Georgia attacked Russia first.

Contrary to Main stream media spin, Russia is not the aggressor here. The invasion of Russia is reactionary to a sneak attack by Georgian military.

So of course Russia is not accepting the truce offered by Georgia. Would you accept a Truce from me after I beat up your children on your front lawn?

Georgia attacked Russia first.
Say what?

Yes, and America attacked Japan first in WWII. Pearl Harbor is just fiction, never happened.

Geez, where do you get your "facts"?

Georgia attacked South Ossetia first. If you are able to look at a map, you would see that South Ossetia is part of Georgia. The UN says so. The EU says so. Even Russia doesn't claim South Ossetia is part of Russia. Russia just tries to say that South Ossetia should be allowed to choose to leave Georgia (and join Russia).

Putin Walks into a Trap

Mike Whitney
Information Clearing House
August 14, 2008

The American-armed and trained Georgian army swarmed into South Ossetia last Thursday, killing an estimated 2,000 civilians, sending 40,000 South Ossetians fleeing over the Russian border, and destroying much of the capital, Tskhinvali. The attack was unprovoked and took place a full 24 hours before even ONE Russian soldier set foot in South Ossetia. Nevertheless, the vast majority of Americans still believe that the Russian army invaded Georgian territory first. The BBC, AP, NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the establishment media has consistently and deliberately misled its readers into believing that the violence in South Ossetia was initiated by the Kremlin. Let’s be clear, it wasn’t. In truth, there is NO dispute about the facts except among the people who rely the western press for their information. Despite its steady loss of credibility, the corporate media continues to operate as the propaganda-arm of the Pentagon.

Former Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev gave a good summary of events in an op-ed in Monday’s Washington Post:

“For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground….What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas….Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a “blitzkrieg” in South Ossetia…Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against “small, defenseless Georgia” is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.” (”A Path to Peace in the Caucasus”, Mikhail Gorbachev, Washington Post)

The question for Americans is whether they trust Mikhail Gorbachev more than the corporate media?

Russia deployed its tanks and troops to South Ossetia to save the lives of civilians and to reestablish the peace. Period. It has no interest in annexing the former-Soviet country or in expanding its present borders. Now that the Georgian army has been routed, Russian president Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin have expressed a willingness to settle the dispute through normal diplomatic channels at the United Nations. Neither leader is under any illusions about Washington’s involvement in the hostilities. They know that Georgian President Mikail Saakashvili is an American stooge who came to power in a CIA-backed coup, the so-called “Rose Revolution”, and would never order a major military operation without explicit instructions from his White House puppetmasters. Most likely, the orders to invade came directly from the office of the Vice President, Dick Cheney.

The Georgian army had no chance of winning a war with Russia or any intention of occupying the territory they captured. The real aim was to lure the Russian army into a trap. US planners hope to do what they did so skillfully in Afghanistan; lure their Russian prey into a long and bloody Chechnya-type fiasco that will pit their Russia troops against guerrilla forces armed and trained by US military and intelligence agencies. The war will be waged in the name of liberating Georgia from Russian imperialism and stopping Putin from achieving his alleged ambition to control critical western-owned pipelines around the Caspian Basin. Much of this “think tank” generated narrative has already appeared in the mainstream media or been articulated by American political elites. Meanwhile, the fighting in the Caucasus has diverted attention from the massive US naval armada that is presently sailing towards the Persian Gulf for the long-anticipated confrontation with Iran.

Operation Brimstone, the joint US, UK and French naval war games in the Atlantic Ocean preparing for a naval blockade of Iran, ended just last week. The war games were designed to simulate a naval blockade of Iran and the probable Iranian response.

According to Earl of Stirling on the Global Research web site:

“The war games included a US Navy supercarrier battle group, an US Navy expeditionary carrier battle group, a Royal Navy carrier battle group, a French nuclear hunter-killer submarine plus a large number of US Navy cruisers, destroyers and frigates playing the “enemy force. The lead American ship in these war games, the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) and its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagen (CVN76) and its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.”

Stirling adds: “A strategic diversion has been created for Russia. The South Ossetia capital has been shelled and a large Georgian tank force has been heading towards the border….American Marines, a thousand of them, have recently been in Georgia training the Georgian military forces… Russia has stated that it will not sit by and allow the Georgians to attack South Ossetia…This could get bad, and remember it is just a strategic diversion….but one that could have horrific effects.” (”Massive US Naval Armada Heads for Iran”, Earl of Stirling, Global Research)

In June, former foreign policy adviser to President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, presented the basic storyline that would be used against Russia two full months before the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia. The article appeared on the Kavkazcenter web site. Brzezinski said the United States witnessed “cases of possible threats by Russia, directed at Georgia with the intention of taking control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline”.

Brzezinski: “Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies..If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited”. http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/06/13/9798.shtml

Nonsense. Neither Putin nor newly-elected president Dmitry Medvedev have any such intention. It is absurd to think that Russia, having extracted itself from two pointless wars in Chechnya and Afghanistan, and after years of grinding poverty and social unrest following the fall of the Soviet state, would choose to wage an energy war with the nuclear-armed US military. That would be complete madness. Brzezinski’s speculation is part of broader narrative that’s been crafted for the western media to provide a rationale for upcoming aggression against Russia. Brzezinski is not only the architect of the mujahadin-led campaign against Russia in Afghanistan in the 1980s, but also, the author of “The Grand Chessboard–American Primacy and it’s Geostrategic Imperatives”, the operating theory behind the war on terror which involves massive US intervention in Central Asia to control vital resources, fragment Russia, and surround manufacturing giant, China.

“The Grand Chessboard” it is the 21st century’s version of the Great Game. The book begins with this revealing statement:




“Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power…..The key to controlling Eurasia, says Brzezinski, is controlling the Central Asian Republics.”

This is the heart-and-soul of the war on terror. The real braintrust behind “neverending conflict” was actually focussed on Central Asia. It was the pro-Israeli crowd in the Republican Party that pulled the old switcheroo and refocussed on the Middle East rather than Eurasia. Now, powerful members of the US foreign policy establishment (Brzezinski, Albright, Holbrooke) have regrouped behind the populist “cardboard” presidential candidate Barak Obama and are preparing to redirect America’s war efforts to the Asian theater. Obama offers voters a choice of wars not a choice against war.

On Sunday, Brzezinski accused Russia of imperial ambitions comparing Putin to “Stalin and Hitler” in an interview with Nathan Gardels.

Gardels: What is the world to make of Russia’s invasion of Georgia?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Fundamentally at stake is what kind of role Russia will play in the new international system.(aka: New World Order) Unfortunately, Putin is putting Russia on a course that is ominously similar to Stalin’s and Hitler’s in the late 1930s. Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt has correctly drawn an analogy between Putin’s “justification” for dismembering Georgia — because of the Russians in South Ossetia — to Hitler’s tactics vis a vis Czechoslovakia to “free” the Sudeten Deutsch. Even more ominous is the analogy of what Putin is doing vis-a-vis Georgia to what Stalin did vis-a-vis Finland: subverting by use of force the sovereignty of a small democratic neighbor. In effect, morally and strategically, Georgia is the Finland of our day.

The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin’s control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine.” (”Brzezinski: Russia’s invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin’s attack on Finland”; Huffington Post)

Brzezinski takes great pride in being a disciplined and rational spokesman for US imperial projects. It is unlike him to use such hysterical rhetoric. Perhaps, the present situation is more tenuous than we know. Could it be that the financial system is closer to meltdown-phase than anyone realizes?

It should be clear by Brzezinski’s comments that Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia was not another incoherent exercise in neocon chest-thumping, but part of a larger strategy to drag Russia into an endless conflict that will sap its resources, decrease its prestige on the global stage, weaken its grip on regional power, strengthen frayed alliances between Europe and America, and divert attention from a larger campaign in the Gulf. It is particularly worrisome that Brzezinski appears to be involved in the planning. Brzezinski, Holbrooke and Albright form the “Imperialist A-Team”; these are not the bungling “Keystone Cops” neocons like Feith and Rumsfeld who trip over themselves getting out of bed in the morning. These are cold-blooded Machiavellian imperialists who know how to work the media and the diplomatic channels to conceal their genocidal operations behind a smokescreen of humanitarian mumbo-jumbo. They know what they are doing and they are good at it. They’re not fools. They have aligned themselves with the Obama camp and are preparing for the next big outbreak of global trouble-making. This should serve as a sobering wake-up call for voters who still think Obama represents “Change We Can Believe In”.

Richard Holbrooke appeared on Tuesday’s Jim Lerher News Hour with resident neocon Margaret Warner. Typical of Warner’s “even-handed” approach, both of the interviewees were ultra-conservatives from right-wing think tanks: Richard Holbrooke, from the Council on Foreign Relations and Dmiti Simes from the Nixon Center.

According to Holbrooke, “The Russians deliberately provoked (the fighting in South Ossetia) and timed it for the Olympics. This is a long-standing Russian effort to get rid of President Saakashvili.”

Right. Is that why Putin was so shocked when he heard the news (while he was in Beijing) that he quickly boarded a plane and headed for Moscow? (after shaking his finger angrily at Bush!)

Holbrooke: “And I want to stress, I’m not a warmonger, and I don’t want a new Cold War any more than Dimitri does….The Russians wish to re-establish a historic area of hegemony that includes Ukraine. And it is no accident that the other former Soviet republics are watching this and extraordinarily upset, as Putin progresses with an attempt to re-create a kind of a hegemonic space.”

It is impossible to go over all of Holbrooke’s distortions, half-truths and lies in one article but, what is important is to recognize that a false narrative is being constructed to demonize Putin and to justify future hostilities against Russia. Holbrooke’s bogus assertions are identical to Brzezinski’s, and yet, these same lies are already appearing in the mainstream media. The propaganda “bullet points” have already been determined; “Putin is a menace”,”Putin wants to rebuild the Soviet empire”, “Putin is an autocrat”. (Unlike our “freedom loving” allies in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt!?!) In truth, Putin is simply enjoying Russia’s newly acquired energy-wealth and would like to be left alone. But it is impossible to be left alone when the US spends 24 hours a day pestering people. The world deserves a break from an extremely irritating USA.

So why are Brzezinski and his backers in the foreign policy establishment demonizing Putin and threatening Russia with “ostracism, isolation and economic penalties?” What is Putin’s crime?

Putin’s problems can be traced back to a speech he made in Munich nearly two years ago when he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony. His speech amounted to a Russian Declaration of Independence. That’s when western elites, particularly at the Council on Foreign Relations and the American Enterprise Institute put Putin on their “enemies list” along with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, Morales, Mugabe and anyone else who refuses to take orders from the Washington Mafia.

Here’s what Putin said in Munich:

“The unipolar world refers to a world in which there is one master, one sovereign—- one center of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. At the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.… What is even more important is that the model itself is flawed because at its basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern civilization.”

“Unilateral and frequently illegitimate actions have not resolved any problems. Moreover, they have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves—wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. More are dying than before. Significantly more, significantly more!

Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.

We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?

In international relations we increasingly see the desire to resolve a given question according to so-called issues of political expediency, based on the current political climate. And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this – no one feels safe! Because no one can feel that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them. Of course such a policy stimulates an arms race.

I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.”

Every word Putin spoke was true which is why it was not reprinted in the western media.

“Unilateral and illegitimate military actions”, the “uncontained hyper-use of force”, the “disdain for the basic principles of international law”, and most importantly; “No one feels safe!”

Putin’s claims are all indisputable, that is why he has entered the neocons crosshairs. He poses a direct challenge to—what Brzezinski calls—the “international system”, which is shorthand for the corporate/banking cartel that is controlled by the western oligarchy of racketeers.

South Ossetia was a trap and Putin took the bait. Unfortunately for Bush, the wily Russian prime minister is considerably brighter than anyone in the current administration. Bush’s plan will undoubtedly backfire and disrupt the geopolitical balance of power. The world might get that breather from the US after all.

Mikhail Gorbachev, writing in The Washington Post on August 12:

"What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity. . . . The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force."4

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network against Weapons and Nuclear Power, commented in OpEdNews on August 11:

"The U.S. has long been involved in supporting ‘freedom movements’ throughout this region that have been attempting to replace Russian influence with U.S. corporate control. The CIA, National Endowment for Democracy . . . , and Freedom House (includes Zbigniew Brzezinski, former CIA director James Woolsey, and Obama foreign policy adviser Anthony Lake) have been key funders and supporters of placing politicians in power throughout Central Asia that would play ball with ‘our side’. . . . None of this is about the good guys versus the bad guys. It is power bloc politics . . . . Big money is at stake . . . . [B]oth parties (Republican and Democrat) share a bi-partisan history and agenda of advancing corporate interests in this part of the world. Obama’s advisers, just like McCain’s (one of his top advisers was recently a lobbyist for the current government in Georgia) are thick in this stew."

Brzezinski, who is now Obama’s adviser, was Jimmy Carter’s foreign policy adviser in the 1970s. He also served in the 1970s as director of the Trilateral Commission, which he co-founded with David Rockefeller Sr., considered by some to be the "master spider" of the Wall Street banking network.6 Brzezinski later boasted of drawing Russia into war with Afghanistan in 1979, "giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War."7 Is the Georgia affair an attempted repeat of that coup? Mike Whitney, a popular Internet commentator, observed on August 11:

Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. After all, Saakashvili owes his entire political career to American power-brokers and US intelligence agencies. If he disobeyed them, he’d be gone in a fortnight. Besides an operation like this takes months of planning and logistical support; especially if it’s perfectly timed to coincide with the beginning of the Olympic games. (another petty neocon touch) That means Pentagon planners must have been working hand in hand with Georgian generals for months in advance. Nothing was left to chance."

Mike Whitney, a popular Internet commentator, observed on August 11:

"Washington’s bloody fingerprints are all over the invasion of South Ossetia. Georgia President Mikhail Saakashvili would never dream of launching a massive military attack unless he got explicit orders from his bosses at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."
I think (hope) that's overstating things. I think it's more likely that Saakashvili overestimated his value to the US and simply assumed that we'd back his play militarily and/or with hardline diplomacy. Obviously, he made a grave mistake in that assumption. Personally, I think he's an idiot to have not foreseen what has happened.

Russia just tries to say that South Ossetia should be allowed to choose to leave Georgia (and join Russia).
Their argument isn't without merit. 99% of the South Ossetians believe they should be allowed to join Russia and most of them are already Russian citizens.

Their argument isn't without merit. 99% of the South Ossetians believe they should be allowed to join Russia and most of them are already Russian citizens.
Here let me fix that quote for you:

Their argument isn't without merit. 99% of the Chechnyas believe they should be allowed to leave Russia.


Oppsie, slight moral dissonance here. Seems Russia supports breakaway republics only when it isn't theirs...

Oppsie, slight moral dissonance here. Seems Russia supports breakaway republics only when it isn't theirs...
Irrespective of whether or not they're hypocrites, I don't see how a country acting to protect its citizens (even when they are in another country) is amoral.

Irrespective of whether or not they're hypocrites, I don't see how a country acting to protect its citizens (even when they are in another country) is amoral.
First off, Russia went far beyond "protecting its citizens". Once Georgia was driven out of South Ossetia, their "citizens" were safe. But Russia drove its troops deep into Georgia, bombing many targets inside Georgia as well.

Secondly, whether or not the residents of South Ossetia were Russian citizens is quite a question. They were living inside Georgia, as South Ossetia is part of Georgia. Russia just gave away thousands of Russian passports to the Georgian citizens.

Let's use an analogy:

Chihuahua is a state in northern Mexico. The citizens of Chihuahua decide they want to secede from Mexico. For very good reasons, as Mexico is in the middle of a major drug war and poverty is quite high there. The citizens of Chihuahua decide they also might want to join the USA. So in 1992, they announce they are no longer part of Mexico. Mexico tries to use their army to get them back, but the USA intervenes and sends "peacekeeping" troops to Chihuahua. So the matter is put on hold and attempted to be settled diplomatically.

The USA over the next decade also starts giving out passports to the people of Chihuahua, making them "US citizens".

Thus, Chihuahua becomes de facto independent but is still legally part of Mexico. In 2008, Mexico decides that diplomacy wasn't working, as they offered a limited autonomy and it was rejected, so it is time to bring Chihuahua back under Mexican rule. So Mexico sends in the army. The USA sends in its army, navy and air force to not only drive out Mexico from Chihuahua, but bombs targets all over Mexico, attacks shipping and sends troops deep into Mexico. Because the USA is "protecting its citizens".

Now if you wish to argue that the people of South Ossetia are "ethnic Russians" so that makes all the difference, then we can change it to several counties on the border of Mexico in the USA. Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California all have areas of "ethnic Mexicans", who could decide tomorrow that they want to leave the USA and join Mexico. So when Mexico decides to invade the USA to stop American troops from bringing those areas back under US control, and Mexican troops manage to enter Kansas during their "protective" operations, it's all ok.

In any case, while Georgia used military force first (against their own citizians, by the way, having a Russian passport is meaningless when you live in Georgia (South Ossetia is part of Georgia) especially when Russian handed them out deliberately to cause friction) Russia did far, far more than just "protect them". They invaded Georgia (beyond South Ossetia, which, again, is part of Georgia) and basically has said that South Ossetia and Abkhazia (which Georgia did not use force against) will not be part of Georgia (even though internationally, they are) and that Russia will bomb the crap out of Georgia and send in troops all the way to Georgia's capital if they try again.

First off, Russia went far beyond "protecting its citizens".
Yeah, they could probably have accomplished their goals with less bloodshed.

Secondly, whether or not the residents of South Ossetia were Russian citizens is quite a question.
Not to Russia it isn't.

With respect to your analogy, if 70-90% of the people in Chihuahua were US citizens and Mexico attacked them then I would expect the US to intervene to protect them. Further, If I were in the US military and tasked with carrying out this mission then I'd go in assuming the worst (that Mexico would fight using any and all means) and act to neutralize anything I saw as posing a credible threat to accomplishing my objective.

In any case, while Georgia used military force first (against their own citizians, by the way, having a Russian passport is meaningless when you live in Georgia
Meaningless to whom? Russia certainly didn't think it was meaningless and Saakashvili surely must have known this. WTF was he thinking?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOJiVqg9_20

Georgia wouldn't have attacked South Ossetia without the green light from the U.S, believes Paul Craig Roberts, a former assistant secretary to the treasury in Ronald Reagan's administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7utQoH0FnRw

Interesting info anyway.

There is alot more to this than who attacked first. This conflict goes back to the early 1800's. The recent problems have arisen from Russia's influence flooding the S. Osettia economy and the fact that the "tri-lateral peacekeeping" force (comprised of Russian, Georgian, and S. Ossetians) was supposed to be neutral. That's akin to having Irananian, Palestinian, and Israeli militaries in the West Bank as a "peacekeeping" force. We have to keep in mind that S. Ossetia is NOT only made up of Ossetian towns, but Georgian populated towns as well, and it has been for over 2 centuries. These Georgians were not included in the Ossetian vote to become independent. Thus, the 90%+ "majority" vote, is nothing more than skewed propoganda statistics. Remember there are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics (One of my favorite quotes). The majority in the area are still Ossetian's (roughly 2/3's), but that couldn't possibly facillitate a 98-99% vote, considering the area is also populated by Georgians.

In recent years Georgia and Russia both, built up their military presence in and around S. Ossetia. Georgia's build-up was from the accusation that the Russians were allowing smugglers to run rampant through the area and the Russians giving no reason why their armed forces were piling up. There were kidnappings, hostage-takings, and other armed conflicts in the area, with the over-whelming majority being against Georgians. Then, on the day the Georgian offensive began, Georgia reported that 3 Russian aircraft violated Georgian airspace and attacked Georgian targets in the disputed Ossetian territory (If this is true then Russia did attack first). However, this remains unsubstaniated as far as I can tell and now all record of this has disappeared from the internet. Shortly after this alleged incident, the Georgian army rolled into S. Ossetia and followed, later, by the Russian military.

People seem to have short and selective memories when it comes to controversial events. It is clear that Russia has been stoking the embers in S. Ossetia for 20 years and have been waiting for Georgia to slip-up and give them a "reason" to launch an offensive. It's disconcerting that people don't remember, and take into account, these past events.

In my opinion, there are "bloody fingerprints" all over this conflict.....but they aren't American. When Russia gave away passports to S. Ossetia, it should have become obvious what their intentions were. All of Europe knew it. Why then, are we now surprised that it happened and act, as though, the U.S. government had something to do with it, based on the rantings of a few incredulous has-beens, whose political careers are all but over? This is a land-grab by Russia, pure and simple. It's what they've been so patiently waiting for.

Долгосрочной службы СССР

I should also add that I don't believe either side is telling the whole truth about this, as I don't trust anyone anymore, but it seems highly unlikely that Russia's role in this is purely a "protective" venture. It may have started out that way but as soon as their tanks rolled out of S. Ossetia and into Georgia it became, exactly what I said in my previous post.....a land-grab. They saw their opportunity and acted on it.

One last thing....nice analogy Fanra. You hit the nail right on the head.

I don't believe either side is telling the whole truth about this, as I don't trust anyone anymore, but it seems highly unlikely that Russia's role in this is purely a "protective" venture.
No, but it does provide a good excuse. I can certainly understand why there are conspiracy theories about the conflict. It seems inconceivable that Saakashvili would give Russia exactly the provocation it was obvious they were hoping for. You have to wonder, if he's not completely incompetent, what was he thinking (and why was he thinking it)?

It may have started out that way but as soon as their tanks rolled out of S. Ossetia and into Georgia it became, exactly what I said in my previous post.....a land-grab. They saw their opportunity and acted on it.
It also gave Russia a chance to register its mounting displeasure with the recruiting that NATO has been doing in its neighborhood. The message is pretty clear to places like the Ukraine -- if you piss us off we can trounce you and there isn't much the west can or will do about it. With the military bogged down in Iraq and the economy in the crapper, the US is not in a position to tangle with Russia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1f0_hGSUwk

"PROOF:Georgia started hostilities in South Ossetia"

I think we already concede Georgia was attacking "it's own"

notes from the youtube clip :

"Bottom line: We still do not know who shelled the Russian barracks, killing ten men and wounding thirty others. This was the spark that set off the conflict."

This is in fact true, WHO DID shell the Barracks, Who stands to gain?

This report from TWO days before the Russian intervention clearly shows that GEORGIA is the aggressor and that Russia had to intervene. Where was the USA when the Snipers were killing the South Ossetians and the Georgians were shelling the Civilians?"

NYT: After Mixed U.S. Messages, a War Erupted in Georgia (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/washington/13diplo.html?em)
By HELENE COOPER and THOM SHANKER
Published: August 12, 2008

WASHINGTON — One month ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived in Tbilisi, Georgia, for a high-profile visit that was planned to accomplish two very different goals.

During a private dinner on July 9, Ms. Rice’s aides say, she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win. “She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he had to put a non-use of force pledge on the table,” according to a senior administration official who accompanied Ms. Rice to the Georgian capital.

But publicly, Ms. Rice struck a different tone, one of defiant support for Georgia in the face of Russian pressure. “I’m going to visit a friend and I don’t expect much comment about the United States going to visit a friend,” she told reporters just before arriving in Tbilisi, even as Russian jets were conducting intimidating maneuvers over South Ossetia.

[More... (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/washington/13diplo.html?em)]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe89.html

Neocon Crybabies
by Steven LaTulippe

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."

....

I bet it is a prank but...

http://failblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/fail-owned-geography-fail2.jpg

Of course, this could be a European Georgian with bad english, unable to get local news. I suppose that could fit too.

I see swift is still using great sources for news. :(

Some simple facts are:
-South Ossetia is not a part of Russia.
-South Ossetia is still, as far as the UN is concerned, still a part of Georgia
-South Ossetia has not been recognized by ANY member of the UN as an independent country.
-Russian territory has not been violated.

How about the Washington times? Would you like that better? Here...

A Free Press? Not This Time. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403048.html)

"A Free Press? Not This Time.

By Olga Ivanova
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A21

I wish I could fly back to Russia. I have been in the United States for a year, and I am studying and working here to get experience in American journalism, known worldwide for its independence and professionalism. But in recent days it has felt as though I am too late, that the journalism of Watergate is well behind us and that reporting is no longer fair and balanced.

For years I have respected American newspapers for being independent. But no longer. Coverage of the conflict between Russia and Georgia has been unprofessional, to say the least. I was surprised and disappointed that the world's media immediately took the side of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili last week.

American newspapers have run story after story about how "evil" Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state. Many accounts made it seem as though the conflict was started by an aggressive Russia invading the Georgian territory of South Ossetia. Some said that South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, was destroyed by the Russian army. Little attention was paid to the chronology of events, the facts underlying the conflict.

American newspapers have run story after story about how "evil" Russia invaded a sovereign neighboring state. Many accounts made it seem as though the conflict was started by an aggressive Russia invading the Georgian territory of South Ossetia. Some said that South Ossetia's capital, Tskhinvali, was destroyed by the Russian army. Little attention was paid to the chronology of events, the facts underlying the conflict.

Last week, Georgia's president invaded South Ossetia during the night, much as Adolf Hitler invaded Russia in 1941. Within hours, Georgian troops destroyed Tskhinvali, a city of 100,000, and they killed more than 2,000 civilians. Almost all of the people who died that night were Russian citizens. They chose to become citizens of Russia years ago, when Georgia refused to recognize South Ossetia as a non-Georgian territory.

The truth is that, in this case, Russian aggression actually made some sense. Russia defended its citizens.

Yet American newspapers published stories that omitted mention of the Georgian invasion. And American media as a whole have been disturbingly pro-Georgian. The lead photograph on the front page of Sunday's Post showed two men -- one dead, the other crying -- amid ruins in Gori, Georgia. Many other images could have been used. Monday's Wall Street Journal, for example, contained several stories about the conflict and even an op-ed by Saakashvili. Where was the Russian response?

Here's a little bit on those main stream media outlets you love so much

Some Examples of Mainstream Media Lies (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=696_1180323980)

How about the Washington times? Would you like that better?
The link you gave was actually to the Washington <b>Post</b>, not the Times. IMO that makes it more credible. :)

Some simple facts are:
The conflict is far more complex than your list (or any of the analogies in this thread) would imply.

I bet it is a prank but... / Of course, this could be a European Georgian with bad english, unable to get local news. I suppose that could fit too.
lol, that's pretty good.

The conflict is far more complex than your list (or any of the analogies in this thread) would imply.

I would have to agree... by reading this thread everything is even more confusing. South Ossetia is a part of Georgia... Georgia invaded South Ossetia... South Ossetian's citizens are Russian... Russia defended it's citizens by attacking Georgia... yeah, confusing.

I'm pretty confused. I'm not sure who is to blame. The leader of Georgia sounds like he's a total narciscist and is convinced his big strong friends will back him up. Sounds like Ossetia wants to leave Georgia... if a region wants to leave, maybe they should let them? Sometimes I regret that whole civil war thing.

Russia is in a position of strength. Their oil is too needed by NATO allies. US is too over-extended to really do anything more than posture weakly and look totally hypocritical about anything we say about invading weaker nations and regime change etc.

It is a confusing mess from what I've been able to figure out so far.

Hmmm.... maybe Swiftfox is rubbing off on me but I just thought of something. The price of oil has been dropping lately. Russia is a big oil producer. What better way to get oil prices back up than with fear of instability in the oil markets? In fact, I just read it jumped $6 a barrel because of the russia/georgia thing.

Hmmm.... maybe Swiftfox is rubbing off on me but I just thought of something. The price of oil has been dropping lately. Russia is a big oil producer. What better way to get oil prices back up than with fear of instability in the oil markets? In fact, I just read it jumped $6 a barrel because of the russia/georgia thing.

The conflict between Russia and Georia has been brewing for more than a decade now. I am not sure about the media in the USA but over here it was reported before the fighting even stopped (after the initial confusion) that Georgia had started the shooting and likely miscalculated the amount of support it would get.

The basis of the conflict however is quite simple. Russia is afraid of losings its buffer states (and its international face) if it allows its former satelites independence and wants to force them to follow its own political and economic lead just like when they were part of the Soviet Union. Those newly independent states have no interest of returning to the fold (and below the iron booted foot) of the kremlin. It is not simply Georgia that is having trouble with Russia. EVERY country in the region is being pressured by them. Georgia is simply the most strongly targetted (after the baltic states) because it is the most vocal and independent, and because it is closest to being accepted as a member of the NATO (which is what Russia is trying to prevent most strongly). Even Belarus, ruled by the last (stalinist) dictator in the world and until recently so closely allied to Russia there were suggestions of it being absorbed into Russia, has been making some protesting noises to the point that it is (very cautiously) courting Western acceptance by releasing political prisoners. Other countries in the region of Georgia have been supporting Georgia to an extent that shows how indepent and unpressured they are (and how dependent they are on Russia for its economy, and how important Georgia is to them for exporting their oil and gas to Western Europe).

It is the same conflict that already almost cut off Europe from Russian gas twice in the last two years.

Ok, so that maybe was not so short.
Russia exports most of its gas to Europe through Georgia. It wants to control that pipeline.
Georgia tries to ascertain its indepedence and courts the NATO to be its protector against Russia. Russia feels threatened by this move (which if successful is certain to be repeated by other countries in the region that have a marketable commodity like oil or gas reserves).
Russia uses South Ossetia and Abchazia to try to force Georgia to do what it wants (along with more economic blackmail and the threat of violence).
Georgia tries to force the NATO into a decision by escalating the conflict to a shooting war. Once a full member any attack on Georgia by Russia is automatically an attack on every NATO member (as per the NATO charter). This incidentally is why Georgia was denied a real trial membership last year. The other member states do not really want to get involved while this conflict looms over Georgia. At the same time they did tell that membership is possible in the future so they already have a moral obligation (and practical one to preserve their believability) to do more than simply condemn Russia. For all intents and purposes they have made clear, without saying so, that further aggression on the part of Russia is unacceptable. Neither side really wants NATO peacekeeping troops in what Russia considers its backyard, so both sides are manouvering cautiously to prevent that from becoming inevitable.

The NATO countries are now reluctantly being drawn into a conflict they tried to avoid. One possible outcome is that the NATO will pressure Georgia to give up the two rebelling provinces (and quite possibly the president in stepping down) in exchange for a more firm relation with the NATO (e.g. not a promise of membership in the unspecified future but an actual timetable to join). That suggestion may be enough to make Russia back off, or to make it go ballistic.


Eri

Good post.

One possible outcome is that the NATO will pressure Georgia to give up the two rebelling provinces (and quite possibly the president in stepping down) in exchange for a more firm relation with the NATO (e.g. not a promise of membership in the unspecified future but an actual timetable to join).
I think that's the outcome that we're most likely to see. I'd be pretty surprised if South Ossetia and Abkhazia remained with Georgia.

So, first of all let me fully admit how totally ignorant I am about most of the foreign countries and thank you Eri for explaining this thing a bit more clearly. Still I am confused a bit... are Georgia and South Ossetia two different countries - both of which have succeeded from the old USSR?

If South Ossetia is separate from Georgia, what will happen to it if Georgia and Russia come to an agreement regarding their current conflict?

South Ossetia is part of Georgia. It is a hodgepodge of Georgian, S. Ossetian, and Russian populated towns. Roughly 66% S. Ossetian and 33% Georgian, while less than 1% are actually Russian. The only thing that really seperates S. Ossetia from Georgia is the currency. Georgia uses the "Lari" while S. Ossetia uses the ever-popular Russian "Ruble" (Ruebel).

Georgia and S. Ossetia were annexed by the Russia empire in 1801. S. Ossetia became part of Georgia, following the Russian revolution, in the 1920's. There were a few minor clashes during this time, but the area enjoyed relative peace (i.e. high rates of inter-marriage and trade) until 1989. At this time the "supreme soviet" approved an initiative to have N. Ossetia absorb S. Ossetia as a measure to preserve S. Ossetian autonomy....ooOO (yeah that's what we'll call it....preservation of autonomy...)

Sure sounds like Ossetia doesn't want to be part of Georgia right now. Why is that?

Sure sounds like Ossetia doesn't want to be part of Georgia right now. Why is that?

Partly because the Kremlin told them they did not want to be part of Georgia.
And partly because they never wanted to be part of it (most of the countries in the region started out a couple of centuries or millenia ago as regions dominated by one tribe. As the tribe grew it absorbed, erradicated or displaced other tribes in the area. If it formalised its rule (i.e. appointed a heriditary ruler) it could be treated with by other such tribes and regional boundaries solidified more or less.

Problems occur when after that process was completed the, now, country was absorbed into a bigger one against the wishes of the people (lots of independence wars are being fought over that today), or when conquering nations drew lines without regard for tribal boundaries (e.g. the whole mess regarding Armenia). Ossetia is an example of the later. The Ossetian people are split over two 'countries'. Most of the time they could not care less about that since either distant ruler was not considered their own and tended to leave them alone anyway, so as far as they were concerned they ruled themselves.


Eri

Sure seems like we could avoid a lot of civil strife if we just let people splinter off if the majority wanted to. They'll go off, do it, perhaps they'll realize they were wrong and want to come back at some point.

Partly because the Kremlin told them they did not want to be part of Georgia.
Oh come on, I find it hard to believe that some other government could influence people not even it's own citizens that much.

Oh come on, I find it hard to believe that some other government could influence people not even it's own citizens that much.

They do when they pay the nice policemen in the other country to knock on a few doors at 1 o'clock in the night to tell how the neighbours are from Georgia and can not really be trusted. And when they give away Russian passports to anybody who can remotely claim Russian ancestry (not quite to the point of having talked to a Russian once, but close :)). And when they build a few schools and roads here and there to show the (South) Ossetian people how much they care. Oh, not to mention the television which shows a fair bit of propaganda from both sides, but the Russian national television is just much more professional at it (and they have more ability to disrupt the other side's broadcasts).

And of course the Ossetian people did not really feel part of Georgia anyway, they just did not care as long as nobody bothered them. Once Russia started to nudge a few hotheads into caring and promising to back them up more Ossetians decided they did care a little after all now that the possibility of an independent state exists.

The Russian government is doing something that was invented by the Romans and perfected by the Brittish long ago: Divide and Conquer, and they have been at it in the Kaukasus region for about 2 centuries now.

And to put things into perspective from the Russian point of view: To the west of Georgia is Ukraine and the city Sebastopol, one of the only accessible harbours for the Russian navy (besides Wladiwostok). The Ukraine is also making noises of wanting to join the NATO and if that happens Russia would be without a harbour for its fleet, at least near Europe. (the Baltic Sea and Arctic Ocean ones are frozen solid part of the year and Wladiwostok is at the other end of the world, almost literally). To the South of Georgia is Turkey and a NATO member (and still considered the enemy by many of the political and military leaders).


Eri

It sounds like someone recruiting for hard to find workers! Or poaching healers for a raiding guild. :) Independence doesn't mean they'll be annexed by Russia. Georgia could try to woo them back.

Georgia should have countered with their own tactics, not strong-arming. Maybe they're not feeling well-represented in the Georgian government?

There is a good posting on wikipeadia about Georgia and South Oestia. The notion of breaking away from a country has resonance in the US Civil war. Should the South been allowed to succeed from the Union?

Also, the only country to recognize S. Oestia was Russia. The remaining countries do not recognize S. Oestia.

I do believe that for Georgia to obtain NATO membership, they would have to get control of their own country.

Also, it would make sense that the Whitehouse would not mind oil going up...

Finally, Russia invaded a country which is Georgia. The world does not recognize S. Oestia as a country and that "iritates" Russian Plutocrates.

There is a good posting on wikipeadia about Georgia and South Oestia. The notion of breaking away from a country has resonance in the US Civil war. Should the South been allowed to succeed from the Union?

Also, the only country to recognize S. Oestia was Russia. The remaining countries do not recognize S. Oestia.

I do believe that for Georgia to obtain NATO membership, they would have to get control of their own country.

Also, it would make sense that the Whitehouse would not mind oil going up...

Finally, Russia invaded a country which is Georgia. The world does not recognize S. Oestia as a country and that "iritates" Russian Plutocrates.

Yes. legally speaking Russia invaded Georgia. Unfortunately Bush set the precedent that countries can be invaded without legal framework from the UN in place, just on the pretense of a 'threat to national security' and 'to protect the people from dictators'.

Irony is not nearly as much fun when it gets up and slaps you in the face :(


Eri

There is a good posting on wikipeadia about Georgia and South Oestia. The notion of breaking away from a country has resonance in the US Civil war. Should the South been allowed to succeed from the Union?
The term "allowed" is a bit awkward in the context of world politics where, more often than not, might makes right. In the American Civil War, the Union used its military might to not allow the South to succeed.

The term "allowed" is a bit awkward in the context of world politics where, more often than not, might makes right. In the American Civil War, the Union used its military might to not allow the South to succeed.

Yes, maybe but South Oestia has been trying to obtain self determination from recorded history forward and so did the South. There are interesting parallels for one to muse over...

Yes. legally speaking Russia invaded Georgia. Unfortunately Bush set the precedent that countries can be invaded without legal framework from the UN in place, just on the pretense of a 'threat to national security' and 'to protect the people from dictators'.

Irony is not nearly as much fun when it gets up and slaps you in the face :(


Eri

I am not sure that Bush going into Iraq or NATO going into Afganistan is an excuse that Russia needs to beat down one of its neighbors. Because the Russian politico says one thing does not mean that they are not doing it for another. Frankly, Russia going into Georgia has more to do with missles in Poland and is reminiscent or Ike's placing missles in Turkey and the Cuban Missle Crisis.

In any case, Georgia bombed Georgia and not Russia... as far as I can tell. Also, the Russian stock market has tanked and investors are pulling out of Russia. The US paid a price for invading Iraq and Russia will pay a price as well.

I am not sure that Bush going into Iraq or NATO going into Afganistan is an excuse that Russia needs to beat down one of its neighbors. Because the Russian politico says one thing does not mean that they are not doing it for another. Frankly, Russia going into Georgia has more to do with missles in Poland and is reminiscent or Ike's placing missles in Turkey and the Cuban Missle Crisis.

No, Russia planned the invasion of Georgia and any excuse would have done. It was simply a matter of Georgia doing something that could be construed to give Russia the justification. The irony is that the same reasoning that Bush and Cheney used to justify -their- invasion are now mirrored back at the USA with a 'if it works for you it works for us' attitude from Russia.

In any case, Georgia bombed Georgia and not Russia... as far as I can tell. Also, the Russian stock market has tanked and investors are pulling out of Russia. The US paid a price for invading Iraq and Russia will pay a price as well.

*nods* yes. You can not be a bully and be a friend at the same time