To understand the Russian-Georgian conflict it is necessary to stand back from the detail of Ossetia and identify the longer term historical trends. These include:
1.For some time an undeclared war has been waged between the US and Russia over access to the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia. Russia/Gazprom has been largely successful in tying up deals with the various republics.
There are rival schemes for pipelines sponsored by Russia and the US, eg South Stream and Nabucco. One pipeline designed to exclude Russia has been established through Georgia (Baku- Tbilisi-Ceyhan).
2. The real significance of Kosovo is the vast Camp Bondsteel- the largest “from scratch” foreign US base since the Vietnam War. It will provide security for the construction of the proposed Albanian-Macedonian-Bulgarian oil pipeline( AMBO) with a terminal in Georgia..
3. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, rather than dismantling NATO, the US, in a spirit of triumphalism, has pushed NATO further and further into Eastern Europe. With Georgia going to extreme lengths to secure membership, and Ukraine a candidate, Russia feels encircled.
4. At the same time, the US has abandoned the Cold War nuclear arms agreements (MAD-mutually assured destruction), and ,instead ,opted for the terrifying doctrine of "nuclear primacy". Implementing this involves establishing the missile bases in Eastern Europe, which Russia believes are designed to stymie its nuclear capacity.
5. There are also dangerous antagonisms, locally ( like Ossetia), and globally Europe feels threatened by a Russian monopoly of energy supplies. On the other side, Russia fears it is back to the bad old days of encirclement. But it is now off its knees, resurgent, and inspired by alarming nationalism and not a little paranoia which derives from the series of invasions it has suffered.
6. In this global conflict over oil and gas, active players also include China and Iran.
7. The intolerable pressures are turning Russia away from Western cultural influences and setting back the processes of democratisation. Worse will follow if it seeks alliances with the backward Central Asian Republics and China – the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation already exists.
.

Many well-reasoned remarks in the article. The arrogance of power, which Senator Fullbright wrote about so cogently in his book of that name in 1966, remains in existence and unacknowledged by those wielding it, as much as ever.
1956: Soviet Russia invaded their 1939-44 enemy Hungary, for daring to take an independent stand. 1956: Britain and France invaded Egypt for daring to take control of their own territory, the Suez Canal
1962: Soviet Russia is no more than a bit grumpy about US missile bases right on its border in Turkey. 1962: USA threatens nuclear war over Russian bases being set up across the water in Cuba..
1973 USA arranges a bloody coup in Chile which removes president Allende
1978: Soviet Russia invades Afghanistan to diminish western influence adjacent to its own borders.

1986, the big thaw: USA (Regan) and Russia (Gorbachev) agreed in principle to removing INF systems from Europe and to equal global limits of 100 INF missile warheads.

Great opportunities have not been taken up. They have been lost in the 20-odd years since the thaw. While Russia is not lily-white, in this period it is predominantly the USA which has dismissed cooperation. The arrogance of perceived superior power remains supreme, attended by Mars the God of War having George W. Bush as altar-boy. What hope for the world in the absence of diplomacy and common sense?

I fully endorse both the article and the comprehensive comments above.

One thing I would add is that the Western media has disgraced itself yet again by failing to challenge the official narrative. Instead, it just creates another version of the standard Western fairytale ... Georgia = little bear. Russia = father bear. NATO = mother bear. USA = Goldilocks.

Leslie,

1. For a long time now Russia has been trying to use it possession of certain oil and gas infrastructures to recreate its previous influence as a superpower. It has already used the threat of withholding vital oil and gas supplies to bully Ukraine, Georgia, Lithuania and Latvia and this has serious repercussions in Europe where 80% of Russia gas is consumed. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/1502/chimera_of_russias_gas_power.html

2. The real significance of Kosovo is that the Serbs tried to brutally suppress an uprising there and the world community again took too long to deal with it. Roughly a million people were pushed from their homes, an humanitarian crisis in the heart of civilised Europe. BTW, how exactly did the US manipulate Milosevic into attacking the Muslims and Croats and later the Kosovars so they could roll in and build a pipeline?

3. After the victory over communism there was an even greater need for NATO as clearly seen in Bosnia, Kosovo, Afghanistan etc. The desire to join NATO among former Soviet satellite states is palpable and now clearly and entirely justified. It’s not just the US who put great store in NATO by the way. You speak as if Russia had every right to have dominant influence over Eastern Europe. Unfortunately for you and the Russians most Eastern Europeans have experienced life under Russian control and want no part of a renewed Russian hegemony. Those people have NO difficulty understanding the difference between Russian “influence” and Western cooperation, and they overwhelmingly desire no return to the former. Russia might well feel encircled but that does not give them the right to dictate foreign policy of their sovereign nation neighbours. Certainly Russia recent belligerent stance has added to their isolation.

TBC,

cont,

4. This is absolute nonsense. MAD only works when

a. your enemy can be relied upon to have total control of their weapons
b. and has a core decision making group which can be relied upon to make rational decisions regrading the countries best interests

The fragmentation of the USSR and the possible possession of nukes by rogue nations makes MAD fundamentally mad as a policy. Suggestions that Poland’s 10 planned interceptor missiles might stymie Russian nuclear deterrence is ridiculous. Russia has thousands of nukes. 10 interceptor missiles won’t even scratch the surface.

5. Sorry, what invasions has Russia suffered since its superpower days? Dangerous antagonisms like Ossetia and Abkhazia are being STOKED by Russia for their own gain. Certainly Saakashvili acted without thought but he walked into a trap of Russia’s making

6. Among many others

7. Putin has deliberately and successfully reoriented Russia away from liberal democratic ideals and other western cultural influeneces, cementing his own power in the process. His vision for a new Russia is as a superpower and regional hegemon. It will require significant confrontation with the west including NATO as well as with former Soviet satellites. Putin is banking on our current weakness.

8. The problem is that the modern leftist shows his/her concern for others in distress by WORRYING. This worrying confers upon the worrier the status of concerned citizen and allays their need to support a concrete plan of action to actually help those in need.

SJF,

The western media has discraced itself because it didn’t support Russia (population 150,000,000) and its invasion of Georgia (population 5,000,000). Are you kidding? Russia has been stirring up trouble in its former satellites for years now. Just because foolish Saakashvili fell into their trap doesn’t mean that the Russians are in any way not to blame for their overreaction. Why exactly are Russian troops needed in Georgian territory outside the disputed zones of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Please justify? Where are the UN resolutions which the coalition had before they took action in Kosovo

Thanks for a damn good article Tony.

What a puzzler it all is though, for an armchair conspiratorialist like me. The presence of the Zio-cons had my antennae bristling straight away. Peel away a layer of the onion, there always seems to be another underneath.

By their own admission, the rulers of Israel have been cozying up to Saakashvili, plying him with high-tech war toys, ostensibly to ward off Russia and guard the precious pipelines - so we are supposed to believe.

But check with Google Earth and we discover that the distance from T'bilisi to Teheran is only 880 km flying along the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan. This as opposed to 1600 km from Israel flying over Jordan and Iraq. Put that together with a sudden (seeming) coyness by some US chiefs against supplying Israel with the latest aerial tanker:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2065412/posts?page=3

*

Everyone is into Georgia for their own reasons. I get the distinct impression that the old US cold-war dinosaurs are trying to re-ignite the final showdown with Russia that they so badly wanted during their misspent youth. The old crazies - way past their use-by date, are obviously gunning for this - and a younger generation are stepping into their dinosaur excrement.

In my wild erratic fancy, I look at the stunning vista of the Caucasus with it's forests, verdant valleys and tumbling streams - and I sometimes catch a glimpse of a dinosaur out of the corner of my eye....

Brezinsky!

Was there ever a man who so evoked the animus of the pterodactyl? You know it makes sense!

*

On a more down to earth note, the Russians have not only blown up the high-tech forward base which was placed in Georgia (using Georgian ammo, so killing two pterodactyls with one stone), but also captured some really interesting plunder:

http://www.kp.ru/daily/24150.4/366391/

http://venik4.livejournal.com/16026.html

- and that's only for starters -

Reply to Paul L
As you seem impervious to evidence,I am no doubt wasting my time.But for the sake of those less prejudiced ,here goes:
1. You ignore my substantive point about an "undeclared war..." Instead, you introduce a propaganda point about Russia bullying Ukraine et al, and again ignore the facts.In Soviet times,they were supplied with gas at very low prices, now with Ukraine independent and hostile, Russia is insisting on market prices.

2.Again , you willfully ignore my point which was about Camp Bondsteel.

And so on for the rest of your diatribe.

But I cannot pass over your insensitive ignorance about Russian history and how invasions have contributed to suspicion and paranoia.
This denies you any credibility.If the wars of intervention are too remote, you might have remembered the tens of millions killed in the German invasion.

Leslie,

The Cold War ended for all intents and purposes as a result of two things happening and single real cause, the two things, (1) the massive drain on resources that was Afghanistan (and the effect(s) of that conflict on the USSR's moslem satellite States); and (2) Reagan's spending on the Military. The underlying cause, poverty, they simply could not maintain the spending needed to (a) replace the material losses in Afghanistan; and (b) maintain parity with the USA.

The minute that a reinvigorated Russia, under Medvedev/Putin began to make loud rumbles about wanting to take back it's prime position in world affairs, the United States (under Bush, whose spending on the military exceeds that of Reagan), which is currently involved in not one, but two wars (and quite probably in the immediate future a third) with the potential to go as badly as the USSR's invasion of Afghanistan, took notice. America at the present time cannot afford to allow Russia to return to what it was in the Cold War (nor I believe should it).

I am well aware of the historical paranoia of Russia, which is why I feel that Merkel's switch from being strongly against the admission of Ukraine/Georgia to NATO, to basically threatening Medvedev with the statement that she believed they would both be members of NATO in the near future, did more to stop the Russian ground war than the French brokered ceasefire was capable of doing (http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29041). The Russian's might have to respond to the USA, but they have a visceral fear of the reunified Germany (especially with the entry of Poland & soon the Ukraine to NATO).

The Russians “have a visceral fear of the reunified Germany” not unreasonably so, considering twentieth century history.
Why would Angela Merkel’s switch to forecasting an expanding NATO pressure upon Russia’s borders do anything other than further increase Russian militaristic attitude?
Gorbachev seems to be the only statesman in the whole of this sorry environment. He recognised that continuously expanding militarism had to cease. Yes, his nation was the under-dog in the attrition of resources, but it cut both ways.
Unfortunately the USA has still not come to grips with a mathematical certainty: neither it, nor the world, can continue expansion of consumption of earth’s resources. Especially by gratuitous provocation of a political competitor towards military confrontation

Paul.L

‘The western media has discraced itself because it didn’t support Russia (population 150,000,000) and its invasion of Georgia (population 5,000,000). Are you kidding?’

I’ll address only the first half of this argument, because the second is a red herring.

In the very unlikely event that the Western media were to have ‘supported’ Russia, it would have equally disgraced itself. In an increasingly dangerous world, the last thing we need is yet another biased viewpoint.

Some things the Western media could have done, and should have done, include:

- To take a more investigative approach regarding the Georgian motives and timing of its military assault on South Ossetia
- To be more forthcoming about US-led complicity in the Georgian arms build-up, instead of leaving it to the alternative online media to do the mainstream’s job for them
- To give at least equal humanitarian coverage to the traumatic effect on the South Ossetian people by the Georgian attack, instead of focusing so much media attention on the trauma of the fleeing Georgians
- To use more neutral wording in describing the Russian actions – e.g. why do ‘we’ intervene, but ‘they’ invade? And why must Russia be continually described as ‘resurgent’?
- To co-operate more with the Russian media to give Western media consumers a balance between the Georgian and Russian/Ossetian points of view. For example, this wrenching video, that has been publicly available since 14 August on the Russia Today website, has been largely ignored by the Western press:

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28951/video

Haganah Bet

‘I feel that Merkel's switch from being strongly against the admission of Ukraine/Georgia to NATO, to basically threatening Medvedev with the statement that she believed they would both be members of NATO in the near future, did more to stop the Russian ground war than the French brokered ceasefire was capable of doing.’

This is precisely why NATO is a stupid, dangerous dinosaur that should have been disbanded long ago. Its ‘resurgence’ – along with the increased muscle-flexing bravado of EU politics – is far more of a threat to world peace than a revitalised Russia.

I find it disturbing that in the current climate of anti-US sentiment, that an enormous number of people are willing to ignore the fact that a resurgent Russian Federation (previously known as the USSR/Warsaw Pact/Soviet Bloc) is unlikely to be a bigger supporter of human rights than its predecessor. Given that Putin in particular has overseen the resurgence of Russia, the establishment by Russia of a whole new arms race in Asia.

But be that as it might, why on earth does the current anti-American sentiment; and its transfer to NATO; mean that the ex-soviet states have no choice but to subjugate themselves to Moscow's whim once more? I mean, we hear a LOT about how evil NATO/USA are in attempting to make Russia feal apprehensive and/or fearful about being surrounded by NATO States, but the DEMOCRACIES that have grown in the ex-Soviet States that are seeking to align themselves with NATO (the only real alternative to subjugation to the Russian Federation) have done so in order to ensure their own safety (see http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/oped/29441/). Their citizen's have little wish to return to their previous existence and one cannot really blame them for that. Especially as, having first-hand knowledge of the costs/benefits associated, they can be presumed to be acting in their own best interests.

Or would those here prefer that such people were denied their rights to freedom/security in order to pacify Russia? Because that would appear to be the alternative, the cold-blooded abandonment of millions of people to a fate they seek to avoid in order to ensure your own safety? Sort of reminds me of 'better red than dead', I say not in this lifetime.

Leslie,

I seem impervious to evidence? I made counterclaims to all of your points, none of which you actually bothered backing up with referencing.

1. I totally agree that Russia has been carrying out an undeclared renewed cold-war on its former minions and NATO at large. The recent “intervention” in Georgia makes it CRYSTAL clear to Russia’s former satellites what will happen to them if they step out of line. Ukrainian President Yushenko’s poisoning during the orange revolution is merely one more example of the lengths Russia will go to to get what it wants. Medvedev has recently WARNED Ukraine not to join NATO.
2. Your point about camp bondsteel was SO inane that its barely worth mentioning. To suggest that the reason that Kosovo was assisted by the UN/NATO/US was so that they could build camp bondsteel is puerile in the extreme.\

I was asking for invasions AFTER Russia was NO LONGER a superpower, ie post USSR. That you had to go back over 60 years to find an example shows how weak your point actually was. I guarantee you my knowledge of Barbarossa and its associated actions as well as the Russian counterattacks is well above the average. To suggest that Russia fears a resurgent reunified German led NATO is preposterous. I can only hope that is not what you are suggesting.

Putin ex-KGB, EX-president and now Prime minister has totally hijacked the constitutional process, creating his very own human puppet in Medvedev. Russia under Putin leadership is taking a highly confrontational approach to the West, including the resumption of long range nuclear bomber patrols (as far afield as Britain).

Your total failure to address the suggestion that 10 Polish intercept missiles cannot possibly reduce Russia’s nuclear deterrence shows clearly you have fallen for Russian propaganda at every turn. Russia nuclear deterrence cannot be negated in ANY meaningful sense within current US/NATO outlays on missile shields. So Russia has NOTHING to fear from the West. On the contrary, Putin et al are not afraid for Russian security, they are fighting for a renewal of Russia’s former power.

This is an article by a well-known Russian defence analyst on the recent Georgia situation. Makes very interesting reading and sheds new light on the subject.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavel_Felgenhauer

http://www.robertamsterdam.com/2008/08/pavel_felgenhauer_on_russias_p.htm

Randall Scheunemann - among other things he was associated with PNAC, an advisor to Rumsfeld, associate of Ahmad Chalabi and now McCain's foreign Policy aide.

He is also a lobbyist for something called The Caspian Alliance (strangely, not much info available on them).

An interesting guy - he's also a lobbyist for the Republic of Georgia.

"On April 17, 2008, McCain spoke on the phone with Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili about Russian efforts to gain leverage over two of Georgia's troubled provinces. That same day, McCain issued a public statement condemning Russia and expressing strong support for the Georgian position. Also on that same day, Georgia signed a new, $200,000 lobbying contract with Scheunemann's firm, Orion Strategies.

In mid-July 2008, The Sunday Times linked Scheunemann to Stephen Payne, a lobbyist covertly filmed as he offered to arrange meetings with Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and others, in exchange for donations to the George W. Bush Presidential Library. Payne said Scheunemann had been "working with me on my payroll for five of the last eight years." "

Interesting how some things are connected in ways you wouldn't imagine.

Wobbles, the Caspian Alliance is one of the lobbying companies associated with Scheunemann’s boss Stephen Payne, who is himself in trouble in the US over political funding and “Cash-for-Access” scandals.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article4364429.ece


When the USSR collapsed the “oligarchs” pillaged, raped and plundered the Russian economy and Putin’s first promise was to go after them. His second promise was to go after the Chechen rebels, which he fulfilled with a little help from Bush.
Putin’s deal with the US was to stay out of Iraq if America would stay out of the Caspian. We backed off, the Chechen rebels fell and we went into Iraq instead.
Now we are getting the Georgians to "test" Putin by going after Ossetia, a Georgian enclave gone independent but aligned with Russia.

Despite the popular media suggestion of Putin’s failure by taking the bait, and the subsequent changes in Poland and NATO, I think the US has overplayed their hand and exposed some scandals that may damage McCain’s chances of electoral victory.

Meanwhile, BP may now be pulling out of the area and the (in)famous Haliburton-Brown-Root pipeline from T'Blisi through Turkey may not go ahead. Oops! That wasn't supposed to happen was it?

I suspect Putin’s not done yet and there will be more to come.

I think there’s some good local background perspective this assessment.
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/185712/Georgian–Ossetian_Conflict_

Paul.L,

I think you might be underestimating the effect of 50+ years of Soviet-era propaganda there (the USSR continually shrieked about everything being a fascist plot to allow Germany to reunify solely so as to destroy the Union). The average Russian (also previously Poles, Ukrainian's & Czech's) have a very inflated opinion of the animosity between Germany and Russia as a consequence and a very real apprehension of the consequences of reunification. Given that Poland & Czechoslovakia (& now the Ukraine if Merkel is to be believed) have seen fit to ally with Germany, they are presumably under no illusion of the messages being sent to their ex-Soviet brethren by their having so done. Similarly, I doubt Germany is under any illusion as to the effect of this on Russia.

I think it might pay to look a little deeper into why the Russian's put so much emphasis on the Great Patriotic War, it affected them far more dramatically than is being portrayed in the media. If they view the situation as a return to German imperialism, then all bets are off (it is a possibility, Czechoslovakia, Poland and now oil from the Caucasus... You know the history & so do they).

Wobbles/Rache

As to this being just another step in the NeoCon world plan, yes companies are out to make money and they do employ lobby groups. What of it? I don't like it, don't agree with it, but I certainly don't see it as some deep, dark, mysterious plan/conspiracy. All it is is the richest 1% of America seeking to ensure that they remain the richest 1% of America, the Oligarchs are trying desperately to prevent it, so that they can have the money. Yes, wars are fought over oil (they are also fought over steel, the single most important determinant of who wins actually), what of it? People who look to make money out of wars are scum (rich scum, but scum nonetheless), they have always been around and always will be.

Haganah Bet

‘…the DEMOCRACIES that have grown in the ex-Soviet States that are seeking to align themselves with NATO (the only real alternative to subjugation to the Russian Federation) have done so in order to ensure their own safety’

If you do a Google search of opinion polls regarding attitudes to NATO in former Soviet States, there are vastly varying degrees of support. Some, like Lithuania and Poland have majority support. In others, like the Ukraine and Belarus, support is in the minority. In the Czech Republic, which has been a NATO member since 1999, support for NATO has actually fallen.

Also, despite Angele Merkel's recent pronouncements on admitting Georgia to NATO, only about one-quarter of Germans support the move due to understabable nervousness about being dragged into Georgia's regional conflicts.

You might also be interested in this response by NATO Secretary General, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, to a 2006 poll referendum in South Ossetia (with a 95% voter turnout), which revealed that 99% wanted independence:

‘On behalf of NATO, I join other international leaders in rejecting the so-called 'referendum' and 'elections' conducted in the South Ossetia/Tskhinvali region of Georgia... Such actions serve no purpose other than to exacerbate tensions in the South Caucasus region.’ [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetian_independence_referendum,_2006]

So much for democracy.

Military/trade pacts and alliances are the international equivalent of male gangs and female cliques. They pretend to be about friendship and co-operation, but they are really about bullying, exclusion and homogeneity.

Once these international pacts and alliances form, they are locked into continually having to extend their power to protect their turf against other international pacts and alliances. As a result, they end up creating the very dangers they profess to be protecting their members from.

Haganah Bet,

There's a subtle but significant difference between opportunists making money out of conflict and deliberately creating conflict as a way of making money.

The point I was trying to make is that there is much more to this story than the sudden and unexpected "invasion-conflict-withdrawal" scenario that we are given. It goes back a long way - and includes aspects of previous Balkan and Chechen conflicts and global oil politics generally.

Wobbles,

WTF? What a wonderful world of conspiracy you live in. You're seriously suggesting that big business have captured the presidencyof the US and others and actively create conflict so their companies can make money.

BTW What withdrawal?

SJF,

Here is the satellite damage photos which show the damage in the Tskhinvali area (note the completely destroyed ethnic-Georgian village just to the north: http://img29.picoodle.com/data/img29/3/8/24/f_satellitepim_7769447.jpg). Given the current ethnic cleansing in Sth Ossetia & Abkhazia (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_if4CoOq9k, I think the human rights lady learnt English from watching old BBC movies) and the historical ethnic cleansing in both, I'd have to express serious doubts about the validity of ANY poll result that showed 95% turnout with a 99% majority. Especially one run by the peaceloving Russian army.

As to the support within the former Soviet countries for NATO, that is the price of democracy, not everyone agrees. The amount of support for NATO membership within Ukraine, Poland & Czechoslovakia has been tipped to surge in light of recent events.

The importance of alliances like NATO is that they counteract the might of Russia, that is apparently of some comfort to the majority in those countries.

Wobbles/Paul

The mere fact that business supports and/or funds presidential campaigns is not a conspiracy, that is the political system in the USA (and here). That American/Australian foreign policy mirrors this, is something I disagree with, but it happens too often to deny. That the companies themselves are causing conflict rather than profiting form the consequences of foreign policy decisions, seems farfetched. Not because they couldn't do so, but because there is no need for them to do so. Whatever happens Georgia still wants more weapons/equipment and is more than happy to sell all the oil it can get.

RACHE: I agree with your assesment of Putin , I think he should never be underestimated. The rise of this man from a child who was a peasant nobody, to ruler of Russia,was ANYTHING but accidental. It shows his ability to see the way forward to his goal with astute intellingence. He understood the way the system worked and the route he would have to take to get to the top,and he climbed determinedely one step after the other.

He seemed to have as his mission to restore Russia to a strong country once more. He has certainly been successful if ruthless in doing so. I think America should be trying to make an allie of him instead of living in the past. Having said that I dont think it would be the kind of friendship where you could ever let down your guard too much, because Putin's first and only loyality is to Russia and it's people.

Haganah Bet

Ah ... if in doubt, shout 'ethnic cleansing' and take a satellite photo to 'prove' it.

All the photo shows is that there has been a war in the area and that 438 buildings have been destroyed or partially destroyed. The big banner label pointing us to the concentration of destruction in the Georgian enclave is a propaganda furphy. By far the greater destruction in the photo was in Tskhinvali; it’s just that it is more spread out.

‘The importance of alliances like NATO is that they counteract the might of Russia, that is apparently of some comfort to the majority in those countries.’

That ‘might’ is economic, not military. Freed of the economic shackles of the Warsaw Pact and the Cold War arms race, both the Russian economy and the real incomes of its people have enjoyed astonishing growth over the last 8-10 years.

By contrast - rather than disbanding NATO when the Warsaw Pact threat imploded (the professed reason for starting NATO in the first place), the US has locked itself into expanding NATO to remilitarise Europe. While Russia steams ahead, the US economy sinks into a quagmire - and will probably take a few former Soviet states down with it.

Sharkfin

Re your comments on Putin, this article might be of interest:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20606.htm

SJF,

What astounds me most about the loony-leftist/conspiracy theorists is their seeming immunity/ignorance of obscene behaviour abroad, permitting rabid attention to supposed “irregularities” in US politics. For example, they squeal if a presidential candidate has a staffer who once lobbied for a cause the candidate actually supports. On the other hand they quite happily accept the fact that in Russia, an ex-kgb thug has entirely subverted the political process and has made Russia into his own private fiefdom. A new Tzar.

You ask why do they say "Russia invades, we intervene". Well UN resolutions are part of the answer. We had full UN backing to stop the ethnic slaughter in Kosovo including resolutions authorizing force. Further we did not resort to violence immediately but attempted a negotiated settlement. We were not looking to assert our authority over Serbia, nor to bring it, or neighboring countries under our sphere of control. Finally, we did not invade Serbia at all. Although bombs were dropped we didn’t drive our tanks half way into Serbia and then refuse to remove them.

Russia on the other hand has been feeding the dispute in Ossetia and Abkhazia. Many of the so called “Russians” that Putin rushed to protect had only been issued Russian passports in the VERY recent past. Furthermore, Russia has been involved with Ossetian and Abkhazian independence groups, encouraging them to attack Georgia.

The Russian economy has seen a resurgence due almost entirely to the increased price of oil. Furthermore, Russia’s might is not economic at all, although its reserves of oil and gas do provide strategic leverage. Russia’s main asset is its strong military and its swathe of nuclear weapons.

Russia is no longer a democracy, Putin humiliated his President in public during this recent conflict and confirmed to all that he is in charge. This is the man who believes that the biggest catastrophe of the 20th Century was the fall of the Soviet Union. The regime that killed tens of million of its own citizens. The worst butchers in history and total failures in their attempts to govern their people.

SJF, the damage in Tskhinvali (and in Ergneti, the damage is similarly spread out with isolated clusters) looks like a medium level warzone should. The damage in Tamarasheni looks very different (very heavy damage), from the looks of that nearly EVERY house is gone, that is what ethnic cleansing looks like (alternatively high level conflict, like Berlin in WWII).

As to 'shouting' ethnic cleansing, never have said so before actually. Seems that others are claiming ethnic cleansing is going on, the evidence demonstrates otherwise (for the moment - wait till the Chechens decide to take back Nth Ossetia) or Saakashvilli decides to expel all Russian citizens as a clear danger to National Security (they have Russian not Georgian citizenship, thus he is under no obligation to allow them to stay in Georgia).

As to the ludicrous article you cited, it does any credibility it may have had with this:

"Once the missile defense system is put in place it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability....And, for the first time in history---and I want to emphasize this---there will be elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to respond to that."

Here is a list of where there were US Nuclear Weapons in Europe in 2005:

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/euro/euro_app.pdf

Now try and tell me that Patriot missiles can take out ICBM/IRBM's, they travel at about 2-4km/s in the only period they are vulnerable to Patriot and it cannot catch them. How do they alter the status quo?

BTW Russia's might is military, keeping an army almost (less 300K) the same size as that of the Cold War USSR is an indicator of that. Looks like the NATO will need to rebuild its 'Reforger' forces (probably be mainly UK/German nowadays, the Yanks are overcomitted).

Haganah Bet

If I had any doubts of the mindless nuclear aggressiveness of US- NATO ambitions in Europe, then your helpful link cleared up any confusion. Sheer TERROR!

‘Now try and tell me that Patriot missiles can take out ICBM/IRBM's, they travel at about 2-4km/s in the only period they are vulnerable to Patriot and it cannot catch them. How do they alter the status quo?’

I can’t answer your question because (a) I don’t know, and (b) I don’t want to know, and (c) what’s the point of knowing crap like this, and (d) I’m not disturbed enough to understand the minds that measure and quantify the geo-political advantage of these grotesque mass-killing facilities and then have the audacity to call them ‘security’.

However, one comment I can make is that those weapons are in Russia's environs, NOT the US. The one time the USSR dared to move nuclear WMD's within coo-ee of the US, the US administration almost went into complete neurotic collapse. However, Russia is expected to live with this threat all the time. And we wonder why they get paranoid.

Paul.L

‘You ask why do they say "Russia invades, we intervene". Well UN resolutions are part of the answer. We had full UN backing to stop the ethnic slaughter in Kosovo including resolutions authorizing force.’

… and Iraq. Oh, that’s right … ooops!

By definition a conspiracy is an illegal act. What’s happening with the current US administration may not be technically illegal but it’s a bit of a stretch to say that the relationship between their recent foreign policy initiatives and the business backgrounds of major members of their government is no more than just a happy coincidence.
Consider the incredible increase in profits made by Halliburton and Chevron Corporation/Texaco over the last 8 years and the relationship between oil and all the foreign military incursions made in that period. Then look up the famous “war is a racket” comments made by Smedley D. Butler.
Of course the companies aren’t directly running the government but whose interests are really being represented by these conflicts?

Georgia doesn’t produce oil. They are being supplied with weapons and training by the US and Israel because of their potential relationship with Iran and the fact that the BTC pipeline runs through their country. It’s the strategic importance of the supply and distribution Caspian Oil that’s always been behind this whole thing and the challenge to Russia’s distribution monopoly. Look up who the major pipeline shareholders are.

OK I admit I was premature on the pull-out statement. I had just heard radio reports that as well as the damage from Russian troops, the BTC was out of action because of bombings by Kurdish separatists in Eastern Turkey and that the long-term viability of the project was now in doubt and some investors had announced they may withdraw.

I don’t claim to know what the full story is but I know what it isn’t. To believe that every conflict over the last few decades was based only on spreading warm and cuddly democracy around ignores several very big elephants in the room and that maybe you really can fool some of the people all the time

Wobbles,

Its not just Haliburton etc who have had large increases in reported profit over the last 10 years. We are living through an economic boom time in case you hadn't noticed. Many Banks, Mining , communications companies have reported massive profits recently.

I accept your criticism that firms who are close to the US administration have made money from the foreign policy decisions of the Bush presidency. I cannot accept that foreign policy decisions are made with the goal of doing what is best for these companies. The very idea that the war in Iraq was motivated by a desire to make America richer is ridiculous. The war has cost massive amounts of money and has the left the country worse off economically.

SJF,

Your head in the sand approach to the military realities of the missile shield show just how interested you are in getting to the heart of the issue. It marks you out clearly as a novice with little real understanding of security/defence issues. Yet you maintain a strident opinion on these matters. WTF?

Clearly the actual mechanics of the defence issues are of vital importance. Russia's nuclear deterrence is NOT affected by the placement of 10 intercept missiles in Poland. Russia is relying upon the ignorance of the loony left on defence issues, by pretending that the missile shield will degrade the deterrent factor of Russia's nuclear force. It clearly will not.

Your attempt to compare todays strategic environment with the height of cold war tensions is naive and intellectually vacuous. In 1962 confrontation between the West and the USSR was almost daily occurence. The Cuban missile crisis occurred within a year of the failed Bay of Pigs invasion, and the closing of the border and the beginning of the wall in Berlin by the USSR.

Furthermore, the weapons that the US/NATO are placing in Poland are purely defensive in nature. They don't contain nuclear material and cannot be used offensively.

As for Iraq, you will note we had a half dozen UN security council resolutions regarding Iraq before we took action.

Paul.L

'Your head in the sand approach to the military realities of the missile shield show just how interested you are in getting to the heart of the issue.'

Do not confuse non-recognition with non-understanding. It matters not what these weapons are capable/not capable of or how far/fast they can go or who is driving/not driving them. The astronomically profitable world of weapons development, trading and escalation is no more than a means of stoking the hothouse paranoia necessary to the continuance of war as a tool of international intimidation.

The US missile shield in Europe is a shield in name only. In reality, it is a military and geopolitical weapon of intimidation to challenge Russia to a final showdown over who is to control Europe for the next 50 years. The Russians know that. And the US knows that. And the Russians know that the US knows that the Russians know that the US knows. And so do their respective media.

'As for Iraq, you will note we had a half dozen UN security council resolutions regarding Iraq before we took action.'

No previous Security Council resolution on Iraq ever sanctioned the 2003 US invasion. In fact, there was a revolving door of UN weapons inspectors who resigned in the face of the UN's blatant attempts to falsely incriminate Iraq over its non-existent WMD program, in order to justify one of the longest and most inhumane economic sieges in world history. This siege only ended because the this geo-politically critical, oil-rich nation was rendered so utterly defenceless that it was powerless to withstand an invasion by the world's #1 military superpower.

The UN Security Council has operated as little more than an official legitimitiser of heavy-handed US/NATO foreign diplomacy - especially in the Kosovo-Serbia conflict. However, the 2003 Iraq invasion was so outrageously illegitimate, ill-advised and illogical that even the lapdog UN Security Council could not sanction it.