Monday, August 11, 2008

Wars and Rumors of Wars

The conflict between Russia and Georgia was all but inevitable. Ever since Georgia first attained independence after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, it has been obvious that Russia would one day strive to regain control of the Caucasus. In 1991 the government in Moscow was too weak to consider acting in the region, but its geopolitical position has improved in the last fifteen years.

Georgia is especially vital to Russian interests. It is an important transit route for oil and natural gas, and Russia has demonstrated previously (most recently during the political crisis in Ukraine) that it prizes control over regional pipelines as a tool of statecraft.

In addition, the Russia would like to reassert its historic dominance over the “near abroad”. The Caucasus is its vulnerable underbelly, and the mix of restive Muslim minorities on both sides of the border creates both a crisis and an opportunity for meddling. Russia has gone into South Ossetia with the avowed intention of “protecting Russian citizens”, namely ethnic South Ossetians who hold Russian passports but are now resident on the Georgian side of the border.

AKI has an interesting take on the crisis. According to observers in Serbia, the independence of Kosovo has provided an international precedent for Ossetian and Abkhazian autonomy. It’s yet one more “sauce for the gander” moment in modern geopolitics:

Serbia: South Ossetia Conflict, Result of Kosovo’s Secession, Analysts Claim

The deadly conflict between Russia and Georgia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia is an indirect result of Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February, Serbian analysts and politicians said on Monday.

“If there wasn’t a ‘Kosovo precedent’, as the greatest world powers headed by the United States called the secession of a part of Serbian territory, there wouldn’t have been a war in South Ossetia,” Oliver Ivanovic, Serbian government official in charge of Kosovo told the Belgrade daily Blic.

Ivanovic said that Kosovo’s example was “inspiring to South Ossetia, so they wanted to strain relations and to define their position.”

Georgia wanted to solve the problem of separatist South Ossetia by the use of force, just like Serbia had tried to do in Kosovo in 1999, he explained.

The only difference between the conflict in South Ossetia and Kosovo was that NATO airstrikes drove Serbian forces out of Kosovo, while Russian troops intervened in South Ossetia on behalf of the separatist government, Ivanovic said.

He pointed out that the United Nations Security Council was deadlocked over South Ossetia, just as it was the case over Kosovo.
- - - - - - - - -
[…]

The only difference was that this time, western powers insisted on the sovereignty of Georgia over its breakaway province, unlike in Serbia’s case.

On the other hand, Russia, which opposed Kosovo’s independence, this time sided with separatist forces in Ossetia, he noted.

“Like in the case of Kosovo, the policy of double standards has surfaced in the UN again,” Ivanovic said.

Independence for Kosovo has opened a Pandora’s box. What rationale allows for the “legitimate aspirations of the people of Kosovo” but denies the same to the people of Kurdistan (in Turkey, Iraq, and Iran), or Tibet, or Flanders? One could even make the same case for carving an independent Aztlan out of Southern California, New Mexico, Arizona, and parts of Texas.

The Mighty Circle of Doom

Take a globe and a compass, put the point on the Strait of Hormuz, and inscribe a circle with a radius of about 2,500 miles, passing through China, the Indian Ocean, the Sahara, Central Europe, and Russia. You’ll notice that at least 90% of the world’s most serious and intractable crises occur within that circle. Georgia is just the latest manifestation: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Kosovo, Bosnia, Chechnya, and Xinjiang — all fall within the Mighty Circle of Doom.

The epicenter of all this trouble lies in the Muslim heartland, the Persian Gulf. So it’s no great surprise that the world’s great maritime powers seem to be preparing for a spot of bother in the area. According to ANSAmed:

Gulf: Concentration of War Ships, Aircraft, Missiles Grows

The waters in the Gulf are increasingly agitated, waiting for the UN decisions on possible new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme. The emirate of Kuwait has activated its ‘Emergency War Plan’, while U.S. and European battleships are heading to the region, to add up to the military presence in the Gulf, the Middle East Times reports today.

And whereas Tehran proclaims it ‘‘is ready to face new sanctions’’ of the UN connected with its nuclear programme, which will pursue ‘‘in any situation’’, Saudi Arabia prepares to buy another 72 fighter jets Eurofighter Typhoon. As missionary agency AsiaNews also comments, ‘‘muscles are being flexed in the Gulf’’, waiting for the report of the Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Olli Heinonen, who went to Tehran on August 7, with the purpose to made clear to Iran the offer of the ‘5+1’ (the permanent members of the Security Council, USA, Russia, China, Britain and France, plus Germany) in exchange for the suspension of the programme for enrichment of nuclear fuel.

The Iranian reply — probably negative or delaying — will cause the request of new sanctions, which could be discussed at the next United Nations General Assembly, scheduled to take place between September 23 and October 1. In the past days, Arab observers noticed the coincidence between the threat of sanctions and the Iranian announcement of the implementation of a land-to-sea missile with a range of 300 kilometres, more than enough to close the ‘‘doorway of oil’’: the Strait of Hormuz, 30 miles (a little over 50 kilometres) long stretch between Iran and Oman.

Today the Middle East Times underlines that the Gulf is being approached by several groups of aircraft carriers and battle ships of the United States, Britain and France, coming from an exercise in the Atlantic — operation ‘Brimstone’ — having as a goal the breaking of a possible blockade of the Strait. It is the largest naval deployment in these waters since the two wars of the Gulf.

Beyond the feared military clashes, the presence of the western naval forces could lead one into thinking, according to Middle Eastern observers, of a blockade of the Iranian oil exports and imports. Despite being the second oil producer of OPEC, Iran is actually forced to import petrol, as it does not have enough refineries for its domestic needs. A rationing of the fuel is already in force, the block of its imports would have a devastating effect on the Iranian economy.

In this scenario, in which the possible reactions of Tehran are not to be foreseen, the small oil-rich state of Kuwait (the capital Kuwait City is less than 60 miles from the Iranian territory) shows strong worry and is already starting to try to take precautions. ‘‘Kuwait was caught by surprise last time, when Iraqi troops invaded the small emirate and routed the Kuwaiti army in just a few hours,’’ a former US diplomat to Kuwait told the Middle East Times.

So it appears that trouble may be on the way for Iran, not to mention Israel and any other country in the region that draws the mullahs’ attention once the Iranian nukes are in place.

Ever since I started paying attention to international affairs during the mid-1960s, the world has been in a state of continuous crisis. We had a small breather from 1989 to 1991, when it looked like the sky might clear at last, but it turned out to be just a brief interlude between the Communist hurricane and the Jihad typhoon.

Every year looks more and more apocalyptic, yet somehow Western Civilization keeps lurching past each crisis without encountering the Eschaton. Even so… 2009 still seems to me to be shaping up as the Year of the Jackpot.

How long until our luck runs out?


Hat tips: C. Cantoni and Insubria.

61 comments:

supercargo said...

Georgia's Stalin2 - now deceased - was a pathological Russian hater, and Chechen lover. Please read this correspondence from Gamsakhurdia to Shevardnadze (successor to Stalin2 and former Foreign Minister of the USSR)

Assuming anyone worth communicating with knows how to use "Internet Archive," please type the following dead link in same:
http://www.geocities.com/shavlego/ZG_Letter_SH.htm

Georgia is lead by revenge seeking cut-throats; Georgians will turf them out in a couple of days. Georgia cannot survive without Russia. Anti-jihadis need to be on Turkey's north.

Vasarahammer said...

Seems like the Kremlin trolls have appeared here too. The rambling above looks like it has been directly translated from Russian to English.

The trolls have started appearing in discussion forums and blogs that cover the current conflict between Russia and Georgia. They can be funny at times because of the incoherent language contained in the messages.

Defiant Lion said...

The finger of blame should be pointing at the United States and NATO - that monstrous organisation who should've been out of business years ago but who still plague Europe. Witness their war cimes in Kosovo and Serbia, including the ethnic cleansing of the Krajina.

One has to ask: Why is NATO including states such as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine, Poland, etc.? Why are NATO putting military bases there? Encircling a nuxlear super-power - hmm, didn't a certain country in 1962 object strongly to having enemy missiles on its doorstep?

Saakashvii has attacked the Ossetians who wanted to remain Russians and he attacked Russian peace-keeping forces whose presence there had been agreed.

Had he waited until Georgia was a full NATO member, this lunatic would've dragged all NATO member states into a war against a nuclear super-power.

The constant meddling of the US and NATO in foreign lands has to end. NATO should've died with the cold war, its original remit dead, just as the warsaw pact died. I'm with the Russians on this one and I'm with them on Kosovo.

Henrik R Clausen said...

There's an interesting analysis of the situation at Telegraph.

Also, Defiant Lion makes some good points here, which I think Vasarahammer would do well to ponder instead of dismissing them as 'Kremlin trolling'.

Georgia can't just stomp on the feet of bears assuming the West will bail them out.

thll said...

You express my thoughts better than I can - I'm fully in agreement DLion.

brianakira said...

Re: "Ever since Georgia first attained independence after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, it has been obvious that Russia would one day strive to regain control of the Caucasus."

No it hasn't been obvious.

Russia has consistently refused to recognize the independence of Adjara, Abkazia and South Ossetia.

What is true is this:

Ever since Adjara, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia first attained independence after the Soviet Republic of Georgia fell in 1991, and Georgian chauvinism annuled the autonomy of its constituent parts, and the national rights of its minorities regressed even from tose of Soviet times, it has been obvious that Georgia would one day strive to regain control of their Soviet-era territory.

Also, the ex-Georgian-dominated nations have no connection with Kosovo, since (a) unlike Kosovo Muslims, the members of Georgia's former subject nations have not tried to provoke Georgia with terrorist attacks, and (b) NATO powers violated their very own resolutions by recognizing Kosovo "independence" after having legally contracted themselves not to do so.

There is no such contract or treaty preventing Russia from recognizing the independence of Adj, Abkh, or S. Oss.

Russia has chosen not to recognize them so far. They even withdrew their forces from Adjara before the deadline that they had set for themselves. Now that Georgia has acted belligerently and violated its treaties, the status quo ante no longer prevails.

Felicie said...

"Independence for Kosovo has opened a Pandora’s box."

That's exactly right. A lot of political analysts were saying that this would open the door for South Ossetia and Chechenia to declare independence at the time they proclaimed the independence of Kosovo. Either nations do have a right to their sovreignty or they do not. Decide. But don't use double standards.

Saakashvili is not an innocent little lamb. His forces suppressed a peaceful anti-government opposition in November and closed an oppositional TV channel. lot of worrisome irregularities were reported during the last election. Georgia is not a Western type of a democratic state right now. Before the Russian invasion, the Georgian shelling of Tskhinvali killed over a 1000 civillians. Georgians were also brutal to Abkhasians in the civil war that broke out in the early 90ies. The opposite was also the case. As a recent newspaper article reminded me, the toll of that was was 20000 people. This is a difficult situation. Should Russia have interfered? I don't know. But if the NATO interfered in Kosovo, how is this situation different?

Henrik Ræder said...

Wasn't the Georian Rose Revolution sponsored by George Soros? Looks like he's not getting his moneys' worth.

Taunting Russian, then banking on the West to bail them out, is irresponsible at best.

Felicie said...

"Wasn't the Georian Rose Revolution sponsored by George Soros?"

Yes, it was.

Henrik Ræder said...

Should Russia have interfered? I don't know. But if the NATO interfered in Kosovo, how is this situation different?

I see a difference:

Russia is acting on behalf of minorities that consider themselves Russian, wereas in Kosovo we interfered on behalf of Muslim Albanians.

What was it Fjordman said about figuring out who's the sucker in the game..?

Felicie said...

"Russia is acting on behalf of minorities that consider themselves Russian, wereas in Kosovo we interfered on behalf of Muslim Albanians."

This even strengthens the case and makes Russians no more wrong that Americans in Kosovo or no less right, however you want to see it. My point, in any case, is banal, and has been made by other people as well. It is: don't be hypocritical (to President Bush).


7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Felicie said...

I'll add something. I think the question of the right to self-determination has two sides. One is that of geopolitical interests and political expediency. And another - that of justice. Because I do believe that if we abstract ourselves from our immediate interests, loyalties, and alliances and try to look at the situation from an objective God's perspective, if you will, one side of the conflict would come out more "right" than another. Sometimes our interests must override the consideration of fairness, but something like an objective perspective from which a morally just position can be discerned does exist, I believe. Otherwise, we would all be total moral relativists.

My own view on the so-called right to self-determination (from the position of moral justice) is: it depends. It really depends on the historical circumstances. I don't think that Albanians had a right to independent Kosovo because the land belongs to Serbia historically, and Albanians were the late comers. All of this is regardless of Christianity/Islam conflict and the question of whose side we are on. On some absolute, grand scale of things Serbs were more right than Albanians, and their rights took precedence over Albanian rights to the land. In the situation with South Ossetia, don't know enough. But at least their case is no more egregious´than that of Kosovo. If it was OK for Kosovo to separate itself from Serbia then it is surely so for South Ossetia.

Last_Norwegian said...

There's an amazing amount of nonsense being spouted in defense of the Russians. The Cuba crisis - a democratic nation seeking to stem the advance of the Communist tyranny - and you're comparing that to the baltic nations seeking to ensure their freedom by NATO membership... If you truly believe those things are equal something is seriously wrong with you. Russia may have new leadership but they are still bullying their neighbours while lamenting the fall of the Soviet Union. Russian forces have repeatedly violated Georgian airspace and launched small attacks in order to escalate the conflict.

The Georgians may have acted foolishly, but they have every right to defend their own country from rebels and Russians alike. Will you be as ready to support the separatists when Londonistan and Los Angeles declare their independence? Will you denounce nationalist forces for attacking the self-declared Mexican/Saudi peacekeepers then? And since you're so 'principled'. Where do you stand on the muslim rebel movements in places like the Philippines?

This defense of Russia is nothing but the usual PC cowardice. -A way to justify avoiding an unpleasant conflict that nevertheless is here to stay.

The Georgians may not be perfect, but they are infinitely superior to the Russians. And both the Russians and rebels have staged attacks and provocations against the Georgians over the years and even in the weeks before the Georgian attempt to reunite their country. Those treaties were broken by the Russians and their underlings first in such incidents as the russian missile attack on the Georgian village of Tsitelubani a year ago.

Henrik R Clausen said...

This defense of Russia is nothing but the usual PC cowardice.

The Georgians may not be perfect, but they are infinitely superior to the Russians.

OK, enough rude racist ranting for me. I'm out of this thread.

El Jefe Maximo said...

Count me as one who disbelieves in the whole idea of "breathing spaces" lasting. All of history is wars and rumors of wars.

Perhaps the most evolutionary-contra-indicated things that man has done is to (1) try to outlaw war altogether -- which is like preventing earthquakers -- when they do happen, they're bigger and worse; and (2) making WMD's.

I don't know that 2009 is the "Year of the Jackpot" as you put it. I do know there will be wars, this year, or others. As for the jihad struggle, I think it likely that we are entering an era where other people and powers, not necessarily concerned with the jihad per se, will exploit the urge to jihad for their own purposes.

Diamed said...

I support the right to self-determination for everyone everywhere. The declaration of independence says governments are formed by the consent of the people to serve their wishes, it is therefore impossible to justify a government forcing people to stay in a government not of their choosing. I can't imagine how any revolutionary war or any nation anywhere that was once carved out of an empire has any more right to freedom than Ossetia has. Does might make right, or the natural rights of man as described in the Declaration of Independence? If we enjoy our freedom, what right do we have to deny it to anyone else? As countries were once as small as city states and worked just fine, as many island countries today are no larger than city states and work just fine, as countries like Lichtenstein and Andorra and Monaco exist in Europe, there is no justification whatsoever for even keeping individual cities that want to break away from their rightful independence. This right will become increasingly necessary to save any part of the west from its coming destruction due to the overwhelming liberal/immigrant vote. Only self-segregation followed by self-determination will ever secure any corner of the globe for conservatives of any stripe. Denying the right to self-determination is suicide.

Joanne said...

Yes, the United States recognizing Kosovo's declaration of independence was not a good move. I know the United States would not recognize any of their states' declaration of independence, so I do not know what they were thinking. I didn't like it then, and now it has come back to bite the U.S. in the butt.

Now Russia is playing the word game and throwing around genocide, massacre of women and children, burning women and children alive in a church - that notion must have come from Kenyan's church burnings, and the like to make it seem as if they had every right to go into South Ossentia and Georgia like the Americans did in Kosovo.

As they say, "Smooth move exlax."

1 3 4 7 12 said...

After the breakup of the U.S.S.R.: 1991 - ’92: South Ossetia separatists fight for independence; Georgia grants them virtual autonomy; Russia cohabits as “peacekeepers”.
Over the next 15 years, Russia offers easy passports to South Ossetians - this allows Russia to consider them Russian citizens; while Russia provides arms and ammunition to separatists, apparently encouraging separatists to feel aggrieved.
Separatists begin to attack Georgian positions more frequently. Attacks occurred this past May, June, and July. Often the local Georgian forces shot back, but each time the Georgian government stopped the local military forces from retaliating, concerned about the likelihood of escalation, and offered peace agreements. Each time, the agreements were spurned by the separatists.
In August, the separatist attacks became more frequent, and more intensive. Separatists attacked villages in South Ossetia that were held by Georgians, finally “obliterating” one. At this point, Russian planes entered Georgian airspace in South Ossetia.
Georgia sent planes to bomb targets in South Ossetia - presumably separatist positions that had been attacking Georgian villages.
Russia responded with many more flights, and incursions beyond South Ossetia and the other autonomous region of Georgia. They also sent ground troops,
What’s Georgia supposed to do? Roll over and play dead, like Poland? Czechoslovakia? Afghanistan? Tiny country versus huge military: hmmm…..

The “Rose Revolution” was a free election; the controversy was that it appeared to observers to be rigged in favor of the incumbent; public protests and new elections confirmed the observers’ interpretations, and the incumbent eventually resigned. Woo-hoo! Big “revolution”!
I am not in favor of destroying the Roki tunnel. Russia doesn’t need to occupy or gain benefit from Georgia. Simply ruining their economy will accomplish their objectives as well. The elected president won, in part, in response to pledges to reunite the country. His preferred method? To make the Georgian economy productive and thriving, drawing the willing cooperation of previously separatist areas. Destroy the economy, and the government will have no strength left. Blockade the tunnel. Put a ton of stuff in front of it. Let military types find ways to do this - I’m not an expert in those areas. But there are other roads into the country, and the Russians will just shift to these if the Roki entrance is barred.

Sorry for all the words, but after seeing the Serbs sold down the river by the MSM, I am no longer able to sit by silently, while people repeat enormously flawed versions of events.

And now the Russians have bombed the capital city’s airport (well outside South Ossetia and Abkhazia), where there is no military activity of any kind. While the West sits and discusses the rights or wrongs being (or not being!) done, Russia rolls over Georgia. By the time anyone decides to act Georgia will only be a state in the U.S. South.

Cobra said...

It is clear that the USA had a stupid policy toward Russia (who should have been our best friend by now), made a HUGE mistake in letting Kosovo steal that Serbian land,and, in general, lacks finesse in strategic thinking.
But the real culprit here is Russia,who, with or without communism, is the same imperialistic, primitive and brutal entity who bullied every neighbor and stole lands and countries since the end of the Mongol empire.

Graham Dawson (Archonix) said...

Well let me ask something: If this is simply about South Ossetia, why are the russians shelling Gori?

Diamed said...

For the same reason that Israel bombed central Lebanon in a war over simply 'two Israeli hostages' taken by Hezbollah.

Once a war starts there's no limits to what you can do to your opponent. The person who starts the war is responsible for all harm done during the war. Georgia invaded and did bad things to South Ossetia and now the retaliation is invading and doing bad things to them. Only a liberal could draw false moral equivalences between pearl harbor and hiroshima by just looking at violence done and not who started the war, or who has a just war aim. By that argument America's evil for our 'disproportionate response' to Pearl Harbor. Whether Russia now wipes Georgia off the map or not is somewhat irrelevant. The only thing you should ask is, 'Did Georgia indeed start this conflict by invading a previously autonomous zone and start killing its inhabitants?' And 'Do people have the right to secede if they find themselves more comfortable in a country of their own than under the control of others?'

DP111 said...

The forced separation of Kosovo from Serbia has indeed set a modern precedent, and many have commentators been writing the same in papers around the world. It was hypocrisy of the first order when Pres Bush requested that Russia respect the territorial integrity of Georgia.

What I find difficult to understand is that Georgia took the decision to force the issue with Russia by sending in their troops. Considering the dangers in such a move, I would have thought restraint was the best option.

So was Ossetia given a “deniable” green light by someone in the State department or elsewhere? Did the president of Ossetia believe that he would have the support of the USA for such a move, given that Georgia had significant number of troops (relative to Ossetia's population) in Iraq?

Why would America do such a thing? It is clear that Russia's is no longer the impotent giant that it was in Yeltsin’s era (its nuclear arsenal has always been there). It is therefore not in America's or NATO’s interest, that countries such as Georgia and Ukraine become full NATO members in this new era. Given that these countries are on Russia's borders, and have large Russian populations within them, the chance of NATO getting into a serious confrontation with Russia, due to a miscalculation by these countries, is high. Russia has also made it abundantly clear that it will act if any policy adversely affects Russians in these countries. Such a confrontation is certainly not to NATO's liking.

What I see in the future is that the US and the UK, having committed themselves in the previous era, will continue to work strenuously for the entry of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, but they will do so in the happy confidence that Germany and France will veto any such entry.

I have a feeling that a decision has been made that NATO has just about reached its limit, as far its size is concerned, and this event is a marker.

Was Georgia set-up? What do the GoVerners think?

Felicie said...

"But the real culprit here is Russia,who, with or without communism, is the same imperialistic, primitive and brutal entity who bullied every neighbor and stole lands and countries since the end of the Mongol empire."

What lands did it steal?

Defiant Lion said...

Interesting that it seems fitting to quetion the motives of the Russians but not those of the US and NATO. Asking why NATO still exists and is covertly operating in Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia etc. encircling Russia with military bases is off limits here I guess. Only the yanks are allowed that because everyone else is beneath them. How convenient to justify illegal interference and war crimes. What the duplicitous USA has now become makes me vomit.

But what is obvious to some is that Georgia is on Russia's doorstep. Where is Afghanistan/Iraq/Iran/Serbia in relation to the USA, to Britain and the other dispicable interfering war mongerers collectively called NATO? How can an organisation called "North Atlantic Treaty Organisation" include Eastern European and BALTIC states? And yet it is the Russians who are the bad guys here?

The ridiculous hypocrisy on show here is nauseating.

I'm with Henrik on this. The arrogance and racist rantings of some of the comments here is totally sickening. Such is the hubris of the USA and its criminal allies - my own country shamefully included.

I'm outta of this one.

God bless Russia & God bless Serbia - Kosovo IS Serbia.

Cobra said...

"What lands did it steal?"

I think the right question is from what neighbor it did NOT steal.
Let's see:
1. Finland: 9% of Finland's territory and 20% of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union, following the winter war following the 1939-1940 war.
2. Poland: have you heard of the Ribentrop-Molotov diktat, in which Germany and the Soviet Union split Poland?
3. Romania lost Basarabia and Northern Bucovina due to the same diktat.
4. Chechslovakia also lost territory around the same WWII.
Is this enough?
And I am pretty sure I listed only the latest round of thuggery by the Russians.
If you go back in time just look at how the Russian Empire extended in the history.
They conquered North, South, East and West.

supercargo said...

Those who aren't prisoners of the Big Russia v Little Georgia BS: don't make my mistake of posting opinion here. Hell, the following is F-A-C-T. The cry-babies have already been discredited, with the cease fire and Georgian abandonment of weaponry is a supposed patria o muerta fight for nationhood. Disregard all vomit issued in response to the following; it can be nothing but fiction from ideological illiterates who know nothing of the Stalin-Gamsakhurdia personality cults.

Fact: Abkhazia, and South Ossetia were incorporated into Georgia, when Russia was creating the Commonwealth of Independent States. In recognition of the obligation to protect the Russian minority, the agreement assigned the Georgians a trustee role. When cultists assumed power in Georgia, and aided Chechen Islamofascists, the Russians reacted until a responsible regime took over. Billionaire egomaniac, George Soros, financed anti-Russian authoritarians who seized autocrat power in 2003. Once in power, they sought NATO's complicity in completing their cleansing of Russian from the trustee lands. The last straw was the invasion of South Ossetia. With today's ceasefire, Russians have proven they respect Georgian sovereignty, outside of trustee lands. The worst aspect of the affair, is the fact that we suffered from the most irresponsible reportage since Kosovo. The best: Bush's dhimmi stupidity has faced another crippling blow. Once the Soros' junk leadership has been dumped from Georgia, a strong government will be on the border with Islamofascist Turkey.

laine said...

God bless Russia? Someone here is apparently history illiterate.

Unlike the United States and the other members of NATO excepting Germany, Russia has been imperialistic and expansive throughout its history including the 20th century. What do you think the USSR was made up of? Russia and her victims. When Russian communism imploded, they all voted with their feet and left their oppressors.

The small nations ringing the bloody bear begged for admission to NATO to prevent just what Russia is doing in Georgia and has done repeatedly before. It invades small independent nations with democratically elected governments with overwhelming force on some pretext (in this case "protecting the interests" of the faux Russian citizens given passports for this express purpose) and then blatantly lying about how the invaded people ASKED them to stay (AT THE POINT OF A GUN BARREL). This pattern was carried out in all three Baltic states and any country that was unlucky enough to share a border with the rabid bear.

What followed was the second part of the pattern. The natives were massacred immediately by the Reds or shipped to slow death in Siberia, starting with their political leaders and intelligentsia, but including anyone who might resist and their families. The mass deportations included women and children. Meanwhile in the other direction, Russians were sent in to suffocate local culture and Russify all the invaded countries.

Since those nations regained their independence in the 1990's, the descendants of the occupying Russians stayed because their standard of living was far better than in Mother Russia. The West insisted that the "human rights" of those voluntarily expatriate Russians be tended to tenderly, despite the horror their forebears had visited on others.

Now they are sizeable minorities and restive, regularly stirred up from Moscow by professional intriguers.

Has it escaped the Russia supporters that it is no longer a democracy? That Putin broke all the rules and has put a puppet in place but still dictates? That with his unearned oil money he has been throwing Russia's weight around merely to regain the "glory days" of Soviet thuggery? Stealing foreign investments, threatening cut off of energy supplies, none of it done because anyone seriously believes for a minute that Russia is at risk of invasion LOL. Putin is KGB and will always be proud of his service in an institution as inhumane as the Gestapo. His coterie all have the same background.

Where have some of the commenters gotten their ideas on Russia? from Walter Duranty? I haven't heard this kind of bilge in a long time. I didn't expect to find Stalin's useful idiots on Gates of Vienna.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Has it escaped the Russia supporters that it is no longer a democracy?

No. But the Putin regime is, in contrast to the communist one, generally considered legitimate, and supported by a large majority of Russians. There's no prospect for regime change, we might as well ditch any and all of the Cold War tools designed to work for that purpose.

It's a realpolitik world, and Putin knows how to play that game with audacity and skill. If the West had been standing up to fundamentalist Islam with similar guts, bin Laden and his ilk would have changed business long ago. We don't win anything but delayed suffering by the European 'soft power' ways.

Felicie said...

"I think the right question is from what neighbor it did NOT steal.
Let's see:
1. Finland: 9% of Finland's territory and 20% of its industrial capacity to the Soviet Union, following the winter war following the 1939-1940 war.
2. Poland: have you heard of the Ribentrop-Molotov diktat, in which Germany and the Soviet Union split Poland?
3. Romania lost Basarabia and Northern Bucovina due to the same diktat.
4. Chechslovakia also lost territory around the same WWII.
Is this enough?
And I am pretty sure I listed only the latest round of thuggery by the Russians.
If you go back in time just look at how the Russian Empire extended in the history.
They conquered North, South, East and West."

First of all, the cases you name were not done under Russia but under the Soviet Union led by the Georgian Stalin. Secondly, the historical Russian empire did not "steal" land - it conquered or annexed it. The difference being is that the people living on conquered territories were not massacred or expelled but incorporated into the population of the Russian empire and not forcibly assimilated but allowed to keep their language, lifestyle, and culture. They did not have to pay tribute and were not given a second class citizenship status. The people whose territory was conquered were often more primitive peoples that lacked statehood. Yes, I agree it is not a good thing to conquer neighboring peoples. Why should these people not enjoy self-determination and ruled by foreign administrators and forced to join modernity? But other countries did the same thing. How is it different from the Europeans settlers' conquering the land of Indians in America or Scandinavian countries incorporating the Saami region? Russia just happened to have a large, relatively flat, contiguous territory around it, and so it was capable to expand through a series of conquests. Thirdly, if one looks at you examples, only in the case of Poland, were the Poles actually expelled. But Poland got instead the German lands to the West. The whole country was basically moved West. The Eastern Poles moved to Western Poland, to the houses vacated by Folk Deutsch, who were also expelled from Poland. The examples you name (and, by the way, I am not familiar with what territory Czechoslovakia lost to the Soviet Union - was there something in the Carpathian region?) are all cases of the post-war redrawing of the maps. Poland got some part of Czechoslovakia, there were many other land grabs. This is the way things happen in the aftermath of a war. In some cases, it is a redressing of some historical unfairness, in others it is simply opportunistic. But this is the way things have been done throughout history, and if you demonize Russia who "steals" lands you would have to demonize all Western countries, because they've all taken territories from each other.

Yes, the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union was very cruel and totalitarian, and communism is a corrupt system. But let's not demonize Russia or the Russian people. They deserve to be criticized for a lot of things, such as their flirting with genocidal muslim regimes in the Middle East, but they are not evil incarnate. Nor are they the "natural enemies" of the West. With a wise foreign policy they could be turned into allies.

Felicie said...

Laine: "Has it escaped the Russia supporters that it is no longer a democracy? That Putin broke all the rules and has put a puppet in place but still dictates? "

Laine, Georgia is not democratic by Western standards either. Please read about what Saakashvili has done. He really does not look any better than Putin. Plus, he killed a lot people in South Ossetia in the past weeks. The Russian side claims 2000. The critics say that the figures are inflated. Let's wait and see what the real number is. In any case, what he did there was reprehensible. A German reporter who is on location says that the city is destroyed and that there is a smell of corpses in the air.

Link:
The death of a city - Zchinwali

How can Saakashvili's actions possibly be defended? Unless we support the unconditional right of the country to preserve their territorial integrity by any means. In that case - pass Kosovo back to Serbia. I think that, in any case, it's a good thing that Tskhinvali is taken and the massacre is stopped.

Defiant Lion said...

@Laine:

"God bless Russia? Someone here is apparently history illiterate.

Unlike the United States and the other members of NATO excepting Germany, Russia has been imperialistic and expansive throughout its history including the 20th century."

And you resort to ad hominem and call others "history illiterate".

A suggestion: Try reading about the history of the USA (esp. 20th Century) and Great Britain.

And "begging" NATO doesn't answer the motive for NATO's existence nor does it excuse what the USA has done in the Baltic states. States that are not on its borders.

Georgia is not the little innocent victim you are painting. Nor is what has been going on in those countries innocent - why is the US providing military training to nations on Russia's doorstep? Would the US turn a blind eye to this if Russia did this say in Mexico?

Russia is now the rabid bear is it? Remind me what the US and NATO did in Croatia and Kosovo. And Iraq. And Afghanistan. Nations who, again, do not share a border with the US. All of these US actions built on a pack of lies by the way.

Why you are talking about Russian communism in relation to this I have no idea. What next, WWII?

For the west to lecture Russia about human rights it should put its own house in order first. It's a bit rich committing the ethnic cleansing of 250,000 Serbs from the Krajina and bombing the crap out of innocent people in Serbia and Iraq then painting Russia as a violater of human rights. And do the Ossetians who wanted to remian Russians and who were attacked and killed because of this have any human rights? The Russians think so and they're right.

"Where have some of the commenters gotten their ideas on Russia? from Walter Duranty? I haven't heard this kind of bilge in a long time. I didn't expect to find Stalin's useful idiots on Gates of Vienna."

Ah, so anyone who supports Russia's actions in South Ossetia and its support for Serbia is a useful idiot are they? Yet again resorting to ad hominem and quite unreasoned to boot.

The USA and NATO have been agitating in the Baltics including Georgia. They are surrounding a nuclear super power with military bases and this super power will protect its assets, its citizens and its borders. As is its right.

NATO is a criminal organisation, its actions in the Baltics are way beyond its remit and its actions in Serbia, Croatia and Kosovo are absolutely deplorable.

But in a simple world, the west is the good guy and Russia is the bad guy. Rarely is such an appraisal of conflict is this true and it certainly isn't in this case.

Henrik Ræder said...

Mmm, could it be that the US military 'advisors' in Georgia have been constructing the notion that we'd bail them out in case they taunt Russia a bit too far?

BTW, from a military point of view I do not understand why Georgia did not start out by blocking the tunnel to Russia? While they'd have been beaten senseless anyway, that would have been the first step of any to prevent massive Russian reinforcements from arriving.

brianakira said...

My own reasons for generally tending towards supporting the Russian position regarding this particular issue in this particular region at this particular point in time, are all only confirmed by the racist, ill-informed, and ad hominem pro-Georgian sentiments expressed here.

"Ill-informed sentiments" because I've noticed that such comentators fail to deal with the specific issues related to this specific case.

+ + +

All this talk about the whether Russia is admirable or detestable; Communist, Fascist, Christian, Muslim, Imperialistic, Nationalistic...; and comments about the nature of Putin and the Kremlin's leadership -- All of that has not much bearing on the matter at hand.

The questions are:

- Are South Ossetia and Abkhazia Georgian?

- Are they independent?

- Should they be recognized as independent?

- Should Russia's self-appointed role as defender of Abkazi and Alani and Adjari interests be respected?

- Is Georgia an ally of "The West"?

- Is Georgia (or, specifically, is Saakashvili) a US asset or millstone in the Caucasus?

- Is Georgia at fault?

- Is Russia at fault?

- Does Russia have genuine concerns regarding NATO expansionism?

- Are NATO goals in the Caucasus productive or counter-productive?

- Does the US or any other NATO member have any credibility when they criticize Russia, especially after their actions in the Balkans?

And so on.

These questions require objectivity, and knowledge about the historical, geographic and ethnic contexts.

Callahan said...

From Laine:

"Unlike the United States and the other members of NATO excepting Germany, Russia has been imperialistic and expansive throughout its history including the 20th century."

While I agree with your characterization of Russia's imperialism since the time of Peter the Great-- to claim that "NATO except for Germany" has *not* been imperialistic, is colossally stupid and shows total ignorance of history.

What do you think the French, British and Dutch were doing for all those centuries? They were running their own world empires. My Irish ancestors bitterly recall the effects of British imperialism on Ireland, the millions of Irish killed by genocidal British wars and artificial famines-- and the British didn't "peacefully decolonize," it was only because the tough Irish volunteers defeated the British, *in war* in 1921-1922, that the British douchebags were forced out, like the cowards they've always been. How about the Australian aborigines, or the Tasmanians, or the Maoris? Seems they're pretty familiar with British imperialism. Or the Indians? The Brits restricted markets, burned down fields, exported scarce food, otherwise ensuring the deaths of 45 million people in India after the Indians rose up in rebellion in 1857-- despite ruling only half of India! (most independent, under local princelings) Or the Boers in South Africa, where the British idiots, defeated in battle, placed Boer women and children into concentration camps. Or, yes, Iraq-- where the British terror-bombed the Iraqis got still got their asses kicked in 1921.

The irony about all this, is that the British were pathetic, losers, when it came to battle-- the British had their asses kicked repeatedly against their "inferior" enemies in the colonies. The Afghans slaughtered the British three times, including annihilating an entire British army of 20,000 troops in a British-Afghan War in the 1840's. The Haitians defeated the British and French right after the Americans defeated the British in the Revolutionary War, and were followed by South Americans under Santiago Linnier who humiliated the British twice and prevented a conquest of South America. (Thank goodness for them, as we Irish know well.) The Egyptians, Aden rebels, countless others defeated the British after the World Wars-- rarely did the British leave peacefully as in India. Instead, they left only after being violently defeated.

I'm not in any way disagreeing about Russia, which has also been very imperialistic towards its neighbors such as Georgia and the Ukraine, who are understandably apprehensive. But don't you ever suggest that somehow the British were any less imperialistic. If anything, the British were as bad or worse than the Russians in the genocide department. (The Germans, by contrast, weren't very imperialistic at all-- too many Americans know little history before 1941, but in fact, Germany only became a country in 1871, and was nowhere near as imperialistic as the British had been. In fact considering the fact that the Germans were busy discovering antibiotics, inventing the car, making critical discoveries physics, mathematics and engineering, I'd say that the Germans were the bright shining example in Europe compared to the British who were busy murdering people throughout the world, including in Ireland.) You damage your entire case by making such a stupid claim.

Defiant Lion said...

Excellent article here:

Why Russia Invaded

Queen said...

Laine: Has it escaped the Russia supporters that it is no longer a democracy? -- Has it escaped your notice that "The West" is no longer a democracy either? That our lands are flooded by hostile invaders against our will, and that we are forced to pay for our own colonization by these hostile invaders through crushing taxes? That people -- even children -- are being prosecuted all over "The West" for thoughtcrimes and speechcrimes? What really is so bad about Putin, when here in my home state, the local "government" actually pays illegal immigrants to murder American citizens in the street, with American taxpayer funded "programs"?

Afonso Henriques said...

"The conflict between Russia and Georgia was all but inevitable. Ever since Georgia first attained independence after the Soviet Union fell in 1991, it has been obvious that Russia would one day strive to regain control of the Caucasus."

Oh really Baron?
I'll send you an essay! I hope you can read it. If you can post it, even better. But I feel it will change your mind... drastically!
Give me three more days...

Afonso Henriques said...

"How long until our luck runs out?"

2012 will be the year. 2010 will be wost than 2009... 2012 will be the year in which we can not stop the great multicultural world war to happen in the future.
Untill 2012 we'll be building borders (Ossetia do Norte / Kosovo / Paris)...

Felicie said...

Afonso Henriques: "2012 will be the year."

Are you going by the Mayan calendar? 2012 is supposed to be the last year before the end of the world.

Henrik R Clausen said...

2012? I have had that year in mind as well, and I don't know crap about Mayan calenders.

For all I see, we're in for a very rude awakening. Fortunately, even when things descend into energy supply problems, lack of food or medicine, riots and war, the majority usually lives through it without fatal damage.

I'm reading Theodore Dalrymple these days. Even if it wasn't for Islam, we'd have taken a pretty nasty ride. Islam is just there taking the opportunity of our culture collapsing due to neglect and willful ignorance.

Henrik R Clausen said...

You are over-simplifying Russia's history.

Who isn't...?

Anyway, there just might be something to this notion of a 'Bust and Boom' cycle in Russia. For all I know, the average Russian has very limited interest in participating in democracy, which is something that leads to 'Democratic rot' and the rise of authoritarianism (totalitarianism is something different).

The Tzars were, as far as I known, reasonably benign as dictators. They'd go out in the wide ranges of the Russian Empire, talk to people, and even in their autocratic ways work for their country. Not onlike the Shah of Iran, whom I saw a couple of times.

Communism was different. It was imposed on Russia by Imperial Germany, and the supposed idealism of the system had the Russians sucked up to it for decades, covering up inefficiencies and crime as never before.

Yeltsin was the ultimate in chaos, where one could get away with anything, and a few people used that to get filthily rich on bad privatization projects.

Now we're back in authoritarian.

However, two factors, one new and one ancient, when taken in consort, just might break the cycle of, ehm, 'regime change':

One is our communication tools, where any abject evil, corruption, crime etc. can be known within minutes anywhere. That's a first in human history.

The other is a resurgent Christianity, which actually (and quite weird from a Western point of view) teaches moral values.

Russia's hard to predict...

Afonso Henriques said...

Felice,
No I am not. I am only giving time to Third Worlders to find their borders.
We in the West wil, by then, get the sweet flavour of Multiculturalism...

Well, truthly, I can not predict events after 2012 so...

The Mayan calendary does not scares me...

Paul said...

DefiantL: You've quoted Frank Schaeffer. Here's how he started off:

"It takes a special breed of a-historical American president who is steeped in the Protestant idea of denominationalism; wherein Methodists, Presbyterians, Southern Baptists etc., all do their thing and somehow get along, to so thoroughly misunderstand the fact that Russia is reemerging first and foremost as a country reconnecting with its Orthodox historical imperial roots."

I've read his father and his own writing. Though I am interested in him, especially because he's Francis Schaeffer's son, you have to see his attitude of payback against his father in what he writes, as in the quote above. And so, unfortunately, in this piece you site, it must be discounted.

Paul said...

Who is surprised that Russia isn't worried about being accepted or liked by the PC 'in-crowd' of the decadent western decomposing nations.

I am positively stunned by western journalists railing against Russia's guts in taking on Georgia, and their attitude of 'the west, especially "America, can shove it'.

At least the bear knows who he is and what he is. We in the west think we're so morally above those scumbag communists. Not hardly.

By the way, how many civilians riding bicycles did we murder with bombs from American warplanes in Serbia? Huh??? Now tell the truth... Thank you Bill Clinton, genius-in-chief.

laine said...

"the British were as bad or worse than the Russians in the genocide department".

How am I supposed to take a comment like this seriously? Russians in their Soviet in the first half of the 20th century systematically slaughtered or worked to death 60 million souls (Black Book of Communism by Stephane Courtois) and locked up behind the iron curtain tens of millions who did not have even basic rights of visiting their relatives in a neighboring town and could not speak or write freely for fear of informers. Russia left a slum to clear up wherever subjugated peoples regained their independence. The British left every territory they colonized (and voluntarily left) better off with the case perhaps best made by Mark Steyn. (If Ireland is an exception to this rule, I don't know enough on its complex history to comment). With a reverse Midas touch, everything Soviet Russia touched
turned to manure.

Go ahead. Encourage the new President to be best friends with KGB agent Putin and see where that gets you. Maybe the POTUS can get some hints on how to liquidate any pesky opposition to him and his personality cult with polonium etc. Putin's critics have a very high death rate. But after all, Putin is popular with the wonderful Russian people so what could possibly go wrong?

Incidentally, I never agreed with the handling of Kosovo/Serbia by the West.

And someone here knows nothing about the Baltics by pushing the line that they belong somehow to Russia. They have always been western in their spirit of individualism which has allowed them to survive as a people for 1400 years. Russian collectivism is an anathema to them.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Much to my surprise, I wholeheartedly recommend this article from Huffington Post about the situation towards Russia.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Thanks, Laine, for some sanity.

After having travelled two weeks through Russia in 2001, and having enjoyed it fully, it was a surprise to me that coming to Lativa was a relief, after all.

These small countries are quite similar to Scandinavia, and I felt at home immediately.

Defiant Lion said...

@Paul

Sorry but just because you cite one paragraph, it does not discount the valid points he raises about the way the west has been provoking Russia and the othodox world in the rest of his excellent analysis of this situation. Far better would be to refute the points he raises rather than attack the man himself.

@Laine:

Who has said the Baltics belong to Russia? The question, which you seem loathe to answer is what the hell is the USA/NATO playing at by placing military bases on Russia's borders and providing militray training - and now aid - to Baltic countries?

Let's get something straight here. It isn't Russia fighting in Afghanistan - when they did the good ol' USA sided with those lovely Talebans - or Iraq, it isn't Russia who carried out ethnic cleansing and bombing raids by siding ONCE AGAIN with terrorists in the Balkans and it isn't Russia who is using Mexico, Cuba, Canada as military bases and recruiting them to the warsaw pact.

Russia has acted to protect its citizens and assets that were attacked by Georgia who is being supported by the US military.

As I said in my first post, the finger of blame here should point firmly at the interfering US who are deliberately provoking a nuclear super power by supporting and siding with the agressor Georgia. As a US citizen confirms in this Russia Today news report:

RT South Ossesia Report

That the US is threatening Russia with international isolation and questioning Russia's behaviour is nauseating hypocrisy.

Henrik R Clausen said...

That the US is threatening Russia with international isolation and questioning Russia's behaviour is nauseating hypocrisy.

Worse, it borders on 'insane'. Looks like the US government is doing so to cover up its own blatant interference in the cause, which could lead to some, ehm, embarrassment at home.

Then better blame Russia, right?

Felicie said...

It's interesting that now with many newly independent countries there are many visions of history. There used to be one historical master narrative that dominated the West. I remember my college teacher in the 80ies ridiculing a Greek student who said that modern Greeks were the cultural and ethnic heirs/successors of the ancient Greeks. This is what I was taught at my school, in a different country, too - namely that there is no historical continuity between modern and ancient Greeks and that classical Greece ceased to exist after antiquity. But apparently the Greeks had their own version of history. I remember being surprised at this incongruity. But now it seems every country is its own Greece with its own interpretation of history. The historical discourse has become very diverse. Will the diverse narratives ever consolidate into a new master narrative? And if not - how will we ever navigate among them and arrive at the truth or, at least, a consensus?

Felicie said...

Should this blog be trusted? The Geogian war was a diversionary tactic for the planned invasion of Iran?

March to Global WWIII

Henrik R Clausen said...

Well, since the blog provides a lot of practical details, I lean on 'yes'. The situation is quite dangerous, and our inept politicians prefer doing something that looks 'Presidential' rather than dealing with the underlying issues in a fair and reasonable way.

Middle East Times and DEBKA run stories verifying the naval buildup.

That Georgia didn't play out quite as the US government expected probably won't deter them from plunging ahead with its next move, whatever that turns out to be.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Oh. You can't invade Iran. I've lived there, it's so full of desert and mountains to make that logistically impossible. Iraq was doable, Iran is not.

My guess:
If there's something to this, I'm suspecting a pre-emptive strike against nuclear installations. Which would be immediately followed by an oil blockade, thus the need for a big navy presence.

Bela said...

Disclaimer:
This post is protected under the 1st. Amend. it is not obligated to follow PC rules and thought censorship imposed by radical leftist.
___________________________________

Let me quote from the affected party:

"ČR sides with Georgia in crisis
By Kimberly Hiss
Staff Writer, The Prague Post
August 13th, 2008 issue

Returning to Prague early from holiday, Foreign Affairs Minister Karel Schwarzenberg called it a “sad coincidence” that the events in Georgia were taking place as the Czech Republic observes the anniversary of the August 1968 Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The Czech Republic expressed its support for Georgia shortly after Russian airstrikes began on Georgian targets Aug. 8 — an escalation of long-standing tensions in the separatist region of South Ossetia."

We are those who were imprisoned by the Soviets for 60 years. We reject the barbaric Russian domination unanimously now and forever.

Some of you on this post belong to those who cheered the massacres at the Berlin Wall, the destruction of Budapest in 56, and the hanging of the government. Some of you burned the American flags in Europe and elsewhere in support of the bloody Russian oppression and hailed the invasion of Prague '68.
Of course I write these words in figurative sense, I only try to portray your blind affection to whitewashed barbarism.

Your latent hatred of your own country, your way of life, your society blinded you to the cruelty, emptiness of the Soviets which sowed enslavement, destruction and death on every the land they occupied. You expect the ultimate salvaton from the alcoholic rubes. Russia is the most hated nation on Earth from the Arctic to the Black sea by those who were crucified by them. Ask the victims not the executioners.

laine said...

I think most Americans who have grown up in complete freedom cannot with few exceptions begin to imagine life under totalitarianism.

There is less excuse for Europeans to be so unknowledgeable about Russian depredations within living memory of their parents if not themselves or worse, do they know yet excuse them?

The Left is said to have lost the Cold War but I am not so sure. Russia lost. But the Left has strengthened its hold on the West if anything and is choking the life out of it in tandem with the Muslim onslaught in an Unholy Alliance.

The world's greatest PR coup was the Left's ability to demonize only the Nazi regime and convince most people to take it out of its proper socialist left column and call it "far right" while simultaneously keeping them in ignorance of the much worse leftist regimes of Soviet Russia and Red China.

Their success is reflected in many of the posts on this thread, with people cheering on the jolly Russians and speaking completely from the Russian point of view e.g. NATO is "provocative" to Russia by helping the nations on its border that it has terrorized in the past. Why not take the victims' point of view instead of the genocidists? Those nations are seeking aid in preventing the bloody bear from slopping over its borders yet again to occupy democratic nations against their expressed will.

It is their tragedy that neither NATO nor the EU is likely up to the task.

Defiant Lion said...

@Bela

Your mindless rant is as shameful as it is irrelevant to what has happened in South Ossetia.

You live in the past, driven by hatred for the soviets from events from the past, understandable of course.

A hatred that blinds so badly you are prepared to support a nation that has committed ethnic cleansing and started this with an atc of aggression against peace-keepers and civilians.

Your hatred, no matter how understandable, doesn't give you the right to resort to an ad hominem attack, smearing those who support Russia and who have raised serious issues with the behaviour of the USA, with an appeal to emotion using Orwellian rhetoric the marxists would be proud of.

But it's easier to resort to such nonsense rather than debate the issues at hand in the present.

Serious issues your irrational ad hominem rant totally fails to address and as such, contributes absolutely nothing of worth to this debate.

Defiant Lion said...

@Laine

"Why not take the victims' point of view instead of the genocidists? Those nations are seeking aid in preventing the bloody bear from slopping over its borders yet again to occupy democratic nations against their expressed will."

The genocidists are the Georgians and their masters the USA. The USA is great at genocide - ask the Serbs. 250,000 driven from the Krajina in Operation Storm alone, an operation planned by the US military.

Those nations are not seeking aid they are seeking the financial and military benefits of membership in NATO and the EU. Both absolutely corrupt and evil organisations.

The majority of people in South Ossetia expressed democratically that they want to remian Russians. It isn't the bloody bear stomping on them but the boots of the genocidal US/NATO/EU gangsters who are interfering in the business of the Baltic states and are provoking a nuclear super-power.

An act of insanity you seem to have no problem with whatsoever.

Does it not occur to you - even for one second - that the USA and the EU are the bad guys here as they are once again siding with terrorists who committed genocide? Does it not occur to you to ask why the USA is fighting wars in so many lands and interfering with nations who aren't on its borders?

Mind you it seems the USA can do whatever it wants and never face the consequences, along with its little British poodle in tow. What corrupt, diabolical nations they have become.

Henrik R Clausen said...

Defiant Lion, I agree completely regarding the remarks by Bela. This sort of rabid resentment is exactly what future disasters are created from.

We need to know the past, learn from it, but not let desire for revenge for crimes long past, perpertrated by persons long dead, cloud our current vision.

Defiant Lion said...

@Henrik

"We need to know the past, learn from it, but not let desire for revenge for crimes long past, perpertrated by persons long dead, cloud our current vision."

Absolutely spot on.

I just found the following article about events in South Ossetia, and itb raises even ore serious issues about the policies of the USA and the role of the media:

Putin Walks Into A Trap

What the heck is going to happen next?

Henrik R Clausen said...

Defiant Lion, the link is missing...

I have no idea what's next, but I suspect the US will come up with more barking up the wrong tree. Insulting their Arab friends by indicating there might be something broken in Islam as such is beyond their courage.

Defiant Lion said...

Henrik

Huh? I don't know what's happened with the link,it was bright blue in the preview??? Very odd.

Anyway it's a great article by Mike Whitney that deserves to be read. Google the title, there's quite a few sites publishing it.

I suspect you are right about the USA, sadly.