraid as it was of the multicolored revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and NATO's advance up to its borders. US humanitarian aid to Georgia or talk of Russia's exclusion from the G-8 do not disturb Putin. He now knows he can count on the real Europe. Russia is not about to surrender to American demands and threats. NATO-USA accuses Russia of invading small countries, Russia charges NATO for supporting the criminal regime of Georgia. While NATO and Russia both claim that their relations will never be the same again, Russian tanks roam around the Caucasus region as they please. Europe has received Putin's message to the world loud and clear. The Russians are truly back.

The question is, has the American public, busily drinking from the fount of NYT and Washington Post, CNN and Fox News, grasped the trap-like situation their arrogant, unrealistic, self-absorbed, narcissistic leaders have lead them into? For it is clear as day that a huge bill is falling due and the American people will ultimately have to pay it."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 21 Aug 08 - 01:41 AM

Heh. It could be about oil after all...


"But that still doesn't answer the larger question: Why would Saakashvili embark on such a pointless military adventure when he had no chance of winning? After all, Russia has 20 times the firepower and has been conducting military maneuvers anticipating this very scenario for months. Does Bush really want another war that bad or is the fighting in South Ossetia just a ruse for a larger war that is brewing in the Strait of Hormuz?

Mikheil Saakashvili is a Western educated lawyer and a favorite of the neocons. He rose to power on a platform of anti-corruption and economic reform which emphasized free market solutions and privatization. Instead of raising the standard of living for the Georgian people, Saakashvili has been running up massive deficits to expand the over-bloated military. Saakashvili has made huge purchases of Israeli and US-made (offensive) weapon systems and has devoted more than 4.2 percent of GDP (more than a quarter of all Georgian public income) to military hardware.

The chairman of Russia's State Duma Security Committee, Vladimir Vasiliyev, summed it up like this: "Georgia could have used the years of Saakashvili's presidency in different ways - to build up the economy, to develop the infrastructure, to solve social issues both in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and the whole state. Instead, the Georgian leadership with President Saakashvili undertook consistent steps to increase its military budget from US$30 million to $1 billion -- Georgia was preparing for a military action." Naturally, Russia is worried about these developments and has brought the matter up repeatedly at the United Nations but to no avail.

Israeli arms manufacturers have also been supplying Saakashvili with state-of-the-art weaponry.

According to the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz, "In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military." ("Following Russian pressure, Israel freezes defense sales to Georgia," Associated Press)

The Israeli news source DebkaFile elaborates on the geopolitical implications of Israeli involvement in the Georgia's politics: "The conflict has been sparked by the race for control over the pipelines carrying oil and gas out of the Caspian region. . . . The Russians may just bear with the pro-US Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili's ambition to bring his country into NATO. But they draw a heavy line against his plans and those of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route the oil routes from Azerbaijan and the gas lines from Turkmenistan, which transit Georgia, through Turkey instead of hooking them up to Russian pipelines.

"Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel's oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean." (Paul Joseph Watson, "US Attacks Russia Through Client State Georgia")

The United States and Israel are both neck-deep in the "Great Game," the ongoing war for vital petroleum and natural gas supplies in Central Asia and the Caspian Basin. So far, Putin appears to have the upper hand because of his alliances with his regional allies -- under the Commonwealth of Independent States -- and because most of the natural gas from Eurasia is pumped through Russian pipelines."

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_3613.shtml


Personally, I think it's about both. My guess is that the US government played on Saakashvili's stated aim of getting back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in order to persuade him to go along with their plan to use Georgia as a lever against Russia. I'm guessing the Georgians are beginning to see why it's not a good idea to allow the US to use their country as a pawn in its grand scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 11:38 PM

On the question of what to do for the benefit of the civilians, my own opinion would be to approach it in the same way that Canada handles Quebec and the US handles Puerto Rico. If Quebec or Puerto Rico held a vote or a referendum about whether or not to remain a part of Canada or the United States, and if the majority of people voted to dissolve their union with those countries, this is what would be done.

The South Ossetians held a referendum to become independent from Georgia, and the majority of people there voted for independence. If Georgia was really an open and free democracy, instead of a puppet vassal state of the US empire, it would honor the results of the referendum.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 10:34 PM

The DEAN of foreign policy matters posted on the NYT today. He wants to spread the blame around:

What Did We Expect?                      By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

If the conflict in Georgia were an Olympic event, the gold medal for brutish stupidity would go to the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin. The silver medal for bone-headed recklessness would go to Georgia's president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and the bronze medal for rank short-sightedness would go to the Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams.

Let's start with us. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, I was among the group — led by George Kennan, the father of "containment" theory, Senator Sam Nunn and the foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum — that argued against expanding NATO, at that time.

It seemed to us that since we had finally brought down Soviet communism and seen the birth of democracy in Russia the most important thing to do was to help Russian democracy take root and integrate Russia into Europe. Wasn't that why we fought the cold war — to give young Russians the same chance at freedom and integration with the West as young Czechs, Georgians and Poles? Wasn't consolidating a democratic Russia more important than bringing the Czech Navy into NATO?

All of this was especially true because, we argued, there was no big problem on the world stage that we could effectively address without Russia — particularly Iran or Iraq. Russia wasn't about to reinvade Europe. And the Eastern Europeans would be integrated into the West via membership in the European Union.

No, said the Clinton foreign policy team, we're going to cram NATO expansion down the Russians' throats, because Moscow is weak and, by the way, they'll get used to it. Message to Russians: We expect you to behave like Western democrats, but we're going to treat you like you're still the Soviet Union. The cold war is over for you, but not for us.

"The Clinton and Bush foreign policy teams acted on the basis of two false premises," said Mandelbaum. "One was that Russia is innately aggressive and that the end of the cold war could not possibly change this, so we had to expand our military alliance up to its borders. Despite all the pious blather about using NATO to promote democracy, the belief in Russia's eternal aggressiveness is the only basis on which NATO expansion ever made sense — especially when you consider that the Russians were told they could not join. The other premise was that Russia would always be too weak to endanger any new NATO members, so we would never have to commit troops to defend them. It would cost us nothing. They were wrong on both counts."

The humiliation that NATO expansion bred in Russia was critical in fueling Putin's rise after Boris Yeltsin moved on. And America's addiction to oil helped push up energy prices to a level that gave Putin the power to act on that humiliation. This is crucial backdrop.

Nevertheless, today we must support all diplomatic efforts to roll back the Russian invasion of Georgia. Georgia is a nascent free-market democracy, and we can't just watch it get crushed. But we also can't refrain from noting that Saakashvili's decision to push his troops into Tskhinvali, the heart of Georgia's semiautonomous pro-Russian enclave of South Ossetia, gave Putin an easy excuse to exercise his iron fist.

As The Washington Post's longtime Russia watcher Michael Dobbs noted: "On the night of Aug. 7 ..., Saakashvili ordered an artillery barrage against Tskhinvali and sent an armored column to occupy the town. He apparently hoped that Western support would protect Georgia from major Russian retaliation, even though Russian 'peacekeepers' were almost certainly killed or wounded in the Georgian assault. It was a huge miscalculation."

And as The Economist magazine also wrote, "Saakashvili is an impetuous nationalist." His thrust into South Ossetia "was foolish and possibly criminal. But unlike Putin, he has led his country in a broadly democratic direction, curbed corruption and presided over rapid economic growth that has not relied, as Russia's mostly does, on high oil and gas prices."

That is why the gold medal for brutishness goes to Putin. Yes, NATO expansion was foolish. Putin exploited it to choke Russian democracy. But now, petro-power-grabbing has gone to his head — whether it's invading Georgia, bullying Western financiers and oil companies working in Russia, or using Russia's gas supplies to intimidate its neighbors.

If it persists, this behavior will push every Russian neighbor to seek protection from Moscow and will push the Europeans to redouble their efforts to find alternatives to Russian oil and gas. This won't happen overnight, but in time it will stretch Russia's defenses and lead it to become more isolated, more insecure and less wealthy.

For all these reasons, Russia would be wise to reconsider Putin's Georgia gambit. If it does, we would be wise to reconsider where our NATO/Russia policy is taking us — and whether we really want to spend the 21st century containing Russia the same way we spent much of the 20th containing the Soviet Union.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 09:31 PM

"...the two propositions are identical".   Not so. I'm sorry but that is a misreading of my post.

Certainly, however, I would not be in the least surprised if McCain did get a boost from his empty posturing, bidding fair to succeed GWB in the position of anti-TR. There seem to be quite a few voters who like to shake their fists at a foreign regime, whether or not it's justified and whether they can do anything but splutter or not. And indeed in the case of South Ossetia vs Georgia they cannot do anything but wring their hands and mumble threateningly--as indeed McCain and Bush are doing.

It should be obvious to any thinking being that South Ossetia is not the place to take a stand. ( Whereas Poland and Ukraine certainly are.) And spare us the tired "appeasement" tripe.


But of course calm reasoning is not required to vote. After all, consider all the Bush voters of 2004--not exactly clear thinkers--who fell for the two propaganda lines of that year-- the "dirty bomb" line and the "homosexuals marrying will threaten your marriage" line.

Jingoism and propaganda work. That's no surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:38 PM

From Wikipedia

The 2007 Georgian demonstrations were a series of anti-government protests in Georgia. The demonstrations peaked on November 2, 2007, when 50,000[citation needed] rallied in downtown Tbilisi, capital of Georgia.

People protested against the allegedly corrupt government of president Mikheil Saakashvili. Protests triggered by detention of Georgian politician Irakli Okruashvili on charges of extortion, money laundering, and abuse of office during his tenure as defense minister of the country were organized by the National Council, an ad-hoc coalition of ten opposition parties, and financed by the media tycoon Badri Patarkatsishvili.

Demonstrations occurred both in September and November 2007 and were initially largely peaceful. The protests went downhill by November 6, 2007, but turned violent the next day when the police, using heavy-handed tactics, including tear gas and water cannon, unblocked Rustaveli Avenue, Tbilisi's main boulevard, dislodged the protesters from the territory adjoining to the House of Parliament, and prevented the demonstrators from resuming the protests. The government accused the Russian secret services of being involved in an attempted coup d'etat and declared a nationwide state of emergency later that day which lasted until late November 16, 2007.

On November 8, 2007, President Saakashvili announced a compromise solution to hold early presidential elections for January 5, 2008. He also proposed to hold a referendum in parallel to snap presidential elections about when to hold parliamentary polls – in spring as pushed for by the opposition parties, or in late 2008.'

From the OSCE report 22nd May 2008

'Following the breakdown of dialogue between the government and the opposition. the election process was changed two months prior to the election without concensus among key stakeholders and in a manner viewed by the opposition as favouring the United National Movement

The wide variation of the number of voters registered in individual single-mandate constituencies undermines the fundamental principle of the equality of the vote.'

The distinction between state activities and the UNM campaign was ofetn blurred.
A number of the latest UEC ammendments enabled the use of administrative resources for campaign purposes and allowed political officials to mix campaign activities with official duties contrary to OSCE commitments which stipulate a clear seperation between state and party.

The numerous allegations of intimidation of candidates, party activists and state employees negatively affected the campaign environment . While difficult to verify some of the claims examined by the OSCE/ODIHR EOM were found to be credible........'

lots of room for finding 'solutions' yet - joining NATO is not one of them IMHO

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 05:10 PM

And what about lasting solutions?

By lasting solutions I mean where civilians interests are served in Georgia, Abkhazia and Ossetia.

I don't mean the states of Russia or America or Georgia or Abkhazia or Ossetia being put in their place or being liberated.

By Civilians interests I mean peace and the preservation of human rights.

That is whay I am starting to disagree with both Carol and Bruce.

Getting bogged down in a whodunnit and consolidating a seige mentality are not good ways to find solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:40 PM

Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Riots in Georgia, please pray

Havemirrc: weblog

Well, we were warned by the US embassy that there were soon to be political disruptions in Georgia with many protests going on. They told us not to worry but just to avoid certain areas of the city.


So on Friday it started, there was an official protest from the opposition party to the government which was supposed to only last one day…it is still going on however. Thousands of people are gathering for now more than five days of rallying to get the president to resign. The main street downtown in front of parliament building has been closed since Friday and has really disrupted all traffic and made even more gridlock in the metropolitan area, with about 2 million people population. There has been lots of chaos and confusion as a result of this.

The group was asking the government to make changes but they keep adding to their list of demands so much so that they now sound like terrorists. President Saakishvili is not giving in and will not give an early election or resign.

There has been increasing rioting in the streets, mob scene starting fighting against the police, and then the special forces came and started shooting teargas and threatening to shoot high pressured water to get the people away. The number of rebels is growing each day now too which started with a few thousand then 30,000 protesters and I am not sure how many now at present time.

People are getting scared, wanting to take kids out of school, or leave the city. It is not looking good at this time. Please pray for Georgia! They have made so much progress with the current president who has done much to help the country economically, socially, and developing many programs for its good to stay independent from Russia. If things are shaken up now, there is no telling what will happen to Georgia.

We really need your prayers!

Just fyi, we live far from the rioting and are obeying the warnings of going further downtown at this time, don't worry. God is good all the time and will protect us.

Posted 11/7/2007 5:06 AM -

'those joyful people'?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 04:20 PM

Inspiration And Danger In Georgia

By Michael Gerson
Wednesday, August 20, 2008; Page A15

The nation of Georgia is a place of inspiration and danger. I saw both in a single hour.

I was in Tbilisi's Freedom Square during President Bush's visit in May 2005, along with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary of State Daniel Fried. During the Georgian national anthem, the speaker system broke down and tens of thousands of Georgians movingly sang that song without music -- a song that had been illegal to sing under Soviet occupation.

It is shocking to imagine those joyful people now bombed, fearful and occupied.

At the same event, an assassination attempt was made against President Bush. A man threw a grenade wrapped in a handkerchief. Bush was behind a bulletproof shield but within the blast radius of the weapon. The grenade was live but did not explode -- or maybe the explosion in Georgia was just delayed.


A few days ago I spoke with Ambassador Fried -- one of America's finest diplomats -- on his way back from Georgia, after tense negotiations. Sounding exhausted from a "tough few days," he described the French-sponsored cease-fire as flawed but important. He predicted that in 10 years the invasion would be seen as a strategic mistake because it will have branded Russia "as a rogue." Of the Russian government, he vented: "Picking on weak Georgia -- is this the thing that makes them proud?"

Georgia badly miscalculated in this crisis. President Mikheil Saakashvili believed he could quickly gobble up his breakaway provinces through military force, just as he did in Georgia's southwest four years ago. He is a hothead who acted against American advice.

But it was Russia that provoked this provocation, for which it was thoroughly prepared. In December 2007, Russia suspended its adherence to a treaty that required it to report the massing of its troops along borders. Two months before the invasion, hundreds of Russian engineers were engaged in repairing railroad bridges eventually used by Russian troops.

Vladimir Putin is a leader defined and consumed by his grievances, from European missile defense to Kosovo. And now he has adopted the ideology and tactics of the schoolyard bully -- trying to restore Russian self-respect by beating up the weak. It is pathetic and dangerous in equal parts. It has also been a military success. Bush administration officials are now debating how to turn Russia's tactical victory into a strategic defeat.

In the short term, this involves denying Russia some things it wants, such as a coup that deposes Saakashvili. It also involves achieving some things Russia doesn't want, particularly the deployment of international monitors and eventually peacekeepers in the breakaway regions. Russian troops, after all, are not peacekeepers but combatants.

But there also needs to be a broader strategic consequence for Russia. Russia is attempting to combine 19th-century adventurism with membership in 21st-century international institutions. America needs to prove that is not possible -- to demonstrate that there is no place for czarism in the Group of Eight or the World Trade Organization.

Few question this goal, but there are many questions about the method. Does a direct assault on Russia's prickly pride make things worse or better? Should America pick a bruising public fight over G-8 membership or simply begin acting through the G-7, as Secretary Rice has already begun to do? Should America announce its opposition to Russian WTO membership, or merely stop pushing for it?

The worst option would be to excuse Russia by blaming ourselves. NATO expansion did not cause Russian belligerence. The desire to be part of NATO in liberated Europe was fueled, in part, by a justified fear of Russian belligerence. Citizens of the Baltic states, for example, are now glad that NATO expanded with relative speed, or they might be next on Putin's list. Again and again in European history, there has been a temptation to sacrifice the freedom of small countries to the interests of great powers. And it generally hasn't worked out very well, for them or for us.

Georgia has been foolish. But Russia's crude overreach has had one good effect -- revealing the courage of others. Poland has quickly upgraded its relations with America, even under nuclear threat from Russia. Ukraine has been defiant, even though Russia still makes claims on Crimea. These nations have recent memories of Russian national "pride." And their courage should provoke our own.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:11 PM

He campaigned on the promise that he would take back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which amounts to the same thing.

The South Ossetians have always wanted to rejoin North Ossetia. The Russian government doesn't have to do anything to bribe them to want this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: pdq
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 03:01 PM

"...Saakashvili campaigned on the promise that he would take back South Ossetia and Abkhazia."

He does not have to take them back because they are part of Georgia. The UN and all other international bodies, including the OSCE mentioned above, recognize those two areas as part of Georgia. Only Russia and some militants within those regions claim otherwise.

BTW, the Russians seem to have bribed the Ossetians with full medical, dental and retirement coverage as other Russian citizens have even though the Ossetians have not paid into the system. Russia has been "tampering" with this group of people of a long time.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:42 PM

I have shown plenty of trustworthy facts. There is plenty of independent verification that Saakashvili campaigned on the promise that he would take back South Ossetia and Abkhazia , and that he has consistently said that that is what he intended to do (some of which I have produced, and some of which has been produced by others). That's all the trustworthy facts we need.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:30 PM

Russians dig in as pullback drags on in Georgia By MIKE ECKEL, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 26 minutes ago



SACHKHERE, Georgia - Russian forces on Wednesday built a sentry post just 30 miles from the Georgian capital, appearing to dig in to positions deep inside Georgia despite pledges to pull back to areas mandated by a cease-fire signed by both countries.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev says his troops will complete their pullback by Friday, but few signs of movement have been seen other than the departure of a small contingent that have held the strategically key city of Gori



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080820/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:27 PM

more:

Nogovitsyn, the Russian general, indicated his forces may not return the U.S. vehicles, which had been waiting at Poti to be shipped home after being used in recent U.S.-Georgia military exercises.

Asked about U.S. demands that Russia return seized weaponry to the Georgian military, he said "we don't intend to give up trophies."

Nogovistsyn said that 64 Russian soldiers were killed in the fighting and 323 were wounded. Russia previously had said 74 soldiers were killed and 170 were wounded in the conflict.

Georgian officials have said they lost 160 soldiers and that 300 are missing. Russia claims Georgian losses are much higher.

Civilian casualties remain unclear. South Ossetian officials on Wednesday said 1,492 civilians in the breakaway province had been killed.

The investigative committee of the Russian prosecutor general's office on Wednesday confirmed 133 civilian deaths in South Ossetia, but said it could not be sure of a complete figure because many victims had already been buried.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Tuesday that Russia was not only flouting its withdrawal commitment but that its forces were "not losing time" in damaging Georgia by destroying infrastructure.

However, the two nations exchanged 20 prisoners of war -- 15 Georgians and five Russians, according to the head of Georgia's Security Council -- in an effort to reduce tensions.

On the diplomatic front, NATO foreign ministers suspended their formal contacts with Russia as punishment. Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said "there can be no business as usual with Russia under present circumstances."

But the NATO allies, bowing to pressure from European nations that depend heavily on Russia for energy, stopped short of more severe penalties being pushed by the United States.

The Russian Ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, dismissed the impact of the emergency meeting in Brussels, Belgium: "The mountain gave birth to a mouse."

Sens. Joe Lieberman and Lindsey Graham were headed to Tbilisi on Wednesday, where they were to meet with Brig. Gen. Jon Miller and his team, who only recently arrived themselves to assess the humanitarian needs in Georgia

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:25 PM

CarolC,

I have stated that we should look at what BOTH sides are saying, and have not decided who is at fault- YOU have declared Georgia to be to blame- so show some trustworthy facts, or just admit you do not know which side is at fault ( like I do: The CLAIM that the Georgians make is as valid as the CLAIM that the Russians make)- so why do YOU chose to take one as truth and the other as lie, unless the voices are telling you something the rest of us cannot hear?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

I would reverse that question and ask why we are expected to accept the assertion that Georgia only invaded South Ossetia in response to attacks from South Ossetians, since the only source for this assertion is the government of Georgia. If we are not to rely on sources that are biased, and if the government of Russia is biased, then the same standard applies to the government of Georgia. They cannot be trusted as an unbiased source of information about who attacked whom and when.

And for this reason, it is ridiculous to try to suggest that Georgia only bombed and invaded South Ossetia in response to attacks from South Ossetia and that we are expected to accept that just because the government of Georgia says so. Almost all of the media in the US and elsewhere are saying that Georgia bombed and invaded South Ossetia specifically for the purpose of taking back that territory, and that the Government of Georgia has had that intention since 1992. Which is what I have been arguing all along.

Nobody has to accept any assertions coming from the government of Russia. But if someone expects us to accept what the government of Georgia has to say about it, and then that person turns right around and says that we shouldn't accept what the government of Russia says about it, that person is engaging in hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:21 PM

The United States is seeing "early signs of some withdrawal," but the pace of the pullout "needs to increase sooner rather than later," said National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe, cited by U.S. media.

    Johndroe made the remarks on Air Force One as President George W. Bush flew from his Crawford ranch in Texas to a speech to veterans in Florida.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:20 PM

Food aid sent in to suffering Georgian area
Wednesday, August 20, 2008 11:15:29 AM
By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA

A convoy of badly needed food aid for beleaguered Georgians rumbled through a Russian checkpoint Wednesday, waved through by soldiers who themselves showed no signs of fulfilling their president's promise of a pullback within two days.

A top Russian general, meanwhile, said Russia plans to construct a series of checkpoints manned by hundreds of soldiers in the so-called "security zone" around Georgia's de-facto border with the breakaway territory of South Ossetia.

The Russian-backed separatist region was the flashpoint of fighting this month that brought Russian troops deep into Georgia. A cease-fire that calls for both sides to pull back to their positions before the brief war allows Russia to maintain troops in a zone extending more than four miles into Georgia from South Ossetian line.

Col. Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy head of the Russian general staff, told a briefing Wednesday that Russia will build a double line of 18 checkpoints in the zone, with the posts in the front line to be manned by about 270 soldiers.

The plans clearly show that Russia aims to solidify control of South Ossetia. The province for now technically remains a part of Georgia, but Russia has said it will accept whatever South Ossetia's leaders decide about their future status -- which is almost certain to be either a declaration of independence or a request to be incorporated into Russia.

The nine flatbed trucks carrying aid rolled through the Igoeti checkpoint about 30 miles west of the capital, Tbilisi. Igoeti one of the deepest Russian penetrations into Georgia since fighting broke out in South Ossetia nearly two weeks ago.

The Russian seizure of Gori and villages in the region has left thousands of people with scarce and uncertain food supplies. The convoy of aid from the U.N.'s World Food Program could last for a few days.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has said his troops will complete its withdrawal from Georgia by Friday, but few signs of movement have been seen other than the departure of a small portion of the troops who have held the strategically key city of Gori, another 25 miles west of Igoeti.

The Russian forces in Georgia appear to be aiming to weaken Georgia's military through the detention of personnel and destruction of equipment before they withdraw as promised.

On Tuesday, Russian forces drove out of the Black Sea port city of Poti with about 20 blindfolded and bound Georgian prisoners -- identified by local officials as soldiers and police -- and seized four U.S. Humvees. They reportedly were taken to a Russian-controlled military base nearby, and Georgian Interior Ministry spokesman Shota Utiashvili said Wednesday they still were being held.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:12 PM

the rest of the paragraph with your quote:

"According to the South Ossetian Interior Ministry, on August 7 Georgia started ground fire and shelling of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali from the village of Nikozi. Then, according to Tskhinvali, the shelling and shooting at the South Ossetian village of Khetagurovo was started from the Georgian village of Avnevi. About 10 people were killed and another 50 received various wounds. The Georgian media, however, reported that the South Ossetian side had been shelling the Georgian villages of Avnevi and Nuli for three hours."

So one side votes itself to be innocent, and you are willing to accpt it because.... Why? The Russians have since lied about withdrawal from Georgia, and are presently still advancing in Georgia dispite the statement that they are not.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:07 PM

Russia Profile is published by the RIA Novosti News Agency, Moscow, Russia


Sounds like more propaganda- you won't take Georgia's word, but you do take Russia's?


"According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first."

As stated, the joint forces are heavily biased ( 3 to 1 ) against the Georgians

Fireing first WHEN? I have said that GEORGIA invaded South Ossetia- BUT after the South Ossetians attacked Georgians first. There is NO indication that that is not the case- not from a reputable source.



But thank you for telling me which set of lies you have chosen to believe.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 02:01 PM

OSCE warns Russia against jeopardizing Georgia sovereignty
10:15 | 03/ 07/ 2008
   


ASTANA, July 3 (RIA Novosti) - The OSCE Parliamentary Assembly adopted a resolution on Thursday urging Russia to avoid steps that compromise Georgia's sovereignty in its breakaway provinces.

Members of parliament from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe's 56 member states are currently meeting in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana, for their annual session.

The resolution on Russia, passed by a 61-15 vote with 29 abstentions, follows Georgian claims that Russia has assumed de facto control over the province of Abkhazia, the focus of a long-running row between Moscow and Tbilisi.

Earlier this week Abkhazia closed off its border with the rest of Georgia, following a series of explosions that it blamed on Georgian security forces.

In March this year, Russian lawmakers recommended that 'missions' be opened in the two territories, sparking a furious response from Georgia, which accuses the Kremlin of trying to annex Abkhazia, along with South Ossetia, another breakaway province.

Relations between Russia and Georgia have been strained since Russia stepped up support for the breakaway Georgian republics in April. The pro-Western government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has said it is determined to bring the breakaway regions back under its control, while Moscow says Tbilisi's policies could lead to new bloodshed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:58 PM

Is that all? Just want to make sure that it's reported accurately? Ok. Here it is...

http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=CDI+Russia+Profile+List&articleid=a1218643038

According to the information of the Joint Peacekeeping Forces in the conflict zone, it was the Georgian side that started firing first.


The Joint Peacekeeping Forces are composed of members of the OSCE, South Ossetians, Russians, and Georgians.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:53 PM

Because I do not trust you to have reported the "statement" accurately.


Aug 7th statement at the OSCE


Thew one I have found so far indicates the South Osetians at fault. So, show me the source of the one YOU claim indicts the Georgians, or I will presume you are youst making it up.

Last chance ( You have declined three times)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:49 PM

I'm asking why the source for my material matters. I see the question is not being answered.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:44 PM

Fine.

God says that the Georgians are not at fault- WHy does MY source for that claim matter???

On the OSCE:
"Such rush has become a common practice in the run-up to the OSCE's year-end meetings, particularly on issues involving "frozen conflicts"; and it tends to take the form of concessions to Russia as the stronger side.

The Joint Control Commission (JCC), which oversees the ceasefire in South Ossetia, met on November 16-17 in Ljubljana in the 13 year-old format: Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia, and Russia's North Ossetia region (a ratio of 3:1 against Georgia) plus the OSCE as observer. Opening the session, Rupel startled the Georgian delegation by endorsing the "existing mechanism" (a familiar Moscow phrase opposing internationalization of the format) and suggesting a "highest-level meeting" of those four parties to discuss settlement negotiations and related issues. Russia's envoy, Valery Kenyaykin, then fleshed out Rupel's proposal by calling for an urgent meeting among Presidents Vladimir Putin of Russia, Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia, "president" Eduard Kokoiti of South Ossetia, and North Ossetia's head Taymuraz Mamsurov, to be held at Putin's residence in Sochi before the end of November (i.e., just days ahead of the OSCE's year-end conference) and to focus on political settlement issues. On cue, the South and North Ossetian delegates supported the proposal.

Rupel's and Moscow's proposal abruptly departed from the decision, reached at several JCC sessions (always in the OSCE's presence and with its approval, most recently in October 2005) on holding a meeting between Georgia's Prime Minister Zurab Nogaideli and Kokoiti to discuss demilitarization of the "conflict zone" and economic rehabilitation of South Ossetia. The Georgians had all along insisted logically on demilitarization to be achieved ahead of political-settlement negotiations, and for those political negotiations to be held in an internationalized format, not the Russian-dominated JCC."

So, 1. OSCE is only an observer
2. The four parties that vote on matters concerning Ossetia are biased 3 to 1 against Georgia,: Even if they vote against some statement, it will still pass.


Why are you hiding where you got this information that the Joint whatever says that Georgia is at fault, unless it comes from a disreputable source?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:35 PM

Why does my source for that information matter?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 01:29 PM

CarolC,

You have made a claim that the Joint group, as a whole, have made a specific determination. Where does that statement come from? What is the source that you read, or did they call you personally?

If it is Russian press, I have a few more questions.




"
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 19 Aug 08 - 09:52 PM

According to people who are not Georgians, South Ossetians, or Russians (The members of the OSCE), Georgia fired first. So that makes the Georgians liars. "

WHERE DOES THIS STATEMENT come from?????

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:41 PM

I disagree with the synopsis that has been given of my position on this issue, and the reasons for my disagreement with the poster whose positions I have been disputing.

My position is that Georgia has been planning this invasion of South Ossetia for a long time, and that South Ossetia has a right to not only defend itself from Georgian acts of aggression, but also to be helped by Russia in doing so. Furthermore, I maintain that South Ossetia has as much right to self determination as Georgia has.

My dispute with the other poster is not over who started this round of hostilities, but rather, that the other poster's insistence that it was the South Ossetians who started it is not based in fact because the only documentation that has been presented in support of this has come from the government of Georgia, and also, that to try to narrow down the government of Georgia's reason for invading to a window of a few hours on August 7 is absurd. So far, I have not had an opportunity to show that this was where I was going because the other poster has not answered the question I posed in my 19 Aug 08 - 11:05 PM post.


Check this out - Saakashvili eats his tie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kid379OjuC0

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Peace
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:33 PM

"The neocons have lost."

While you and I are in agreement about 85% of the time, on this we disagree.

I will believe the neocons have lost when it does not take millions and millions of dollars to become President of the USA. Too many companies contribute so that in future they will have influence. They intend to get their money back in one form or other. Hell, just LOOK at the connections between big business and profit in this presidency alone.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:07 PM

thats pretty much the case Jack.
a lot of tough talk from McCain and Nato but really if anything this is more likely to lead to a breakup or weakening of Nato. Old Europe isnt so keen to do much against Russia, as they know they will freeze in the dark come winter. And they arent willing to go to war over a former soviet enclave.. Bush tried to buildup up Georgia as an ally, right in the Russian backyard, but when Sakashvili attacked Ossetia and the Russians hit back hard, it backfired. The Georgians feel betrayed - but the US certainly wasnt willing to escalate it.

and from the standpoint of Russian the west set the precedent with Kosovo. Basically there is no UN framework to break up a part of a country against its will - even though a part of its population might want to secede. Once that happened Russia said at the time it was going to back the same thing in Abkhazia and Ossetia.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 12:01 PM

Godwin's Law strikes again!

'The former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called on the world community to isolate Russia in protest over its campaign in the Caucasus, likening its tactics to those of "Hitler or Stalin".

Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and is now an occasional adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was "following a course that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s".'

guardian.co.uk, Tuesday August 12 2008

Leading politicians in France and Germany who expressed opposition to the unilateral foreign and military policy of the Bush administration and the expansion of NATO to include a country where (as recently as last year) anti-government protesters were confronted by riot police and special troops entered Imedi TV station, had possibly entertained hopes of a change of line as a result of the November presidential election.

On the issue of the US stance toward Russia, however, they have been sorely disappointed.

It appears that both the Democratic and Republican parties are seeking to outdo one another in their declarations of hostility toward Moscow.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden, fresh off a trip to the Republic of Georgia, said
"I left the country convinced that Russia's invasion of Georgia may be the one of the most significant event to occur in Europe since the end of communism,"
The senator also issued a terse warning to the former Soviet Union, saying that "Russia's actions in Georgia will have consequences."
- CBS News today

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:54 AM

Obama is too polite to give McCain what he deserves.

He should say. OK tough guy, lets make this election about who wants to get in a shooting war in Russia. Either tell us how you would win such a war or shut up! McCain's time has passed. The neocons have lost. Its just that the New York Times and William Kristol don't know that yet. There are two superpowers again and Russia's energy reserves are a hell of a lot more powerful weapon than anything the had as Soviets. The European Union will be another super power, China and India are coming up fast.

McCain, wants Georgia to join NATO, The UK and Germany don't want to sign a treaty where Some petty dictator in a two bit back water can pull them into World War Three.

McCain wants to kick Russia out of G8 and bar them from WTO. Russia needs only to use its energy to get open trade with Europe, China and India. God help us if they turn the fuel in their bombs into nuclear power. They can sell their caviar and titanium to those countries. Maybe they will build airframes partnering with one of the Asian tigers for electronics.

If McCain wants to continue Bush's path, restarting the cold war, he's not going to have the easy time Reagan did.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:52 AM

"And as to whether McCain gets any benefit from the crisis, the question is how many voters realize his stance is just stupid blustering--with no way to back it up."

Ron: the two propositions are identical. McCain gets a benefit when he gets more votes and more support, regardless of what you think about its legitimacy- That's politics!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:36 AM

And as to whether McCain gets any benefit from the crisis, the question is how many voters realize his stance is just stupid blustering--with no way to back it up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:32 AM

A bit of insight as to why Russian troops are now beyond what is now internationally accepted--outside Russia--as the borders of South Ossetia:

20 Aug 2008 WSJ: (from article on this phenomenon:)

"In Soviet times Akhalgori" ( town in Georgia outside current South Ossetia " belonged to what was then known as the South Ossetian Autonomous Province. South Ossetia's provincial leaders proclaimed a secession from Georgia as the Soviet Union collapsed in the early 1990's. After fighting their self-proclaimed republic established control over the province's capital city and roughly 2/3 of the countryside."

"The South Ossetian government's writ never reached Akhalgori, which is separated from the rest of South Ossetia by a mountain range".

So, since this town was formerly part of South Ossetia--under Russia--the South Ossetian view is that they are simply restoring South Ossetia to its former borders in the Soviet era."

They call this move "restoring the constitutional order". And from their perspective, they are correct.

More from the WSJ:   "... the Ossetian takeover in the Akhalgori area was peaceful. There were no instances of looting or torching civilian homes here, residents said. Some stores remain open, power supplies continue, and Georgian civilians wander around undisturbed".

This sort of thing is why the border question is so complex--and why absurd statements like "Georgia's territorial integrity must be restored" are worse than worthless. The South Ossetians say it is their territorial integrity which must be restored-- and is now being restored.

As to why nothing to compel the restoration of Georgia's July 2008 borders is likely, another article from the WSJ: The UK is still the second-biggest contributor of troops to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But as to its stance on the current crisis in "Georgia", the UK "has shown no willingness to help rebuild the Georgian military. Instead the UK supports bringing Russia closer into the international fold--echoing views of other EU peers--and showing Russia that it has more to gain by being a partner than an aggressor."

"I am not one that believes that isolating Russia is the right answer to its misdemeanors" said UK Foreign Minister David Miliband, in a statement before the NATO meeting Tuesday. "I believe that the right response is hard-headed engagement."

If GWB cannot even get the UK to support his harsh line against Russia, who, aside from the former USSR satellites, can he get?




And I think a good case can be made for the idea that the most important issue here is that unrest be stilled so that any nuclear material in the areas affected does not fall into the hands of terrorists.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Aug 08 - 07:29 AM

Guest, lox:

I agree that there is some entrenchment going on, but I think there were prepared positions, prepared by Russia well before the apparent onset of hostilities. The Ossetians have 'irregular' forces which have been raiding Georgian homes, persons and property after the retreat of the Georgian military. These had been regularly used as provocateurs.

Those monitoring the techno-war launched against Georgian command and control indicate that it started weeks before the military moves.

Meanwhile, it looks as if the United States is becoming entrenched in a position of finger wagging and pooh-poohing. It is difficult to see what the US is getting out of this, except to further move along a clearly confrontational path re: the useless missiles to Poland move, which clearly distresses the Russians, and which offers no profit.

The only profit I see at the moment goes to the McCain campaign which can posture without danger yet gain foreign policy cred.