"Russians losing propaganda war

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News

Most of the Western media is based in Georgia

The Bush administration appears to be trying to turn a failed military operation by Georgia into a successful diplomatic operation against Russia.

It is doing so by presenting the Russian actions as aggression and playing down the Georgian attack into South Ossetia on 7 August, which triggered the Russian operation.

Yet the evidence from South Ossetia about that attack indicates that it was extensive and damaging.

Blame game

The BBC's Sarah Rainsford has reported: "Many Ossetians I met both in Tskhinvali and in the main refugee camp in Russia are furious about what has happened to their city.

"They are very clear who they blame: Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili, who sent troops to re-take control of this breakaway region."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on 13 August 2008
Has Moscow learned yet how to play the media game?

quote:

---

Originally posted by contrarianna:
Sorry, but it would have happened anyway with all the re-animated cold warriors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Is this a reference to the mini-war in Georgia, or to the continuation of the mega-thread?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
RE: Buchanan.

I'm not sure he's saying anything the American ruling class doesn't know. It's just that he says it whereas they are putting out propaganda.

---

He's not saying much the American ruling classes don't know, with the proviso that knowing and understanding are two different things. He is however, saying a fair bit that the American subservient classes haven't been told.

I caught a piece in the Star today reprinted from the NY Times, not worth linking to really. To read that, one would believe that the entire issue started with Russia moving into Georgia, and there were no prior relevent events.

quote:

---

Unified Theory of Babble: All threads ultimately lead to the USofA.

---

Who knew the influence of babble?

quote:

---

These tend to appear lower down in the stories and press releases. Georgia's leader, says Reagan-era official Paul Craig Roberts, is a "U.S. puppet." He studied in the U.S. on State Department fellowships, worked at a New York law firm, his government's election was subsidized by the U.S. National Endowment for Democracy and George Soros's Open Society Institute. He put a George W. Bush Boulevard in his capital. He admits this "is not about Georgia ... It is about America, its values."

---

Rick Salutin

I just finished watching a decent documentary on The Great War last night, and realised that 2014 is less than a decade away. 1814 saw the end of the previous "world" war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
I just finished watching a decent documentary on The Great War last night, and realised that 2014 is less than a decade away. 1814 saw the end of the previous "world" war.

If one accepts the premise that World War II was but the continuation of the 14-18 war after a 20-year intermission, and therefore the same war, does this mean our species has evolved in such a way that we are programmed to go on mass murdering frenzies every 100 years or so?

---

Huh? WWI started in 1914 and went until 1918.

The only wars that ended in 1814 were the War of 1812, and the Peninsular War of 1808 to 1814.

One could say that the USA has been in constant wars from 1607 on through to today though. And, legitmally ask; is a country that is founded upon war, continmued in war, destined to go into non-existence from war?

Really, in a broader examination, the whole world has been in a constant state of war through out our whole recorded history. Just in differing; peoples, areas, and times.

So, the greater question is; "are we humans just war like peoples?" Followed by; "if this is the case, can we legitimately believe wars will ever end?"

[ 16 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

WW II really begins with the Japanese invasion of China in 1937.

[ 16 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Britian was pretty busy during those years with Ireland I believe.

Anyhow found this site on a map of wars from 1925 050

quote:

---

Huh? WWI started in 1914 and went until 1918.

The only wars that ended in 1814 were the War of 1812, and the Peninsular War of 1808 to 1814.

---

No shirt Sherlock.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
In anycase my point is that World War One is actually a war to determine who gets what as the Ottoman Empire implodes, particularly in the oil rich Middle East, and the fact that it is deemed to begin only with the involvement of the main European powers, even though it is actually a continuance of an ongoing general conflict says something about the Eurocentric cast of popular history.

---

Ok am done reviewing, and it was as I thought, and stated, and I have to conclude that I both agree and disagree with you.

Turkey, was already in a war with a European country, Italy, when Montenagro declared war upon it, and events started to try to drive Muslims off of continental Europe. And most reference I found, supported what I learned at school, that it was a preclude to WWI.

And so what is your point about them wanting to divide up the former Ottoman Empire? Oil had only been discovered in Iran/Persia 4 years prior to the Balkan War, by the British, who had nothing to do with the Balkan War, and it was not found in Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries until 1938 and later. It is pretty hard to say they were wanting to carve up the Middle East for purposes of oil, prior to WWI and leading to WWII, in my opinion.

Iran/Persia was only too happy to sell it to the British.

The Arab nations were demanding autonmy from the Ottoman Empire and the Ottoman's retaliated with executions in Beruit.

Then the Ottoman's enter WWI to fight against the Russians, and thereby align themselves with Germany. Many other, what would become Arab states, sided with the Allies. They wanted out of the Ottoman Empire.

edited for spelling

[ 16 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

During World War I (1914-18), strategists for all the major powers increasingly perceived oil as a key military asset, due to the adoption of oil-powered naval ships, new horseless army vehicles such as trucks and tanks, and even military airplanes. Use of oil during the war increased so rapidly that a severe shortage developed in 1917-18.

The strategists also understood that oil would assume a rapidly-growing importance in the civilian economy, making it a vital element in national and imperial economic strength and a source of untold wealth to those who controlled it. Already in the United States, John D. Rockefeller, founder of Standard Oil Company, was the world’s richest person.

The British government, ruling over the largest colonial empire, already controlled newly-discovered oil in Persia (now Iran) through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Since Britain lacked oil in the home islands, British strategists wanted still more reserves to assure the future needs of their empire. An area of the Ottoman Empire called Mesopotamia (now Iraq), shared the same geology as neighboring Persia, so it appeared especially promising.

Just before war broke out in 1914, British and German companies had negotiated joint participation in the newly-founded Turkish Petroleum Company that held prospecting rights in Mesopotamia. The war ended the Anglo-German oil partnership and it exposed the territories of the German-allied Ottoman Empire to direct British attack.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by al-Qa'bong:
No shirt Sherlock.

That's why I said "about every 100 years or so."

---

Excuse me al-Qa'bong, then word what you say better, you said 1814 saw the end of the "previous world war" in conjunction with you saying you watched a documentary on the "Great War", what else is one supposed think you were speaking of? As there were no other "World Wars" prior to 1914!!

quote:

---

For the most part, Americans are still in the dark about what really happened last weekend. There's a great video circulating on the Internet by a Russian citizen that has been living in USA for the last 10 years. He sums up the role of the US media with great precision. He says, "The western media--especially CNN--is feeding you complete horseshit. Russia did not invade Georgia first." The youtube can be seen HERE.

The coverage of the western media has been abysmal. Nearly every article and TV news segment begins with accusations of Russian aggression concealing the fact that the Georgian Army bombarded and invaded the capital of South Ossetia one full day before the first Russian even tank crossed the border. By the time the Russians arrived, the city was already in a shambles and thousands were dead....

In a 2006 referendum, 99% of South Ossetians said they supported independence from Georgia. The voter turnout was 95% and the balloting was monitored by 34 international observers from the west. No one has challenged the results. The province has been under the protection of Russian and Georgian peacekeepers since 1992 and has been a de facto independent state ever since. If Putin applied the same standard as Bush did in Kosovo, he would unilaterally declare South Ossetia independent from Georgia and then thumb his nose at the UN. (Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander) But Putin and newly-elected Russian President Dmitry Medvedev have taken a conciliatory attitude towards the international community and tried to resolve the issue through diplomatic channels.

Still, Russia's operation in South Ossetia has ignited a firestorm in the US political establishment and Democrats and Republicans alike are demanding that Russia be "taught a lesson". Condoleeza Rice flew to Tbilisi on Friday and ordered Russian combat troops to withdraw from Georgia immediately. Saakashvili topped off Rice's comments by saying that the Russian troops were "cold-blooded killers" and "barbarians". So much for reconciliation.

Saakashvili's hyperbolic rhetoric was followed by a surprise announcement from Poland that they had approved Bush's plans for deploying the Missile Defense Shield in Eastern Europe. The system is supposed to defend Europe from the possibility of attacks from so-called "rogue states" like Iran, but the Kremlin knows that it is intended to neutralize their nuclear arsenal.

The new "shield" will be integrated into the larger US nuclear weapons system placing the world's most lethal weapons just a few hundred miles from Russia's capital. It is a clear threat to Russia's national security and no different than nuclear weapons in Cuba.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
One could say that the USA has been in constant wars from 1607 on through to today though. And, legitmally ask; is a country that is founded upon war, continmued in war, destined to go into non-existence from war?

---

First, I might be able to say the same thing about Russia.

Second, this might not be completely true. The US has spent most of its life either as part of an expansionist British Empire, as an expansionist state in its own right, or as one of the two nations with the most geopolitical influence on earth. But there was a period in the early 20th century where the US was relatively isolationist. Does the words Neutrality Act mean anything to anyone here?

quote:

---

Really, in a broader examination, the whole world has been in a constant state of war through out our whole recorded history. Just in differing; peoples, areas, and times.

So, the greater question is; "are we humans just war like peoples?" Followed by; "if this is the case, can we legitimately believe wars will ever end?"

---

You want to read this book by Gwynne Dyer. It directly tackles your question, studying war from pre-history to about 2006.

[ 16 August 2008: Message edited by: West Coast Greeny ]

quote:

---

But there was a period in the early 20th century where the US was relatively isolationist. Does the words Neutrality Act mean anything to anyone here?

---

quote:

---

Saakashvili's rescue operation
23:08 | 15/ 08/ 2008

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - It took the United States a week to understand the damage Mikheil Saakashvili's "Ossetian blitzkrieg" has caused him, and its fosterling, the Rose Democracy.

Now Washington has launched an operation to rescue Saakasvili in real earnest. At the same time, a diplomatic battle is unfolding around the Caucasian knot. Regrettably, this struggle will be harder for Russia to win than any armed conflict. On August 14, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Paris to meet President Nicolas Sarkozy, and immediately left for Tbilisi to talk with Saakashvili. At the same time, President George W. Bush sanctioned humanitarian relief to Georgia. The first S-17 cargo planes have already delivered medicines and food there. Several U.S. warships are moving to Georgian shores from the Persian Gulf to prevent Russia from blocking relief aid.

The Pentagon's humanitarian relief effort has little to do with Georgia's real requirements. But this is the first action in support of Saakashvili. He did not receive such support in the first days after the attack, and even began to complain that Washington's initial criticisms of Moscow's role in the conflict were too mild. This was not what he expected from those who had pushed him to attack South Ossetia.

Now Bush has accused Russia of "not behaving like the kind of international partner that it has said it wants to be." The fact that Washington has only lashed out at Moscow a week after the event is telling. Usually, the Americans provide thorough propaganda support for their political or military actions in any part of the globe (the invasions of Grenada, Panama, Kuwait, Afghanistan, and Iraq are all good examples), and do this preemptively. The flow of inspired leaks and revelations from anonymous high-rankers usually mounts for weeks before the decisive blow.

But it did not happen with Georgia. In fact, the U.S. press carried post factum "confidential" reports that during her visit to Tbilisi over a month ago Rice warned Saakashvili against military action. But he either did not get it, or lost his temper, and decided to act at his own risk. Sometimes pocket rulers get out of hand.

Yet it is hard to believe that a stateswoman as formidable as "Teflon Condi" could not make it clear to Saakashvili what the White House wants or does not want him to do. And he is not an Angela Merkel or Silvio Berlusconi, who can easily afford not to listen to the U.S. secretary of state.

The White House's recent moves suggest it has overcome the initial shock and has embarked on what it calls "damage control" by using the only remaining option - aggressive diplomacy. These moves also point to its blunder in anticipating Moscow's reaction to Saakashvili's action. Washington clearly did not expect such a prompt and forceful response from Dmitry Medvedev and Vladimir Putin, still less so on the first day of the Olympics.

The Olympics are also a key to understanding what happened. After the boycott of the 1980 Moscow Olympics (after the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan), U.S. leaders became confident that all Soviet leaders were obsessed with the Olympic Games (which was true), and that it was easier for them to arrest several hundred dissidents than be subjected to a denigrating boycott. It is no accident that one of the possible responses being floated by Western diplomats is a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, a measure designed to cut "the aggressive Russia" down to size.

That would certainly be unpleasant, but it is not very likely. Too much may change in the next six years. The Bush administration will be gone, for one thing. Incidentally, despite all his outspoken criticism of Russia's "invasion of Georgia," Republican presidential nominee John McCain said on August 14 that as president he "would not send American military forces into a conflict in Georgia."

---

quote:

---

Russia has appeared to be taunting Georgia, sending tank columns roaring toward the capital only to turn them back again. But despite the constant commotion of redeployment, the trend has been a creeping entrenchment that has engulfed strategically crucial Gori and moved steadily in on the capital, creating a swath of nearly abandoned towns and villages.

---

quote:

---

Russia denied blowing up the bridge, calling the charge "another unverified allegation"

---

quote:

---

The departure of Russian troops would come gradually, and would depend upon "extra security measures" for Russia's soldiers in Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia, Lavrov said. Asked how long the withdrawal would take, he replied, "As much as is needed," Interfax reported.

"This does not depend on us alone because we are constantly coming up against some problems on the Georgian side,"

---

Problems like mysteriously exploding bridges.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

The US elite was isolationist pretty much up to 1941.

---

quote:

---

1900 China US forces intervene in several cities.
1901 Colombia/Panama Marines land.
1902 Colombia/Panama US forces land in Bocas de Toro
1903 Colombia/Panama With US backing, a group in northern Colombia declares independence as the state of Panama
1903 Guam Navy begins development in Apra Harbor of a permanent base installation.
1903 Honduras Marines go ashore at Puerto Cortez.
1903 Dominican Republic Marines land in Santo Domingo.
1904-1905 Korea Marines land and stay in Seoul.
1906-1909 Cuba Marines land. The US builds a major naval base at Guantanamo Bay.
1907 Nicaragua Troops seize major centers.
1907 Honduras Marines land and take up garrison in cities of Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro, Laguna and Choloma.
1908 Panama Marines land and carry out operations.
1910 Nicaragua Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
1911 Honduras Marines intervene.
1911-1941 China The US builds up its military presence in the country to a force of 5000 troops and a fleet of 44 vessels patrolling China's coast and rivers.
1912 Cuba US sends army troops into combat in Havana.
1912 Panama Army troops intervene.
1912 Honduras Marines land.
1912-1933 Nicaragua Marines intervene. A 20-year occupation of the country follows.
1913 Mexico Marines land at Ciaris Estero.
1914 Dominican Republic Naval forces engage in battles in the city of Santo Domingo.
1914 Mexico US forces seize and occupy Mexico's major port city of Veracrus from April through November.
1915-1916 Mexico An expeditionary force of the US Army under Gen. John J. Pershing crosses the Texas border and penetrates several hundred miles into Mexican territory. Eventually reinforced to over 11,000 officers and men.
1914-1934 Haiti Troops land, aerial bombardment leading to a 19-year military occupation.
1916-1924 Dominican Republic Military intervention leading to 8-year occupation.
1917-1933 Cuba Landing of naval forces. Beginning of a 15-year occupation.
1918-1920 Panama Troops intervene, remain on "police duty" for over 2 years.
1918-1922 Russia Naval forces and army troops fight battles in several areas of the country during a five- year period.
1919 Yugoslavia Marines intervene in Dalmatia.
1919 Honduras Marines land.
1920 Guatemala Troops intervene.
1922 Turkey Marines engaged in operations in Smyrna (Izmir).
1922-1927 China Naval forces and troops deployed during 5-year period.
1924-1925 Honduras Troops land twice in two-year period.
1925 Panama Marines land and engage in operations.
1927-1934 China Marines and naval forces stationed throughout the country.
1932 El Salvador Naval forces intervene.
1933 Cuba Naval forces deployed.
1934 China Marines land in Foochow.

---

quote:

---

What the heck is that? They have to stick some sort of fluff non-reporting onto the end of it? Why?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Has anyone else watched CTV on this today? Their report is about the ceasefire agreement, and then at the end, as a total non-sequitor, they tack on that "Georgia" is "going to church today" and "praying for" the ceasefire to be respected.

What the heck is that? They have to stick some sort of fluff non-reporting onto the end of it? Why?

---

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: contrarianna ]

quote:

---

... a documentary on the "Great War", what else is one supposed think you were speaking of?

---

I thought it was generally known that "The Great War" refers to the 14-18 war.

Saakashvili's future as leader in doubt Feelings of betrayal that he was made a fop of by the U.S. in order to prop up war party number one's support

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Ok am done reviewing, and it was as I thought, and stated, and I have to conclude that I both agree and disagree with you.

---

Of course nothing is all about the oil. The middle east, Egypt, and the Levant has been a serious area of geo-political interest for Europe during the imperial era right back Napoleon. The Italian/Ottoman war over Lybia is also part of the larger conflict that is already existent prior to the death of Archduke Ferdinand, and the outright declaration of war between the central powers and the Allies.

In the main Anglo-American French narratives of the war, most attention is placed on the activity on the West front of Europe, which is curious because indeed the main bulk of the fighting actually happened in the Balkans, Turkey, the Middle East, Russia and the Ukraine, with all major exchanges of territory resulting from that, including the retraction of Russia from Poland, the re-creation of Poland, the founding of Yugoslavia, the founding of modern Turkey, and the divying up of the Ottoman lands in the Middle East by France and England.

In fact Germany acted almost as if there was a virtual truce on the West Front, from 1916 to 1918, and conducted no major offensives there, while it contended with the issues of defeating Russia.

Regardless the main line western narrative of the war, which poses that the war begins with the assassination of the the Archduke Ferdinand and the Austria/Hungary's invasion of Serbia, tends to obscure the fundamental causes of the war that places the rest of the "world", in a manner that is peripheral to the main narrative of the war, which in fact was more or less already taking place in the Balkans, and also, as you point out in Lybia between the Italians and the Ottomans.

Dating the war as begining at the point of time that direct conflict breaks out in Europe, seems rather arbitrary to me.

Likewise, dating the end as being the point at which armistice is signed by the Allies and Germany also seems strange, given that the sailent issue of the whole conflagration (what will happen to the Ottoman Empire?) is not resolved until 1922, and that warfare continues in Asia Minor for another three years, and ends in the discomfiture of France, England, and Greece in Anatolia which the "great powers" had determined would be devided by the victors at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference.

I hardly hardly see much of a real distinction, at least from the point of view of Turkey and the Balkans peoples, since open warfare basically starts in 1912 and continues in a real sense up until 1922. The standard history typically asserts the view that the real warfare only begins when Europeans are killing each other.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Just a little bit of history repeating itself

" Not only those people who perpetrate them are responsible, but also those people who failed to stop it. Georgian President and U.S. puppet Mikheil Saaskashvili, August 2008

quote:

---

I hardly hardly see much of a real distinction, at least from the point of view of Turkey and the Balkans peoples, since open warfare basically starts in 1912 and continues in a real sense up until 1922. The standard history typically asserts the view that the real warfare only begins when Europeans are killing each other.

---

Howard Zinn has a chuckle in one of his Alternative Radio lectures after saying that in history class he was taught about "The US Age of Imperialism: 1895-1899."

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: al-Qa'bong ]

Former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze also acknowleges the Georgian attack and says that it was a mistake. He also says some other interesting things.

Of course, we still have plenty of babblers, no doubt, who shall remain skeptical of this truth. That does, however, put them on the right of Pat Buchanan.

Anyway, here's the quote from the former Georgian President.

quote:

---

Shevardnadze: And what I am saying now, I'm going to say for the first time. Georgia is a civilised country, but in its history there were times when it had to sell its children on the Istanbul markets - they were then taken to Egypt. And it was not only boys, but girls too. Their mothers tried to convince them how sweet their lives would be there.

When the Russians came, they banned this slavery. And I can't but say this - that the Russians actually saved Georgia. Why is it, that today America is the only country who has influence on Georgian politics? Do they really need to put us at war with Ossetia? It's logically not right. It was our leaders' decision to do all this aggression. It was exclusively the decision of the Georgian state. And I believe we made a mistake, a very serious mistake.

---

Although the unfolding drama in the Caucasus has been a tragedy for its innocent victims, the response by America’s political and media elites has been an entertaining and delusional farce.

To recap events, the government of the former Soviet Republic of Georgia launched a surprise invasion of South Ossetia (an autonomous republic within Georgia that has been functionally independent since the break-up of the Soviet Union). On the night of August 8, the Georgian military – armed and trained by America and Israel – stormed through South Ossetia and overran the region’s putative capital city (leaving it a smoldering ruin). Thousands of Ossetian refugees poured northward to Russia, bringing harrowing tales of Georgian brutality. As the Georgian army swept through the countryside, they encountered groups of Russian peacekeepers, who had been stationed there years ago to monitor a previous ceasefire. Several of those Russian soldiers were killed by the advancing Georgian forces.

As anyone with a remote understanding of Russian history (and human nature) should have been able to predict, the Russians reacted rather badly. Before the Georgians could consolidate their "victory," the Russians unleashed a devastating counterattack.

All in all, the Russian operation was a fairly impressive combined arms campaign that involved tactical air support, armor, mechanized infantry, and naval assets. The Georgian air force was destroyed on the ground, and the Georgian navy was sunk or neutralized. Russian forces quickly retook all of South Ossetia and seized critical chokepoints along Georgia’s highway system, effectively cutting the nation into three parts.

The smoke had barely cleared when the Bush Administration, the neoconservative pundits, and our lapdog media started crying foul. Russian leader Vladimir Putin was, inevitably, likened to Adolf Hitler. Georgia was portrayed as an innocent victim of unprovoked aggression. The Ossetian victims were quickly relegated to the Orwellian memory hole.

Although I am not a fan of Vladimir Putin (he is certainly not a libertarian), it’s hard to garner much sympathy for the Georgians. The Russian counteroffensive merely gave the Georgians a stiff dose of precisely the same medicine they were planning to give to the Ossetians.

All in all, it was a humanitarian tragedy, but hardly a heartrending tale of Georgian victimhood.

But America long ago ceased to analyze events with anything remotely resembling an objective moral standard. Nowadays, the only yardsticks our imperial elites understand are power and self-interest.

Over the past seven years, the Bush Administration strove to "contain" Russia by establishing Georgia as a regional proxy. This was quickly followed by the now-familiar horror-show of Washington special interest groups. The petroleum lobby wanted to control a vital pipeline that transports Caspian oil to the Mediterranean. The military coveted Georgian territory for "lily-pad" bases. The arms industry saw Georgia as a lucrative market for its new geegaws and gizmos.

It was a wonderful little playground, and everything was going swimmingly until Putin came along and kicked over the apple cart.

But from all the whining in the media, you’d think it was the Russians who actually started the war.

The most telling example I’ve seen of neoconservative bellyaching was published by Leon Aron (a Russia scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute) in the August 13 edition of USA Today. Most of his article consists of ad hominem attacks on Vladimir Putin and petty ethnic slurs against the Russian people, but the real meat of the piece involves Aron’s description of a newfound menace he calls "Putinism."

"Putinism" is, he claims, a dangerous crypto-fascist ideology that is engulfing contemporary Russia. In the article, Aron lists the main tenets of "Putinism," and, in the process, reveals more about himself and the American Enterprise Institute than he does anything about Russia or its leaders.

There are, according to Aron, five major characteristics of "Putinism":

1. The intensely personal system of power in which the "national leader" rather than democratic institutions rule.
2. The state propaganda themes of loss and imperial nostalgia.
3. The idea of the besieged fortress Russia surrounded by cunning, ruthless, and plotting enemies on every side.
4. Spy mania
5. The labeling of political opposition as the "fifth column" traitors.

To the wearied libertarian ear, this newly discovered ideology should sound eerily familiar.

In truth, each and every one of these principles has already been embraced – and even glorified – by the very neoconservatives who now so viciously denounce Putin.

Take the first tenet, for example. The intensely personal system of power in which the "national leader" rather than democratic institutions rule.

Haven’t the neocons been claiming that our president reigns supreme in times of war, and that he is free to discard the constitution’s limitations on his power as he sees fit? Haven’t they supported policies that allow the president to finger anyone as a "terrorist sympathizer" – a designation that permits our government to imprison suspects without access to a lawyer or a court? (Or, even worse, to "rendition" detainees to overseas dungeons for a healthy dose of "enhanced interrogation techniques"?)

As for the part about "state propaganda," didn’t the Pentagon get caught paying pundits to plant pro-war op-ed articles in American newspapers? Haven’t the neocons been glorifying war as a necessary and desirable strategy for American "benevolent world hegemony"?

As for the part about "spy mania" and fomenting paranoia, can anyone rival the neocons in that department? It was the Bushites – not Vladimir Putin – who gutted the Fourth Amendment with a massive telephone and email wiretapping program – all executed without court-approved warrants. And what about the endless stories of grandmothers and handicapped people being roughed-up and strip-searched at airports because we are allegedly "surrounded by cunning, ruthless, and plotting enemies on every side"?

And what about the Putinesque strategy of "labeling political opposition as traitors." I vividly recall, during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, that anyone who disagreed with the administration’s war plans was promptly smeared and driven from public life by packs of slobbering neoconservative pit bulls. (Has anyone heard from General Shinseki lately?)

And let’s not forget some of the other memorable moments on the Bush II highlight reel.

Did Vladimir Putin suggest to his cronies that they should paint Russian warplanes with UN colors and buzz Georgian cities (thus providing a convenient casus belli if the Georgians should shoot one of them down)? Did Vladimir Putin sow fear among his people with stories of an imminent attack by fictitious, chemical-spraying drones?

Given recent history, the rest of the world must be watching Washington’s anti-Russian hissy fit with slack-jawed disbelief.

Although the reptilian nature of our ruling class long ago ceased to amaze me, there is one question that still piques my curiosity: When our elites write articles like this one in USA Today, are they aware of their hypocrisy? Are they totally deaf to the screams of their own irony, or are they coldly cognizant of their actions?

To put it another way, when the doors are closed and the cameras are turned off, do the neocon pundits kick back in the paneled AEI smoking room, light up a few cigars, and laugh at how stupid they think we all are? Or does some massive wall in their psyche prevent them from gaining true insight into their own nature?

OK, now that you've done that, how about chopping up the story and maybe summarizing the article in your own words.

Here. Let me help you. Here are a couple of parts that I found interesting:

quote:

---

As the Georgian army swept through the countryside, they encountered groups of Russian peacekeepers, who had been stationed there years ago to monitor a previous ceasefire. Several of those Russian soldiers were killed by the advancing Georgian forces.

---

Actually, no. To the best of my understanding, the invading Georgian troops opened fire on the Russian (and Ossetian?) peacekeepers first of all. And some of those opening fire were the Georgian peacekeepers. Needless to say, this action outraged the Russians as much as killing civilians did.

quote:

---

The Ossetian victims were quickly relegated to the Orwellian memory hole.

---

Well put. We have babblers who are "agnostic" on this issue but who, nevertheless, find time to devote reams of remarks and discussion on the nefarious activities of the Russian bogeyman - sometimes entirely speculative.

quote:

---

The most telling example I’ve seen of neoconservative bellyaching was published by Leon Aron ... Most of his article consists of ad hominem attacks on Vladimir Putin and petty ethnic slurs against the Russian people, but the real meat of the piece involves Aron’s description of a newfound menace he calls "Putinism."

---

These ethnic slurs fit with the Russophobia or what Stephen Cohen has called the anti-Russian fatwa of the neocons.

See? I quoted something and added a remark or two. That's how you want to do it.

[ 17 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
...

Of course, we still have plenty of babblers, no doubt, who shall remain skeptical of this truth. That does, however, put them on the right of Pat Buchanan.

---

Are you really claiming that many Babblers assert that Georgia did not invade South Ossetia?

How many real citations can you come up with to substantiate this claim (assuming that is the claim being made, if not, this question is moot)?

quote:

---

jrootham: Are you really claiming that many Babblers assert that Georgia did not invade South Ossetia?

---

You can look at the tiresome series of threads yourself and find the evidence. There were a few who fell into the category of simply ignoring what happened.

However, rejecting the evidence was mixed with an agnoticism or skepticism towards it, combined with a lot of moralizing about the evil Rooskies and their invasion of Georgia isolated from the previous events in South Ossetia.

RFK Jr. warns Canadians about corporate media

quote:

---

"Today as a result of that [the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine] there are five major corporations that control 14,000 radio stations in the United States. All 2,200 TV stations," he said. . . We're supposed to be leaders of the free world, but we have no clue what's happening in the free world," he said.

---

quote:

---

Well put. We have babblers who are "agnostic" on this issue but who, nevertheless, find time to devote reams of remarks and discussion on the nefarious activities of the Russian bogeyman - sometimes entirely speculative.

---

Entirely speculative, eh. I recounted a history of the waves of Ossentian and Gerogian refugees that have been the consequence of Abkazia and Ossetia conflicts going back to the early Nineties. You had the chance to refute that, but didn't.

I did also say that this history- and the signs we have seen of it already- indicates that Russian recogntion [or de facto recognition] of the Republic of South Ossetia will see more waves of Gerogians expelled or driven by fear... while the Russians there stand and watch.

Is that just 'speculation'?

quote:

---

jrootham: Are you really claiming that many Babblers assert that Georgia did not invade South Ossetia?

You can look at the tiresome series of threads yourself and find the evidence. There were a few who fell into the category of simply ignoring what happened.

However, rejecting the evidence was mixed with an agnoticism or skepticism towards it, combined with a lot of moralizing about the evil Rooskies and their invasion of Georgia isolated from the previous events in South Ossetia.

---

No surprise here.

But the histotical precedent in the Balkans, Caucuses, and Central Asia is that demagogues already facing a lot of criticism have been able to hold onto power after leading their people into disastrous confrontations.

I haven't been watching closely, but I think that all the criticsm of Saakashvili's adventure I can remember hearing has been from people who have no political traction in Georgia- therefore nothing to lose in giving their analysis.

quote:

---

The UN refugee agency on Sunday said the number of people displaced by the South Ossetia conflict is now 158,600.

---

quote:

---

UNHCR says number of displaced in S. Ossietia has hit 100,000

---

http://www.unmultimedia.org/radio/english/detail/10341.html

The body of the brief article quotes a spokesperson:

quote:

---

Meanwhile, Spokesman Ron Redmond says estimates are that as many as 100,000 people have been uprooted by the fighting.

---

"By the fighting" does not mean just in South Ossetia."

That article is now several days old and 100,000 was a quick field estimate.

The figure I gave is a from a Globe article without reference to the UNHCR source. Maybe there will or has been be an official release of that figure.

That figure would not include any refugges from Russia because there aren't any in this conflict.

The article does pass on the Russians saying there are still 30,000 South Ossetians in the North [part of the RSFSR]. But I think those would not be included in any UNHCR figures, because they had safe opportunity to return and chose not to. [I mentioned earlier that they were settled by Russia in lands taken from the Ingush 50 years previously, and have a better life than what they had evenre-conflict South Ossetia.]

quote:

---

KenS: I did also say that this history- and the signs we have seen of it already- indicates that Russian recogntion [or de facto recognition] of the Republic of South Ossetia will see more waves of Gerogians expelled or driven by fear... while the Russians there stand and watch.

Is that just 'speculation'?

---

Well, let's see.

There are reports in the Russian media, already, that "Russia is convinced Georgian refugees will be able to return to South Ossetia". (see Interfax) However, there is an even more recent report that "Russian Interior Minister concerned over security of 130 Georgian nationals in South Ossetia" - which presumably means that Georgians may have to be protected from Ossetians by the Russian peacekeepers and troops there right now.

The South Ossetian leader, Kokoity, is saying something different, that the Georgians will never be trusted to provide peacekeepers (understandable, given what they did this past week or so) ... and I am not sure if I am interpreting this correctly, but it sounds like he is also saying that Georgians who used to live in South Ossetia will not be welcome back. He has also sacked his cabinet. Kokoity may ask the Russian to establish a permanent military base in South Ossetia according to another report.

quote:

---

So it seems to me that it is close to an equal number of S Ossetians and Georgians who have been displaced by, the US backed, military actions of Georgis.

---

Are you talking about displaced since Gerogia attacked South Ossetia and the Russians?

From within South Ossetia, I think there would be more Ossetian refugees- so far. [More Gerogian refugees from Ossetia is a virtual certainty. Its more a question whether any significant numbers will remain.]

The vast majority of recent Georgian refugees from this conflict are from Gerogia proper, and that would be well over 100,000 of the UNHCR.

To recap the waves of refugees from the 15 years of Ossetian conflict, which I outlined earlier.

When Georgia asserted authority in the early Nineties, about 40,000 Ossetians fled to North Ossetia [in Russia].

With Russian backing, the Ossetians got the upper hand in the parts of the territory where thay are the majority. Some of that first wave of refugees came back, the majority remained in what was a much better economic situation for them than returning.

The second wave of refugees is Georgians leaving the Ossentian majority areas [and the city] because the peacekeepers were unable/unwilling to protect them from violent intimidation. Judging from census figures that would be 15-25,000 from the Nineties till the present conflict.

The new refugees would be Ossetians [and the few remaining Georgians] that were in the capital before it was attacked, and Georgians from the surrounding villages.

Virtually all the refugees from the much larger and more violent Abkhazian conflict have been and always were Georgian.

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

You can look at the tiresome series of threads yourself and find the evidence. There were a few who fell into the category of simply ignoring what happened.
...
Orwellian memory hole is an apt description here. But perhaps "some" babblers would be more precise - since some of those making the claims were newcomers that will likely never post again.

---

I have read every posting in all of these threads and your description is inaccurate.

ETA: Unless "many babblers" really translates to "a few trolls".

Also, You didn't answer the question.

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: jrootham ]

quote:

---

Well, let's see.

There are reports in the Russian media, already, that "Russia is convinced Georgian refugees will be able to return to South Ossetia". (see Interfax) However, there is an even more recent report that "Russian Interior Minister concerned over security of 130 Georgian nationals in South Ossetia"

---

The Russians do lots of talking about what they are doing and will do.

The historical record is that intimidation of Gerogians went on for the decade plus the Russian peace keeprs were there.

I don't doubt they will stop some of the excesses now, and have over the years. But that doesn't belie the historical pattern.

And further to that historical record. Russia has intrgrated Abkhazia fully within its economy. The lack of formal annexation means nothing: it is part of Russia for all intents and purposes. It is an understatement that they have a lot of sway with the government there. They did nothing and said nothing about the wholesale expulsion of the Georgian population.

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

The Russians have begun their troop withdrawal from Georgia today. I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet. Perhaps it's not "newsworthy" or something.

And I ALSO talked discussed what has happened to civilian populations over the past 15 years as a basis for what we can expect to come from the present conflict.

You have never attempted to substantively contradict any of it, trying to pass it off as 'speculation' or avoiding the present by talking about the past.

But I should have my head examined for bothering with you. I doubt there are more than 2 maybe 3 people who go so far as you to actually beleive the Russian propaganda.

quote:

---

The Russians have begun their troop withdrawal from Georgia today. I don't think anyone has mentioned this yet. Perhaps it's not "newsworthy" or something.

---

I'm sure anyone reading this thread has seen that. They probably also know that Russia is simultaneously withdrwing, destroying economic targets, and placing troops and weaponry where they can instantly deliver more hammer blows.

Of course Russia is going to mix diplomatic offers and some substantive moves in with the iron fist.

If you think that all that display of force is only to keep Georgia in line [which Russia has a legimate concern in], or to protect civilians [ ], then you are severely deluded. All of it for the benefit of the rest of Russia's neighbours.

[ 18 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Both of those authors clearly put the responsibility where it belongs - on the Georgians, and Saaskashvili in particular, for the series of events this past week or so. Neither author equivocates like you have.

Saakashvili eats his tie.

BBC: Saakashvili eats his tie.

quote:

---

Kevin Tracy: Recently, Russian medical doctors and high level politicians have been questioning the sanity and mental health of the Georgian President. When I first heard the accusations, I laughed, thinking it was just a propaganda ploy (Russians have always had the best propaganda if you’re interested in marketing or discrediting your neighbors). But after watching videos of Saakashvili, he really didn’t look all there and then this video is really pushing me over the edge.

---

Further developments:

quote:

---

Ukraine's opposition party has pledged to send 365 neckties to Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, who was recently caught on camera nervously chewing his garment while discussing the Georgian-Russian conflict.

Saakashvili has caused an internet sensation with his tie-chewing antics, captured during a phone conversation with a top Western official and aired by the BBC, and also over footage of him running in apparent terror after speaking to reporters, believing he was about to be attacked by Russian planes.

Party of Regions lawmaker Boris Kolesnikov told a crowd of supporters in the east Ukrainian city of Donetsk: "We have already bought Saakashvili spiked running shoes, similar to those worn by the Jamaican sprinter who won the Olympic 100 meters. We will also buy him 365 neckties, so that he will have enough to chew on every day of the year."

---

Kolesnikov: Here's something to chew on every day of the year.

[ 22 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

If you think that all that display of force is only to keep Georgia in line [which Russia has a legimate concern in], or to protect civilians [ ], then you are severely deluded. All of it for the benefit of the rest of Russia's neighbours.

---

Yes, that's very shrill of you to say so. The evil Rooskies are making it even harder for "North Atlantic" Treaty Org expansion of military bases into their region and representing a proper menace to the Russians, er Iranians, er whichever bullshit threat colder warriors are wanting us to believe exists and threatens our peace and safety here on THIS side of the planet.

Here's one author's view. Pay particular attention to number 4 in the list of things the Russians failed to do.

quote:

---

Silvio Pitter: On the Georgian side, Mikheil Saakashvili’s continuous appearances on CNN resulted in the creation of a direct communication channel between one party involved in the conflict and global news viewers. In addition, as the nearly exclusive source of information coming from Georgia, Saakashvili progressively gained international credibility in the eyes of the public: the president was the “face” of the country partaking in the conflict.

An analysis of Saakashvili’s speeches on CNN shows that a few key ideas were repeated over and over, including that Russia “invaded” Georgia to end its “free and democratic” course and because of the latter’s “friendly relationship” with the West; Russia’s actions evoke the “Soviet invasions” of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Afghanistan; Russia’s goal in the conflict is to “conquer” Georgia and ultimately take control of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyan pipeline, a key energy infrastructure for the West.

While in the interviews all these ideas were combined in a rather chaotic manner, they were carefully picked out with one goal in mind: to be appealing to a Western audience.

---

And on the other side?

quote:

---

On the other side of the conflict, Russia’s first reaction - from Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in Beijing - initiated a counterproductive dualism with President Dmitry Medvedev that added confusion to Moscow’s official position during the crisis. Dozens more statements followed from a relatively large number of actors, which prevented news viewers from associating the country with a recognizable representative, and eventually hurt the credibility of Russia’s messages. In addition, the lack of coordination among the speakers resulted in Russia’s failure to provide the global audience with a credible “story.” In this dual confrontation, South Ossetian people, with their president, parliament and civic organizations, never really became part of the picture painted in the international media. Eduard Kokoity’s statements were rare and mainly failed to make it outside of the Russian press.

---

so?

quote:

---

Firstly, Russia should have selected a few value messages to be repeated in all official statements – long before the conflict broke out – providing global viewers with a clear and convincing “story” as of why and how it was going to get involved in South Ossetia. These messages should have been tailored to target an external – mostly Western – audience, using carefully selected terms to make sure Russia’s position was effectively received.

Secondly, only a handful of people should have been entitled to express Russia’s official position, using the above-mentioned value messages, during the conflict. This team should have included at least one person fluent in English and possibly other foreign language speakers (First Deputy Prime Minister Ivanov’s interview on CNN was a step in the right direction).

Thirdly, a media center should have been created, where international journalists would have been able to get easy and direct access to information provided by the authorities. Regular briefings and Q&A sessions – with the support of maps and videos – would have helped to avoid much of the misrepresentation seen in the media (interestingly, after his first appearance on CNN, Saakashvili was advised to hang a map of Georgia behind his desk and referred to it several times in the following interviews for the benefit of Western news viewers).

Fourthly, access to South Ossetian refugees should have not only been allowed, but facilitated. South Ossetian people suffered the most from the conflict, but they were surprisingly kept out of the global press coverage. In order to include them in the picture, the above-mentioned media center could have been created in North Ossetia, next to or within the refugee camps that are currently being created, providing international journalists with easy access to first-hand information.

Lastly, a small team of international communication experts should have been created to assess the status of the conflict’s coverage by the media in key foreign countries. While the value-messages mentioned in point one should apply to all global audiences, local nuances and nation-specific interpretations need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, to make sure messages are effectively received by each target audience.

---

quote:

---

It's Me D: I understand why the US media was able to be so prepared, after all in addition to America's advance knowledge of this particular assault by Georgia they have also been covering and spinning American wars all over the world for quite a while now.

---

This point, to some extent, makes the Russians look even dumber. They should expect such wars, and be prepared for the media war surrounding them. The point about coordinating the media efforts, e.g., making Saakashvili the main spokesperson still remains. In fact, the South Ossetian leader has been making statements that the Russian Foreign Minister has been at pains to downplay. Eduard Kokoity says that Georgian refugees won't be welcome back to South Ossetia and the Russian foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, is put in the position of having to downplay, or even contradict the Ossetian leader. These guys are poorly organized and it shows.

quote:

---

I guess what I am saying is that to expect so much of the Russia with respect to the messaging around the conflict is not reasonable given that they were, after all, the victims of a surprise attack.

---

It was not a complete surprise as the Russians had been warning, for some months now, that the Georgian military build-up, the military exercises with the US "advisors" so recently completed, the provocations that had been going on, etc., all pointed to likely conflict in the future.

The NATO countries have now turned things around and said that they won't even meet with the Russians until Russia pulls out of Georgia, etc. So NATO controls the narrative completely.

Wagging the dog

quote:

---

The Bush administration also made risky military steps to embolden Saakashvili, like sending Pentagon advisers to build up the Georgian military, including an exercise last month with more than 1,000 American troops. Russia warned as early as in 2003 that this might lead Saakashvili to use American-trained troops to launch an offensive against Abkhazia or South Ossetia, and even to clash with Russian forces. On August 6, Georgian units without prior notice failed to show up for the regular training exercise with American instructors, a clear signal that they were ordered to deploy to the combat zone. The United States failed to share with Russia this hard intelligence of an imminent Georgian assault on South Ossetia.

All of this created a political context in which Saakashvili was emboldened to feel that he could safely ignore private U.S. warnings as not intended seriously ...

---

example of the tail wagging the dog?

quote:

---

The Bush administration obviously learned nothing about Saakashvili. He quickly jumped at another opportunity to embarrass his friends in Washington.

After Bush’s announcement of a U.S. humanitarian mission to Georgia, Saakashvili rushed to claim on television that the United States was readying to take over Georgian airports and sea ports, and place them under the protection of U.S. forces, a claim that shocked U.S. officials who immediately hurried to disavow, imagining the reaction this would get from Russia.

The tail continues to wag the dog.

---

Hmm. Maybe they're all idiots.

The article has a substantiation of the claim about the initial assault on South Ossetia and the kind of weapons that were used. The author uses US sources ...

quote:

---

Peter Finn wrote in the Washington Post about what happened in real life. At about midnight on August 8, Georgian forces opened fire, using multiple-launch rocket systems known as BM-21s. These are extremely inaccurate artillery systems used to destroy “area targets”-- simply exterminating every living thing in the range of several hectares after a full salvo of forty rockets by a single launcher. These were fired into the town of Tskhinvali – a very soft and unprotected target, with the local population being given no prior warning.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
More about the Russians losing the media war. Human Rights Watch, well known for its biases, managed to cast doubt on the figure of 1,600 dead in South Ossetia by claiming that only 44 corpses were brought to Tskhinvali’s clinics. HRW data is only marginally better than the ungodly silence by Western media, governments, churches, etc., about the many dead in South Ossetia. But the Russians should have done a more thorough job of publicising the relevant information, by identifying names, showing how people died (however unpleasant), making the South Ossetians more available, etc.

---

Latest news is that Russia has reduced its own figure by 92%, from 1,600 to 133:

quote:

---

BBC - Russia scales down Georgia toll

Russia has issued new, reduced casualty figures for the Georgian conflict, with 133 civilians now listed as dead in the disputed region of South Ossetia.

The figure is far lower than the 1,600 people Russia initially said had died.

. . .

On Wednesday, South Ossetian officials said 1,492 civilians in had been killed.

The US-based group Human Rights Watch told the BBC its own investigation suggests that dozens of people had died there, rather than thousands, although it did document indiscriminate shelling and severe destruction in residential areas of the capital, Tskhinvali.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
I should think the distraction is quite welcome in Tehran, and their ongoing positive relationships with Russia will be expanded as a result of Russia firming up Iran's northern border.

---

OTOH, the South Ossetian authorities themselves are claiming a number of 1,492 civilian casualties, which appears a little more than halfway through the BBC report.

quote:

---

BBC: The prosecutors reported finding many hastily dug graves in gardens - and said it would not be clear how many more dead were buried there until thousands of refugees return home.

---

Nevertheless, the BBC quotes an unnamed Russian source at 133 civilian victims. Interesting.

EDITED TO ADD: What's also interesting is that 133 is exactly the number of Georgian military casualties claimed by the Georgian Defence Minister. Here is the link. What a remarkable coincidence.

OK ... I've found the report from the IHT which says the following ...

quote:

---

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 the total because many victims had already been buried.

---

In other words, it's 133 civilian deaths confirmed ... so far. Remarkable what a difference 2 words can make.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
That BBC report on the alleged number of South Ossetian casualties is a little vague on the source. Where does one look for confirmation for a report that reads, "Russia ... said", "Moscow says", ... blah-blah? How difficult is it to identify the source?

---

Let's face it, it's cheaper to invade Georgia than build a new pipeline from the Caspian Sea through Russia.

quote:

---

A_J:What was the source for the original claim of 1,600-2,000?

---

That source was the South Ossetian leader Eduard Kokoity in one of his statements.

Incidentally, the Russian Prosecutor General's Office web site, like many of the Russian government web sites, has been impossible to reach in order to get a direct quote on this matter.

-------------------------

I suppose it is worth mentioning that it is actually a step forward for the western media to even acknowledge that there were ANY Ossetian casualties following the attack. There's been what amounts to (mostly) an ungodly silence in this regard.

quote:

---

South Ossetia’s top police official, Mikhail Mindzayev, told reporters Saturday that the number of civilian casualties was over 2,100, Interfax reported.

Separatist leaders had previously put the figure at 1,600, and Russian officials have cited the 1,600 figure for the past week. Most recently, Federation Council Deputy Speaker Alexander Torshin said Friday that 1,600 Ossetian civilians had perished under Georgian fire.

On the second day of the conflict, Aug. 9, Russia’s ambassador to Georgia, Vyacheslav Kovalenko, declared that more than 2,000 Ossetian civilians had died....

it is looking increasingly unlikely that the death toll will be anywhere close to the numbers needed to support Moscow’s claim that Tbilisi had committed genocide.

---

However,

quote:

---

The head of the Moscow Bureau for Human Rights, Alexander Brod, who visited South Ossetia on Friday as a member of a team with the Public Chamber, said the official Moscow body count of about 1,600 looked credible.

“I saw there that a lot of people killed during the first two days of fighting were buried on the spot, right in their own yards, because the intense fire did not allow other options,” he said.

Also, the very strong odor of decomposing bodies is hanging over Tskhinvali’s demolished buildings, he said.

“There will be significantly more dead after the rubble is removed,” he said.

---

quote:

---

The world has been witness this month to a mini-war in the Caucasus, and the rhetoric has been passionate, if largely irrelevant….

From 1945 to 1989, the principal chess game was that between the United States and the Soviet Union. It was called the Cold War, and the basic rules were called metaphorically "Yalta." The most important rule concerned a line that divided Europe into two zones of influence. It was called by Winston Churchill the "Iron Curtain" and ran from Stettin to Trieste. The rule was that, no matter how much turmoil was instigated in Europe by the pawns, there was to be no actual warfare between the United States and the Soviet Union. And at the end of each instance of turmoil, the pieces were to be returned to where they were at the outset. This rule was observed meticulously right up to the collapse of the Communisms in 1989, which was most notably marked by the destruction of the Berlin wall.

It is perfectly true, as everyone observed at the time, that the Yalta rules were abrogated in 1989 and that the game between the United States and (as of 1991) Russia had changed radically. The major problem since then is that the United States misunderstood the new rules of the game. It proclaimed itself, and was proclaimed by many others, the lone superpower. In terms of chess rules, this was interpreted to mean that the United States was free to move about the chessboard as it saw fit, and in particular to transfer former Soviet pawns to its sphere of influence. Under Clinton, and even more spectacularly under George W. Bush, the United States proceeded to play the game this way.

There was only one problem with this: The United States was not the lone superpower; it was no longer even a superpower at all. The end of the Cold War meant that the United States had been demoted from being one of two superpowers to being one strong state in a truly multilateral distribution of real power in the interstate system….

The coming to power of George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin was more or less simultaneous. Bush decided to push the lone superpower tactics (the United States can move its pieces as it alone decides) much further than had Clinton. First, Bush in 2001 withdrew from the 1972 U.S.-Soviet Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Then he announced that the United States would not move to ratify two new treaties signed in the Clinton years: the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the agreed changes in the SALT II nuclear disarmament treaty. Then Bush announced that the United States would move forward with its National Missile Defense system.

And of course, Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. As part of this engagement, the United States sought and obtained rights to military bases and overflight rights in the Central Asian republics that formerly were part of the Soviet Union. In addition, the United States promoted the construction of pipelines for Central Asian and Caucasian oil and natural gas that would bypass Russia. And finally, the United States entered into an agreement with Poland and the Czech Republic to establish missile defense sites, ostensibly to guard against Iranian missiles. Russia, however, regarded them as aimed at her….

The breakup of the Soviet Union had led to ethnic secessionist movements in many former republics, including Georgia. When Georgia in 1990 sought to end the autonomous status of its non-Georgian ethnic zones, they promptly proclaimed themselves independent states. They were recognized by no one but Russia guaranteed their de facto autonomy.

The immediate spurs to the current mini-war were twofold. In February, Kosovo formally transformed its de facto autonomy to de jure independence. Its move was supported by and recognized by the United States and many western European countries. Russia warned at the time that the logic of this move applied equally to the de facto secessions in the former Soviet republics. In Georgia, Russia moved immediately, for the first time, to recognize South Ossetian de jure independence in direct response to that of Kosovo.

And in April this year, the United States proposed at the NATO meeting that Georgia and Ukraine be welcomed into a so-called Membership Action Plan. Germany, France, and the United Kingdom all opposed this action, saying it would provoke Russia….

---

I suspect these conclusions of the US being outmaneuvered may turn out to be premature.

There may be minor sacrifices of the Georgian military, but look at what has been achieved... the west is falling into line against Russia and a new atmosphere of antagonism is rising. That represents a coup for the US ruling classes. The more "enemies" the greater their grip on power, both in terms of domestic political and financial support, and in terms of international coalitions.

Poland is getting missile defense, Georgia will get back its colonies, NATO is becoming more compact, military spending will be increased everywhere, and Russia is being isolated.

Chess is a very poor analogy to global geopolitics. In the game of chess everybody starts with the same location and the same number of pieces, with only 2 people playing. In the real world, the USA has more queens and more pawns.

[ 20 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

500_Apples: ... Georgia will get back its colonies ...

---

Right now that seems extremely unlikely. The South Ossetian (SO) leader is calling for a permanent Russian military base in SO (which would be illegal), SO and Abkhazia are discussing the establishment of joint defense and political integration, they are ruling out, in advance, any more Georgian peacekeepers in their territory, and so on.

quote:

---

A high level Kazakh official told Turkish business daily Referans that question marks now hang over the security of the BTC pipeline. "We could reconsider our decisions on sending Kazak oil to the world market. Changing the (export) route is in our agenda now," the official was quoted as saying by Referans.

---

quote:

---

ussia is ready to supply Syria with defensive weapons, the Russian foreign minister said on Thursday following a meeting between the two countries leaders in Russia's Black Sea resort of Sochi.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad arrived in Russia Wednesday on a two-day visit to discuss bilateral relations and regional developments, in particular the situation in the Middle East and Iraq.

"We are ready, and Dmitry Medvedev has confirmed this, to review a Syrian request to purchase new types of weapons," Sergei Lavrov said following the meeting between Medvedev and Assad.

---

quote:

---

But in response to the visit, Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister, said: "It is in nobody's interest to destabilise the region."

She warnedthat Syria's continued links to the Iranian-sponsored Hizbollah militia in Lebanon meant weapons could fall into unexpected and "dangerous" hands.

"It is a mutual interest of Russia, of Israel and of the pragmatic leaders and states in the region not to send long-range missiles to Syria," she said.

---

quote:

---

We are ready, and Dmitry Medvedev has confirmed this, to review a Syrian request to purchase new types of weapons," Sergei Lavrov said following the meeting between Medvedev and Assad.

"We will supply Syria primarily with weapons of a defensive nature that will not disturb the strategic balance in the region," he added.

---

I wish for a start that NATO would immediately reduce its military budgets to only the same amount as all other countries combined. At least then they would show some commitment to peace. Fighting for Peace is like Fucking for Virginity.

quote:

---

Indeed, no sooner had the Russians shown their intention to reassert themselves as a major power and to not be ignored, than Syrian President Bashar Assad announced his intention of traveling to Moscow on Thursday to meet with Russian leaders.

This development will likely turn into a major setback for U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East where, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington was the undisputed powerbroker; the value of which the Bush administration failed to appreciate and understand, or yet try to take advantage of by reenergizing the stagnating Middle East peace process.

---

The Russians will not be invited as NATO apparently has no interest in hearing what they have to say for themselves. But, of course, it goes without saying that NATO has no aggressive intentions against that country.

The NATO council looks to be making a rush job of admitting Georgia to NATO, if the Russian News Agency Interfax is to be believed. link

quote:

---

TBILISI. Aug 22 (Interfax) - Georgia will become a NATO member eventually and the country is on a path to being included in the Membership Action Plan (MAP), a program to help nations seeking to join the North Atlantic alliance, a senior NATO envoy confirmed on Friday.

Robert Simmons, NATO special representative for the Caucasus and Central Asia, who made the announcement at a briefing in Tbilisi, did not say when MAP would be extended to Georgia.

---

Meanwhile, Russian General Nogovitsyn is saying that the Georgians look to be planning another attack ...

quote:

---

Moscow, 22 August 2008 (RIA Novosti):

Georgia is preparing for military action in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, a senior Russian military official warned Friday. “We registered an increase in [Georgian] reconnaissance activities and preparations for armed actions in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict zone”, Colonel General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of the Russian military’s general staff, told a news conference.

---

Is Saakashvili nuts??!

[ 22 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

NATO has responded to the troop withdrawal by sending a couple of ships into the Black Sea, promising to beef up the Georgian military again, and the Georgian Parliament has extended martial law to September 8.

However, the Georgians have finally admitted that they did not expect the response from the Russians over the attack on South Ossetia.

quote:

---

In an interview with the Financial Times, Batu Kuteliya, Georgian deputy defense minister, said that Georgia had decided to attack South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, despite the insufficient amount of anti-tank and air defenses to protect its armed forces against potential serious resistance.

"I didn't think it likely that a member of the UN Security Council and the OSCE would react like this," Kuteliya told FT.

---

Funny, though, the Russian pullout just isn't getting the same kind of decontextualized saturation coverage that the movement of Russian troops INTO Georgia got.

quote:

---

The principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra and artistic director of the Mariinsky Theatre, Valery Gergiev, has led a concert in Tskhinvali. The performance was staged next to the destroyed parliament building in the bombed-out capital of South Ossetia.

The concert featured selections from Tchaikovsky’s fifth and sixth symphonies as well as Shostakovich’s famous “invasion” theme from his sixth symphony.

Opening the concert, Gergiev said: “We want everyone in the world to know the truth about the terrible events in Tskhinvali. It was a huge act of aggression on the part of the Georgian army. This is not yet a known story in the world but I’m sure the truth will be coming through”.

He added: “If it hadn’t been for the Russian army there would have been even more casualties and victims ...”

---

Here is part 1 of the concert

quote:

---

Russia Today: An entire Jewish area has been wiped out as a result of Georgia’s military offensive in Tskhinvali. Witnesses in the South Ossetian capital say there’s hardly a home standing in the area where the city’s Jewish population lived.

Out of 20 families who lived in the Jewish neighbourhood, only one is left. Nobody knows where the others are, whether they’re alive or dead.

---

But wasn't it the US and Israel that provided training and equipment for the Georgian military?

The Russians are dug in a couple of kliks from the main east-west road in Georgia. They are not 'patroling' the port of Poti,they are dug in and intend to stay.

The Russians also stole everything they could in Georgia and blew up the rest.

The Russians intend to destabilise Georgia until the west loses interest and then reabsorb it into the Soviet Empire of past glories.

They prove themselves to be the same old duplicitous liars and manipulators of Soviet infamy.Untrustworthy in politics and commerce. Russia's short-term territorial gains will turn into long-term losses as they lose the faith of the international community.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

But wasn't it the US and Israel that provided training and equipment for the Georgian military?

---

quote:

---

jester: The Russians also stole everything they could in Georgia and blew up the rest.

---

All militaries, including the storm troopers of the good old USA, confiscate the military equipment of the enemy that they are able to. It's SOP and any soldier could tell you that.

The Georgian authorities actually rejected the humanitarian aid that the Russians offered in Gori. There's evidence of that if you care to look. link

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

unionist: ... the U.S. and Israel have never defended "diaspora" Jews, they don't give a damn about them, so the irony of this incident isn't all that ironic.

---

What about the ones that live in Iran and choose to stay there? Seems to me Israel had a great deal to say about them and even offered cash incentives if they would just leave (and denounce) Iran. Wouldn't it be more exact to say that the Israelis pick and choose which "diaspora" Jews they care about?

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Valery Gergiev, principal conductor of the London Symphony Orchestra and artistic director of the Mariinsky Theatre: I also want to say several things in English. I am Ossetian myself. I came today with the world famous Mariinsky Theatre Orchestra today to see with my own eyes the horrible destruction of this city. I also came here to perform and to honour the dead.

There are about 2,000 people who died in these tragic days, especially in the first day of attack on the 7th and 8th of August, just before the opening of the Olympic Games in Beijing. It was a huge act of aggression on the part of the Georgian Army. This is not yet a known story to the whole world. But I am sure that every day, every hour, the truth will be coming through. I very much want to tell everyone who is interested in knowing the truth, that there will be peace and there will be prosperity here ... and this population and this generation - which I see here on this stage with me - will see this peace and prosperity here on Ossetian land.

I am very hopeful that music will bring the best of memories. We are here to remember those who died in the tragic days of this aggression. I think Tsinvali can be called a "hero town". We know how much people suffered ... how much children suffered ... old people. Let's not allow it to ever happen again.

I want to say that if it wasn't for the help from the Russian Army there would be more casualties, more victims, ... thousands more. I am very grateful for Ossetia for my great country of Russia and I hope that we will see peace and only peace here for many decades to come.

Thank you very much.

---

The video coverage is really weird for me, as a North American. I'm used to seeing graphic coverage of violence and the results of violence. Our media creates an appetite for blood. The Russian coverage is the opposite - they seem to want to soothe their audience and therefore show children in recovery, others with expressions of grief, some destruction, yes, but the whole tone is one of trying to create hope out of the horror. It's almost quaint ... but one wonders whether detailed photos of the horrors would be "better" for overcoming the coached skepticism of jaded and blood-sated western audiences. The commentary may have been in English but the sensibilities were Russian through and through - and not just in the music of Tchaikovsky and Shostakovich.

Gergiev called Tskhinvali ("Sin-vali") a hero town, like Stalingrad in the amount of utter destruction. However, the amount of time in the presentation spent denouncing the Georgian horrors is quite short, really; the bulk of the video, images, and so on is dedicated to nurturing hope. It utterly contrasts to the coverage that we see about wars far away from our own shores in which more effort is spent apportioning blame and denoucing others than anything else, and no time is left over for what I have called nurturing hope.

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

However, the French have changed their views on the agreement their own President signed and worked out. France started to make extra demands.

quote:

---

Thus the French ambassador at the UN has actually contradicted his own President, since President Sarkozy has approved the six principles, while France’s ambassador at the UN is not about to approve them.

"The situation looks very strange," Vitaly Churkin says. "I got no direct answer to my question whether the delegation of France was prepared to support the plan that the French President made public in Moscow. This is really quite a paradoxical situation."

---

There's more ...

"The UN Security Council members have for the first time removed their objections to inviting South Ossetian and Abkhazian officials to the Council meeting. This is certainly a breakthrough ..."

Fun and games.

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:

All militaries, including the storm troopers of the good old USA, confiscate the military equipment of the enemy that they are able to. It's SOP and any soldier could tell you that.

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

---

Since when are air conditioners and private automobiles 'military equipment'?

You don't have to preface every defense of Russian transgressions with a comparison to US transgressions in an attempt to lend legitimacy to Russia.

Beltov, I would fit into rural Siberia without a wrinkle. I've never been there but many of my compadres have - in the oil and gas business - and they love it. I don't have anything against the Russian people or Russia itself, just the resurgence of Russian gamesmanship, especially the contempt displayed by the Russian military for any divergence from Soviet era brinksmanship.

I hold the same contempt for American transgressions, especially in latin America, so dont waste your time on comparing the two. They are equally nasty.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
The Russians also stole everything they could in Georgia and blew up the rest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

Not entirely. The Russians have agreed to ship several captured Humvees back to the Americans. Low mileage and barely used by second owners. Good deal if you ask me.

---

What about the air conditioners and private vehicles? Vladimir is overplaying his hand.

The Russians have pulled out. They've adhered to the 6 point plan that all concerned agreed to. Meanwhile, the French UN Ambassador is now playing footsie, by contradicting his own President, and trying to impose new unilateral demands out of the blue. The NATO countries in the Security Council have FINALLY abandoned their monstrous position of refusing to hear from the main victims of the Georgian atrocities, the South Ossetians, and have belatedly accepted that the Ossetians and Abkhanzians will be actually allowed to speak to the Security Council. Gosh, aren't they great?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
It's called looting. All armies do it. Next question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:

How will the Russian occupation affect the balance of power vis-a-vis energy dependence in both European and global markets?

---

You might be interested in this: The Eurasian Corridor: Pipeline Geopolitics and the New Cold War Michel Chossudovsky

quote:

---

Any guesses? How about the man that eats his tie?

---

[ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: Stanley10 ]

Here is the next thread.

[ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]