Crisis over?
Perhaps it is unwise to jump to instant judgement but Sarkozy once more seems to have surprised us and got what he wanted out of the Russians.
He's declared that if the Russians keep their promise and pull Russian troops out of the buffer zone around Georgia, there is no reason why the talks planned for next week on a new partnership agreement should not be back on the following month. If this first superficial take is as it appears then Sarkozy has done rather well and those who insisted on both unity and a firmish line at the EU summit a week ago will be patting themselves on the back.
As ever, you can have your say here, but the Economist is also having not only an online debate but a vote on the West's approach to Russia.
I'm not sure what worth such votes are but the debate promises to be interesting.
Welcome to my 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~26~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
buffer zone around Georgia
I'm confused - isn't the problem that this 'buffer zone' is inside Georgia, around South Ossetia? I.e. it's in Georgian territory to which Russia and South Ossetia make no claim.
Complain about this comment
Yepie, predictable but a still satisfying short term result. Probably the economic turmoil Russia is experiencing is making them take notice more than all the talk and bluster. Now, time to start on the long term, energy independence for the EU.
I do not think any more needs to be done short term... as Russians look at their new found wealth and influence melting away quickly, I think they will change their attitudes. Equally they will test the EU again, if they think they can get away with it... so the pressure should be kept up. No need for a hot conflict or a new cold war, just yet.
Complain about this comment
I would be very surprised if the Russians were out-witted by a delegation lead by Sarkozy and his sidekicks Borroso and Solana.
As before, it'll take a day or two for the reality of what they've signed up to, to sink in.
Then, as before, they'll realise that they've been out-maneuvered.
Three-card-trick anyone?
Complain about this comment
Mark,
The Economist Online Debate does not start until tomorrow.
To me this smacks of being a fudge.
It now transpires that the Russians started mobilisation on the 2nd of August and were ready to invade Georgia from before the 8th August despite not having UN mandate to do so.
If they can mobilise in 5 days how is it they cannot withdraw as quickly?
The very continued presence of Russian troops on Georgian territory proper is a breach of the EU brokered six-point plant that Medvedev signed and which required immediate withdrawal.
A month seems to me to be totally unnecessary and allows Russia to continue to haunt the Georgians to see if they will voluntarily overthrow their government - Regime Change by bullying a neighbour in other words.
One suspects that the USA will have a slightly different approach to how they will provide succour to Georgia in the intervening month so my guess is that this crisis is not all over.
Complain about this comment
EU observers to replace Russian forces in Georgia
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has pledged that armed forces will be completely withdrawn from Georgian territory within a month. It follows a meeting with his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, in Moscow, to further discuss the plan for peace and stability in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. xa xa
Complain about this comment
U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney?s ?inspection tour? of Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine was supposed to show Russia that the US has strong allies in the post-Soviet space. Well, if the US did have strong allies in this part of the world, I doubt this is the case now.
I have to wonder whether Cheney was questioned (over and over again) about how all of his great promises of support to these countries ended up in such a catastrophe? Cheney probably simply brushed off these worries. He has no interest in these countries whatsoever. Cheney simply wants Azerbaijan?s energy and to have Ukraine and Georgia play the role of spoilers to advance Washington?s geopolitical interests ? all to annoy Russia. What happens to these countries in their own neighborhood is their problem. Dick is not the sentimental type. As a true neocon, friendship, truth, the law, and honor are alien concepts.
Cheney visited Tbilisi not to shore up Mikhail Saakashvili?s political position within Georgia and on the international stage. That is simply not possible anymore. Politically speaking, Saakashvili is a ?dead man walking.? Of course there were thunderous words about how the US supports Georgia and its leader. Even a billion bucks were slated to prop up Georgia?s economy. But at the end of the day, Georgia has forever lost South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was Cheney?s support of Saakashvili and his reckless and deadly ambitions that created this new reality. And, as a result, the Georgian leader himself is now a Washington liability.
Saakashvili was always one of Washington?s favourite pitch-hitters. But when it was Saakashvili?s time to bat, he struck out in the worst possible way. Cheney really has no use for Saakashvili anymore. Just watch ? today we will probably see the end of martial law in Georgia. Expect to see opposition rallies start as a trickle; sooner rather later they will turn into something serious. Cheney?s Washington friends won?t lift a finger to help Saakashvili. Western media turned Saakashvili into a sensation, but Saakashvili?s action has turned him into a political ghost.
I believe this because we are about to enter the third stage of this tragic drama. (Just to recap: the first stage was Saakashvili?s war of aggression and media blitz, blaming everything on Russia. The second is the current media war. With every passing day, Tbilisi?s lies and brutality come to light. Russia is not the most media savvy country, but it is slowly getting out the real story). The third stage is the Cheney gang regrouping. Surveying the landscape and the personalities on the ground is happening now. And Saakashvili is no longer in the line-up.
This third stage sees Cheney and his neoconservative worldview on the defensive. This is very dangerous. The neocons tend to get really nasty when playing the game of catch-up. I fully expect a slow but sure drumbeat of ?incidents? on the borders and within South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Cheney?s people will do everything they can to discredit and undermine the independence of Georgia?s former breakaway republics. As before, there will be little regard for human life. And keep an eye on Crimea.
Cheney is royally annoyed. He wants the Russians to pay for his tremendous blunder. The only way to do this is through Washington-sympathetic media. And we all know what they can do to influence public opinion. Western media almost universally claims to dislike Cheney, but it has the amazing capacity to do his bidding when he demands it.
Cheney?s tour was not a triumphant parade. It was not a trip demonstrating strength. Cheney visits were to assess the damage of his own policies ? and it is considerable. The post-Soviet space is taking note of American words and actions. They simply don?t match. Cheney has shown himself to be an unreliable partner.
All the while, Russia has been watching from the sidelines. It will not remain idle. It did so far too long. If Cheney wants an undeclared war ? Russia will surely give him what he wants. Cheney?s world is all about illusory ideals and profit. Russia?s interests are far more basic ? like living in a safe neighbourhood.
Complain about this comment
It?s much cheaper for EU recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia Independence and have Russian Peacekeepers over there, then later on recognize A and O and have EU peacekeepers. Thanks from Russia xa
Complain about this comment
I am getting rather bored with being perpetually spammed by pro-Russian comments that are cock-a-hoop at the apparent success of Russia imposing its will on Georgia.
I would much rather wait for the EU Investigation into the Georgian Crisis which will identify the sequence, causes and effects of both Russian and Georgian activities and expose the truths about casualties and ethnic cleansing on both sides.
Once we can understand the events and the sequence of activities on both sides and their effects we can all, hopefully, be a little less jusdgemental and a little bit more rational as to whom is to blame and what to do for the future.
Complain about this comment
To: Menedemus regarding #8
Whose goanna investigate? Same people that told you there mass destructive weapons in Iraq? Or Taliban insurgents in Afghan? By the way, they find any mass weapons in Iraq? Still looking? How about Osama bin Laden?
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy and the E.U are trumpeting after talks that Russians will pull out of Georgian territories in a Month.
Ridicolous.
They realy believe people are so naive.
Russians should have left Georgia long time ago,when they signed the peace deal (Sarkozy gave himself so much credit for!) that they never respected in the first place.
In fact whatever the situation,and whoever started the war,there was no justification at all for Russia to invade Georgia,destroy its infrastructure,suround its capital,and bully them.
Only this clearly shows that Russia had intentions planed and well thought long ago.
E.U has failed miserably as it always does in foreign affairs.I think Eastern European countries and other countries in Europe who have some guts,should not even bother atending the E.U foreign affairs meetings,nothing ever usefull comes out of them,except empty words,apeassement of arrogant regimes and lots of rubish,and meaningless meetings organized to be trumpeted in the BBC,to show their populations that the E.U is actually moving,and doing something about it.
Such as the stupid decission to go and BOW to Putin and Medvedev in Russia.
Really the E.U foreign affairs have never achived anything,is a waste of time,money and efort.
Complain about this comment
Russia-NATO ties under question
Russia may cut all ties with NATO if the western military alliance offers Georgia a Membership Action Plan, Russia's envoy to NATO.
It is one thing to be preoccupied with an American protégé (the Georgian president) but another altogether to give shelter to an aggressive state," remarked the high-ranking diplomat. He also added that in this event there could be "no question of cooperating" as it would look as though NATO was "taking the side of the aggressor."
Following NATO's condemnation of Russia's actions during the Caucasus conflict, some bilateral programmes between NATO and Russia have already been frozen, mostly concerning military cooperation. Russia has refused NATO's general secretary's visit to Russia and suspended the work of NATO's information bureau in Moscow. Nevertheless, collaboration in other key programmes has so far continued without any disruption.
Complain about this comment
I love the xa xa xa.
I'd like to see more use of cyrillic spelling and/or pronunciation to good/humorous effect.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone seen a map?
No, I am not joking. When territorial issues are resolved by treaty, it has always been standard practice to define borders, lines of demarcation, patrol zones and whatever on paper and verify them on the ground. Throughout this process, however, nobody appears to published any concrete proposals on paper. How are we supposed to judge the wisdom of this agreement - assuming that all sides abide by it this time - without seeing precisely what it is?
If anyone is aware of such a map, please post a link.
Complain about this comment
andrey1234 @ #9
A really constructive comment and very helpful.
How about a riposte:
"I wonder why the Russians are now prepared to allow EU Monitors into South Ossetia - nearly a month after the Russians invaded Georgia? Perhaps it is because they have now completed fabricating all the evidence they want to show the EU monitors when they arrive?"
I, too, can be really stupid and think up stupid things write as comments in this Blog but then, perhaps, I do not need to be so defensive as the pro-Russian comments have been in the past few weeks on this Blog.
I merely suggest that we all wait until the EU Investigation, promised by the EU Foreign Ministers, has taken place before we make any further unnecessary, stupid and inane comments.
If your comment at #9 is to suggest that the EU Investigation will not be trusted then that smacks of being somewhat defensive and you perhaps knowing in advance that the Russian casus belli for the invasion of Georgia and Russia's subsequent actions will be found out to be duplicitous.
I don't know what the outcome will be but I am happy to wait and see what the EU Investigation turns up.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus.
I agree with you,but the point we should not miss is that Russia was blamed rightly for invading Georgia proper.There is no justification for that,and really no military intervention without consultation of International Bodies,such as the U.N against an independent country can be justified in any way.
Russia has done everything,trying to draw paralels with the West,as if a wrong made by the west justifies a Russian wrong.What an hipocritical point of view.
And then it has advocated the multipolar world in some kind of strange philosophy,as if being a pole in world affairs somehow gives you the free hand against other independent countries and free peoples.
The Truth is that there are no paralels to be drawn here,the West has never taken military action,except as a last option,and even in the most criticised military action it has overtaken,the one in Iraq it did go to the U.N many times,but it was faced with the Veto of Countries based on dark interests.It did even then win an U.N mandate eventually.
And it has always had an broad aliance,rapresenting the will of the majority of the international community.
Even the war in Iraq has seen maybe the bigest Military aliance,with more coutries being involved then in any other conflict.
Russia has done nothing simmilar,it does not even have the backing of Iranians and Chineese.
It was in my opinion a pure military agression,and a CLASIC INVASSION.
Complain about this comment
Regarding: #10
In fact whatever the situation, and whoever started the war, there was no justification at all for Russia to invade Georgia, destroy its infrastructure,suround its capital,and bully them.
What Georgian Infrastructure did Russia destroy? Airport, Bridges, Houses?
Georgians left their weapons, tanks, US passports as they were busy running back to Georgia from Russian retaliation. If Georgian Airport is damages then how you explain Dick Cheney visit or EU tonight?
Complain about this comment
NO crisis is over, EU leaders never learn from past mistakes, very naive...
Russians now got yet again another opportunity to humiliate both Sarkozy (France) and the Trio (EU).
EU constitution was not enough for politiburos in Brusselss, then they tried Lisbon treaty, which failed yet again.
The peace deal on Russia - Georgia war was not enough for Sarkozy to be humiliated by russians not giving a damn about it, then yet again they decide to go three of them to be humiliated in Moscow.
Russians now got a chance to humiliate them all, and they will not let it go away.
An advice to EU leaders: When you go to war, make sure you have an army following you, dont go like lame ducks in the butcher's shop.
Complain about this comment
EU Investigation?
Is that a joke? They can't even 'investigate' their own accounts....
Complain about this comment
MaxSceptic
who said that they cant even investigate their own accounts??
they dont want, bc of the dirty money flow in this accounts
Complain about this comment
Lets cross the fingers :)
Complain about this comment
EU in one voice, whos idea it was?
Complain about this comment
Mark, Sarkozy in the picture looks like a personal gaurd of Medvedev, or like a waiter, or translator, or majordom.
Complain about this comment
EU observers to replace Russian forces in Georgia
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has pledged that armed forces will be completely withdrawn from Georgian territory within a month. It follows a meeting with his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, in Moscow, to further discuss the plan for peace and stability in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Two hundred European Union observers are to be deployed in areas near the two territories. Ten days after their arrival, Russian forces will complete their withdrawal.
In addition, it was agreed that all Russian-manned observation posts along the line between the Black Sea port city of Poti and Sekaki to the north-east will be vacated within seven days.
Medvedev reaffirmed that the Russian decision to recognise Abkhazian and South Ossetian independence is irreversible.
"The process of recognition has begun and will accelerate,? he said. ?At which stage the European Union countries will join this process will depend on their position."
President Sarkozy said at a press conference that negotiations on a joint EU-Russian treaty may resume in October.
Sarkozy said that he had given a letter to his Russian counterpart, from Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili, stating Tbilisi's commitment to refrain from using force against Abkhazia and South Ossetia.
Despite Georgia's commitment to peace, it continues to build up its military strength, according to Medvedev.
"The Georgian side ... is striving to restore its military potential with the active assistance of some of our partners, above all the United States," Medvedev said.
Medvedev remarked that the EU's position is "fairly reasonable and compromising".
Nevertheless, he said he believes European leaders have failed to grasp that the crisis in the region was caused by Georgian aggression.
"These circumstances have been interpreted somewhat inadequately, in our opinion. Hence the lack of full understanding of the motives behind our recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Here I see additional scope for clarification of our position, to construct dialogue, and to explain our motives to our European colleagues," Medvedev said.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy is impressive. Lets see if the Russians keep their promise.
Complain about this comment
The truth is that Sarkozy is a limelighter and has the least amount of gravitas needed to deal with a regime such as the former-KGB Kremlin Government.
Sarkozy is crowing about the success of his mission but he has granted Russia another month to loiter in Georgia to bully and threaten Georgia into a change of government. The best way to handle this Frenchman's weakness and his being a lightweight politician is for the Georgian's to stand by their leader and cock-a-snoot at the Russians - the Russians will now be leaving later rather than sooner but leaving they will be doing.
To my mind, Sarkozy has surrendered his responsibilties for his delegated mission, stated in the 1st September 2008 EU_Russia Report issued by the Extraordinary Meeting of the EU Council of Ministers, Item 11, which was "to continue discussions with a view to the full application of the six-point agreement".
As that six-point agreement requires all miltitary forces to withdraw to their status quo ante positions as of 7th August 2008 (i.e. pre-invasion positions) immediately one can hardly see what Sarkozy has got to be so thrilled about?
Sarkozy and the French are a waste of space.
Complain about this comment
When are the Europeans going to learn that their old trick of divide and conquer is being used by the US to keep Europe in a state of hopeless indecision? The "firm" response by the EU smacks of a loud pomeranian that runs for cover as soon as the rotweiller growls. Can't the EU see that Nato is surrounding Russia and that is creating a rather anxious Russia? I am beginning to believe that this whole EU project is a scam so that Britain/USA can use to manipulate the various countries into disharmony.
Complain about this comment
Why is it alright for the US to destroy a whole country with its shock and awe lingo, carpet bombing with precision weapons, but when another country that is not well liked by western europeans does it, it's barbaric, thug like, and on and on.
Someone made an excellent point about the EU leadership, if you go to war make sure you have an army to follow. Tough talk without the big stick is just a barking dog. It's better to quit the tough talk and start being an impartial moderator. Georgia is not guilt free.
Moreover, how can we sit here and support the Georgian leader? He launched his country into a conflict ready made to fail. Did he check with his Nato friends? No! Or did he and they told him to go ahead and attack South Ossetia?
What happens when one of these countries joins Nato and decides to unilaterally, without conferring with its allies, attack Russia?
Complain about this comment
Ofilha @26
The EU is a scam.
NATO is the body to which the nations of Europe are best to belong and the one organisation that will bring the (and I presume you mean Russia! xa xa) "rottweiller" to heel.
The EU Foreign Policy is a nonsense as the Policy, even if it is agreed as it was on 1st September, can be perverted by a weak and useless politician like Sarkozy who will bend over and beg when the "rottweiller (Russia) growls".
The thought of Sarkozy being a pomerainian is an amusing thought!
Complain about this comment
Did anybody seriously believed the Russians were going to follow the original agreement? I did not.
The developments are as expected. The Russians are saving face and posturing for domestic consumption, but comply in the end they must.
I suspect a justification is being prepared for stronger action against Russia, by first being very reasonable and dimplomatic with the Russians, and then showing how they are ignoring all commitments, i.e. showing they can not be trusted to keep agreements.
Complain about this comment
Wow! All hands on the deck! Here,
and I was posting messages in the prev. thread. How quick you are!
Will read carefully each one. Spotted Americans are unhappy with Sarkozy.
I think he fits the situation like a glove.
If anyone else was sent, more inclined to brief short straight phrases, with unequi?vo?cal ! meaning, they'd exchanged with Medvedev "No" for "No" in 5 sec. and that'll be it.
Sarkozy, as I saw in his prev. visit, post-discussion conference to the media, is extraordinary uncatchable.
A journalist would ask them both something, like "a question to both presidents - have you agreed on..."
Medvedev - "No!" - Sarkozy - "You see? The wounds are still fresh! Agaping! Medvedev agrees with me that bla bla bla, and "on this side", and "on that side" and "we also have to consider", until absolutely all forget what was it about, and somehow it appears they agreed. At least, Medvedev definitely doesn't want to quarrel more.
When Angela Merkel was here, inclined to short straight phrases, like Medvedev, nobody even had any illusions that they agreed on anything!
A journalist:
"What are the US missiles detection in Poland for?"
Merkel: Iran. Medvedev: Russia.
Etc.
Like,
Complain about this comment
You Euros, just don't get it - Russia responds only to strength, it has been for ever so and there is little chance that it will change their ways through gentle appeasement.
Why Sarkozy and Baroso to Moscow, it's beyond me. Is Europe a colony of Russia or something? It's Russia which needs your money, not you.
Silly move, and unfortunately based on the presumption that the USA will drag you out of this if smthg. goes wrong - but that may be one too many times, frankly. Since the fifties you kept marching under "Yankees go home!" banner - the time for the yankees to mind there business has come.
Michael - Los Angeles
Complain about this comment
a few home truths:
- the bigger a country is, the more responsibility it has not to provoke conflicts and to observe appropriate legal limits on the exercise of its military might
- attacking a nation is the best way to rally support behind its leader (at least while the threat continues)
- it is not enough for a nation's actions to be justified by the chain of events - the motivations behind those actions must be seen to be impartial, and the nation should not directly benefit from its intervention
- it is very rare that one side is innocent in any military conflict
- it is entirely possible for 27 countries to agree on something if they are all presented with exactly the same problem
- the expansion of its membership by the eu is the most successful foreign policy of all time, the expansion of nato much less so
- it is very easy to forget the learning process in politics - do not assume that russia will deal with the crimea or transdniestria in the same way, do not assume that the west will respond in the same way
Complain about this comment
misanthropicus @31
Yep. Good idea Michael - Los Angeles. I think the Europeans should simply withdraw from Afghanistan and Iraq and let the Yankees get on with their issues there and we Europeans will roll over and learn to speak Russian.
Sounds relatively practical - it might even be more acceptable than living in the cloud-cuckoo land of the phony European Union under which our European Political Leaders want us to live!
On the other hand . . . . . if the US has no interest in Europe:
As a matter of interest, why has Dick Cheney been visiting the Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan recently?
Why is the flagship of the US 6th Fleet anchored off Poti, Georgia within eyeball contact with Russian naval vessels and shore-based troops supposedly delivering humanitarian aid when there is a serviceable airport at Tibilisi where the aid would be more practicably delivered - as that is where the aid is needed?
If the US is not interested in Europe, why has the US just donated One billion dollars aid to to Georgia?
Why has the US 5th Fleet just been taken out of mothballs?
Why has the US Government just cancelled the agreed Russia-US Civilian Nuclear Power Deal today?
Surely the Americans are not trying to wind the Russians up and becoming all gung ho and ratcheting up the first sanction on the Russians to recommence a cold war?
Your comments about this being the time for the Yankees to mind their own business also works two ways. I certainly hope the US does not expect the Europeans to, Quote:"drag you out of this if smthg. goes wrong - the US will have badly underestimated the quality of the EU Political Leaders if they do hope that - they are pretty much nealry all about as useless as a spot on end of your nose!
Complain about this comment
Chamberlain came back from Munich having only surrendered Czechoslovakia and said he'd brought "peace in our time." Sarkozy came back with just having given up South Ossetia and Abkhazia and said the same. Now do you see why I detest Europe and its interminable mendacity? So the Russians wanted 20 miles, they took 50, and now agreeing to pull back to only 25, the EU thinks it won. What will the EU win for themselves next, just loss of the Crimea when Russia puts all of Ukraine at risk?
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @25 wrote: Russian forces "...to loiter (an extra month) in Georgia to bully and threaten into the change of government."
The buffer zone is a couple of miles into Georgia's mainland. On the far end of the country, namely, bordering SO. This is not quite a stone throw to Tbilisi. Of local attractions that we can work on, to convince them in the need to change the government, there are: plenty of homeless people who live with the soldiers. Ex-occuptation of most of them - before the war - when they had homes - was collecting metals for weight, and selling them. Door-chains, heavy locks, pieces of metal tubes, etc. These are now busy collecting bullets and var. gunloads in the fields. I really don't think we can annoy them with anti-Saaki propaganda. They are busy with survival.
Also, we can of course preach to the children living in the soldier block-post with their respective mums. But the chances to convince them go to Tbilisi change the government....
And there are plenty of old women, babushka-s, with baskets. These simply agree with all.
Well your mind somehow thinks in this direction? So we can convince you !
Pls present yourself at the borderline at...
.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII @ 34 , you wonder why Europe thinks it won.
Because we'll take army out of Georgia mainland. And they can have a breathe of relief that at the end of the day Tbilisi is in place, Georgia in place, Saakashvili in place, and the bear - well not exactly tamed - but at least agrees to pretend it is.
And if that Georgia is somewhat smaller by now - then who knew what is is exactly in size, and where it is, in the first place!
Georgia? Georgia. Still on the map? Yes.
And honestly - we swapped army - army on the ground - for a word of Saakashvili not to attack! And a word of Sarkozy that he quarantees the word of Saakashvili!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
WebAliceinwonderland @35
Sorry chum, I can hardly understand your written words but it all sounds like your trolling.
I think I'll just ignore your comments.
Complain about this comment
Webaliceinwonderland
Isn't Georgia lucky to have a friendly neighbor like Russia. If it wasn't so friendly...it might have just gobbled the whole country up this time. Next time, maybe just another nibble....IF they behave themselves :-)
Complain about this comment
Russian withdrawal a step forward - Saakashvili
The Georgian President has given a cautious welcome to an agreement between Moscow and the EU which will see Russian forces withdrawn from Georgia and replaced by EU monitors. Speaking at a media briefing in Tbilisi with French leader Nicolas Sarkozy, Mikhail Saakashvili said the planned pullout was ?a step forward?.
However, the Georgian leader said any final ceasefire settlement with Russia must respect Georgia's territorial integrity.
Nicolas Sarkozy and top EU officials are in Tbilisi on the second leg of a diplomatic tour aimed at resolving the conflict between Georgia and Russia. Earlier, the EU delegation held four hours of talks with Russian ministers in Moscow.
The EU representatives have updated the Georgian president on the results of bilateral talks with Russia.
They have also sought assurances that Georgia will refrain from launching any further military attacks in the Caucasus.
As well as Sarkozy, the EU delegation includes Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana.
After the Moscow talks, President Dmitry Medvedev announced that Russia would withdraw its troops from the security zones in Georgia proper as soon as 200 European peacekeepers arrive in the region. The deadline for this exchange was set for October 1st.
President Saakashvili has welcomed the announcement, although he has reiterated that the Russian troops in Georgia are not peacekeepers, but ?occupiers?, and that Georgia will never surrender any part of its territory.
Complain about this comment
The EU blinked first
Russia and the EU have signed a new agreement on ensuring security in the South Caucasus. It?s a deal all parties involved can (and should) embrace. The agreement is a major step towards resolving the ?Georgian crisis? that neither Russia nor the European Union wanted. And with one exception, the EU accepted all of Russia?s demands.
Prior to today?s agreement, the EU showed itself to be in restive mood. Over the weekend, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner talked tough and implied that Russia would face consequences if the EU wasn?t listened to. In the end, it was the EU listening closely to what Russia had to say.
Russia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia had long wanted the Tbilisi regime to sign a pact on the none-use of force. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili always refused, claiming he would never use force against his ?own people.? The new agreement demands that Saakashvili sign such a document in the presence of the EU. Now the EU will make sure Saakashvili keeps his word. I find it simply a disgrace that we had to go through all of this because of one man?s blind and violent ambitions.
Russia has been strongly criticised for not removing its peacekeepers from Georgia proper. With security conditions in place on the ground and EU guarantees to sponsor monitors, Russia completes this part of the six-point ceasefire agreement. The media won't have this issue to chew on any more.
Within days, 200 European Union observers will start deploying in areas near South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Ten days after their arrival, Russian forces will complete their withdrawal. Again, the EU will demand that the Georgian side keeps the peace. The Georgians call the Russian military presence in their country occupation. Now they can complain about the occupation of EU monitors! This is always what the Kremlin had in mind.
On top of this, it was agreed that all Russian-manned observation posts along the line between the Black Sea port city of Poti and Sekaki to the north-east will be vacated within seven days. With this act, Russia will leave Georgia though remain in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The status both regions will be discussed as part of an international conference next month in Geneva. I suspect most of the discussion will concern refugees. As far as Russia is concerned, the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has already been decided. Tbilisi has lost ? forever ? the moral right to rule over them.
The EU won?t say it, but it has essentially recognised that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are no longer and will never again be part of Georgia. This is a victory for the people of both and a vindication of Russian patience throughout the crisis.
The new agreement accepts the political realities on the ground. Saakashvili used force to recapture South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Now the EU will make sure ? through peaceful means ? that Tbilisi never resorts to violence again. Saakashvili has only himself to blame for destroying the territoral intergrity of his own country.
The EU chose pragmatism. And Russia has never asked for the unreasonable. I am sure the commentariat won't see it this way. And I am curious about how the US will respond.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus #8
I couldn't agree more with being tired from comments of Russian "neocons" (in US-speak). Also, I am no less fed up with their American counterparts...
Anyway, the idea to wait for the EU investigation sounds more then merely sensible in the light of both Russian and Western media been caught forging their facts.
Speaking of human rights abuses, I would also suggest the investigators to pay attention to the importance of common law (as opposed to written laws) in the Caucasus region.
Complain about this comment
This whole thing is a wonderful piece of
misdirection. The Russians want to stall until
they see who wins the US election.
Barring a flare-up with the US somewhere,
they are home free. A confrontation would
have the effect of getting McCain in office,
but otherwise, they may be able to negotiate
with Obama.
Complain about this comment
Russia did not take Tbillisi. They did not even bomb the airport in Tbillisi or the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline both of which they could have. Why?
They agreed to withdraw in one month. They will not wait for Shakashvilli to fall (which I am sure he will).
There are 1 million Georgians living and working in Russia. That makes a powerfull pro-Russian Georgian diaspora. Furthermore, there are many, many intermariages between Georgians and Russians. Russia is in deep in Georgia. Most Georgians speak Russian as their second language. There is a 200 year history of good relationship between the two. Many Georgian nationals hold high position in Russia. Same goes for Chechens, Ingush, Tatars. and so on. About 40 nationalities inside Russia feeling Russian first. Very few Russians are pure Slavic by now.
EU triumvirate went to Moscow. Medvedev did not go to Paris or Brussels.
What did EU give to Russia in order to agree to withdraw from Georgia? My guess is: no NATO to Georgia and Ukraine.
By the way Yuschenko is gone after next election. Ukraine will change direction.
What did EU get in return? A promisse not to take back Crimea conditional upon the previouss.
Net result: EU -1; Russia -1; USA -0;
Net effect: USA wedge between Russia and EU has been converted by Russia to put a wedge between USA and EU.
Begining of NATO's demisse which will culminate with the retreat from Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
And have the Russians agreed never again to use force in Chechnya? Will they sign a document to that effect?
The EU has a real problem. It is obsessed with international law. Russia broke that law by invading another nation and annexing its territory. If the EU accepts that, it should also forget about the Israelis ever withdrawing from the West bank of the Jordan River or Jerusalem. Israel can point to South Ossetia and Abkhazia as an example of why its occupation should never end. I'd say all in all, a good trade.
Complain about this comment
emanuelkant
Aren't the Georgians lucky that the Russians didn't bomb Tblisi. What are friends for? Or the pipeline. Now that's what I call real restraint. I think the Georgians should send Russia a gift in thanks. I think they should send Russia another Joseph Stalin. The Russians just loved the first one. Some old timers look back on those good old days of the purges and the reins of terror with great nostalgia. The USSR must have been a lot of fun in the nineteen-thirties, a real barrel of laughs.
Complain about this comment
#44, emanualkant, I don't see the results you
postulate as being negative for the US at all.
It might surprise you, but I'm not personally
in favor of NATO expansion if it is not necessary.
But, in the end, it is up to Russia's neighbors
to determine whether they feel secure about
Russia's intentions, not to the US or Russia.
Complain about this comment
When push comes to shove, the French couldn't even defend themselves, how would they ever be able to defend Georgia or Ukraine. They've lost just about every war they've ever been in. The last war they won was the American Revolution but then look who was on their side. That's why they dislike Americans, we broke their perfect streak :-)
Complain about this comment
BTW, I wonder if anybody can verify this report.
Complain about this comment
Saakashvili: We Can Prove Georgia did not Start War
President Saakashvili has claimed Tbilisi possessed ?solid? evidence proving that Georgia did not start war, as well as rebutting allegations that Georgia went into the Russian trap.
Speaking at a news conference after talks with his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, after midnight on September 9, Saakashvili said he had handed over to President Sarkozy; President of European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Tbilisi ?a very strong proving? of that.
?I know people have been asking questions: who started the hostilities?? he said. ?Everybody knows now that genocide was fake; there was no genocide [a reference to the Russian allegations that Georgia committed genocide of the South Ossetian population
Complain about this comment
The EU "wait and see policy" which gives Russia every opportunity to withdraw its troops from occupied Georgia for the next month will, I suspect, be seen by Russia as the next step in a downhill slide to accepting the Russian fait accompli. A pusillanimous response by the EU will probably follow as the EU has little direct means to force the Russians to withdraw. Even symbolic actions such as travel restrictions on the Russian elite will be blocked by Russia's friends, specially Italy and Germany. At the moment international investors have reacted by making Russia a higher risk. All to the good. Gazprom is carrying on in its triumphalism: once it takes over BP's remaining assets in Russia (which it will no doubt do) then that could/should cause a further negative reaction as foreign investors finally percieve Russia for what it really is : an aggressive, grasping, expanding empire setting its own rules. Current russian behaviour is a 21st century version of Communist Russia and Hitlerite Germany (do not forget that nearly half a million Chechens have died due to Russian imperialism in the past 20 years). Russia is, to put it mildly, an unloved neighbour. The German SDP and other leftwing parties in western Europe have a pacifist, craven, head in the sand attitude towards Russia. In fact, classic spineless appeasement. If the EU does manage to create a coordinated energy policy, particularly on ownership seperation of pipelines from producers and ultimate retailers, then there is a reasonable chance that Russian aggression will be contained. Given the recent words spoken by the Russian general Chief of the Combined Staff (senior officer of Russian armed forces) I suspect that the free world is seeing Russia revert to its traditional stance of an aggressive imperial power. Would that the 1300 million Chinese became more expansive northwards! That would put the frighteners into Russia's elite!There is a very old joke with folk memories back to the Middle Ages, in Poland : a boy finds an old lamp, rubs it and out pops the Genie: Master , Master, I am at your command, you have three wishes : what are they? The boy answers : I want the Chinese to come to Poland, three times. OK Master , but why do you want them to come to Poland three times? Answer : So they go through Russia six times!
Complain about this comment
This is interesting (if rather long):
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86307/yuliya-tymoshenko/containing-russia.html
gunsandreligion put me on to it. It's from Yuliya Tymoshenko 15 months ago - when oil was $61 a barrel. Of course this year, she is Russia's friend. I wonder where Putin has her family hidden ? Here's another interesting bit:
Like Zyazikov, President of Ingushetia who appears to have had Yevloyev - who disagreed with him - murdered a few days ago.
Putin has done a great deal for Russia and its people as Tymoshenko points out. For him and his like their history is nevertheless KGB / FSB and life has not the value for them as it does in the west.
Spin, now, they understand spin. Do they not andrey1234 ?
Complain about this comment
#49 gunsandreligion
According to this:
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L9618164.htm
..and this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1043185/The-Pipeline-War-Russian-bear-goes-Wests-jugular.html
...they missed but I have read elsewhere that the pipeline was turned off anyway.
Not subtle. The message is - Russia controls your oil and gas or nasty toys get thrown from the russian pram.
Complain about this comment
Apropos MarcusAureliusII @48
Q: How many Frenchmen does it take to defend Paris?
A: No one knows - it's never been attempted.
Boom-boom.
Complain about this comment
Why is the EU so strongly demanding immediate Russian withdrawal from Georgia when for example we have seen no such tough talk about the turkish occupation of (in contrast to non-EU member Georgia) EU member Cyprus for some 34 years?
Looks to me like 1 month is a very short period compared to 34 years.
Complain about this comment
NeoAcid(50)"
Speaking at a news conference after talks with his French counterpart, Nicolas Sarkozy, after midnight on September 9, Saakashvili said he had handed over to President Sarkozy; President of European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana in Tbilisi ?a very strong proving? of that.
?I know people have been asking questions: who started the hostilities?? he said. ?Everybody knows now that genocide was fake; there was no genocide [a reference to the Russian allegations that Georgia committed genocide of the South Ossetian population"
This looks extremely weird and I'd like to see what it is based upon.
As far as I understand, Russia did exactly in S.Ossetia exactly what
NATO did in Yugoslavia, only faster.
In both cases the reason for the intervention was that one sovereign country was practicing ethnic cleansing against a segment of its population.
In both cases we have segments that identify themselves differently than the majority and want to live in ther own country rather than be a minority in a country they do not feel their own. In both cases the borders are inviolable according to international law, so it is very inconsistent that the very countries that rushed to recognize Kossovo now have such harsh words for Russia when it recognized the breakaway republics. Plus, After the declaration of Kossovo's independence,
Russia had warned that the case of S.Ossetia and Abhazia is exactly the same in their view, but it was not Russia who triggered all this, it was Sakashvilli. I could understand a sharp reaction from the countries which did not recognize Kossovo, but not from those who did.
Complain about this comment
Although I do decry the invasion of Georgia there are some things about this crisis that I do feel are important to the discussion.
Chill0's link to Yuliya Tymoshenko's article about Russian expansionism is something I had read and linked in a previous thread on this Blog.
Yuliya is currently being denigrated for being a traitor to Ukraine as she is (a) ethnic Russian and (b) not so forward in criticising Russia for invading Georgia. She was a leading light in the Orange Revolution and I think we are foolish to ignore her opinion as I suspect she will be the President of Ukraine from 2010.
The break-up of the USSR, in which Russia was the most important country, must have been a big disappointment for the Kremlin Leaders and the Communist Party. They had it all and suddenly the USSR was breaking up and the power was dwindling away.
Mikhail Gorbachev, as the final Communist Leader of the USSR, is still adamant to this day that he had an agreement with Ronald Reagan that the end of the Cold War and the demise of the USSR would still leave Russia with the de facto right to have influence over the neighbouring countries that border Russia.
In some ways, I am sympathetic to this Russian desire for having a "sphere of Influence" as long as the influence is peaceful and the neighbouring countries are willing to be influenced.
In a way, Russia desire to control the Russian Federation and influence it's neighbours is no different to the EU expanding from a core of 6 to 9, then 13 and currently 27 nations where France was the leading country (I will never forget that France blocked the UK from leaving EFTA and joining the EEC on two separate occasions before finally "allowing" the UK to join in 1972 - how domineering was that.) The difference I perceive is that the expansion of the EU is voluntary whereas the influence of Russia upon its neighbours is unwelcome for the most part.
Logically, it is unfair and unreasonable of the EU to expand membership of the EU right up to the borders of Russia and treat Russia with diffidence. I think that if I were Putin and responsible for Russia I might well be doing what he has done - make Russia stronger, corner the fossil fuel market and then say enough is enough - don't piss on us and tell us it is raining!
The problem for me is that Russia has taken a massive gamble on the West being ineffectual in it's response and accepting the change in relationship with Russia and continuing business with Russia as though nothing has changed.
The reality is that the status quo has changed and Russia is now seen as a threat and no longer a potential trusted partner. I think that is to Russia's loss in the long term.
In the short term we can see that the USA is poking Russia with sticks and seeing how aggressive Russia is going to become . . . .
Russia is venturing forth into the Caribbean Sea which the USA sees as their back yard, the Russians have reported today that the completion of the Iranian Nuclear Power Station (being built with Russian technical assistance) is near to completion and Putin has not only collared more external oil supplies from the countries east of the Caspian Sea but is intent on developing pipelines to the East especially for delivery of petroleum and gas supplies to China.
Much has been made of not wanting to enter into a new Cold War. I suspect that the reality is that, from the Russian perspective, the Cold War never ended. Yes, the USSR came to an end but Russia and Russians were always the lynchpins of that society and their offspring have inherited the new Russia which is expanding, wants to be a world player and want to counter the Americans dream of being the World's leading nation above all else.
Europe, as ever, is too weak, too divided and too intent on naval gazing about the EU (which is really an irrelevance in the midst of this crisis as Sarkozy with all his Gallic gestures and duplicity has epitomised!) and is probably considered, by both Russia and America as of no consequence.
The real battle of ideologies is between Russia and America. Secretly, I think America has been relishing the task of putting Russia back in it's box and for the last 8 years the US has been cultivating the countries bordering Russia to provoke Russia and get Russia to show it's true colours.
I think that in this the USA has succeeded as of today and, now the gloves are off, we can all look forward to a resumption of the Cold War that never really ended and a polarisation of people to either support the USA or support Russia. Maybe this polarisation is exactly the tool that USA and Russia want to use to divide Europe which has seen more harmony during the past 60 years than we Europeans, perhaps, deserve.
I have become rather pessimistic for the future of late and recent events do not make me any less fearful of what the future holds for us all here in Europe.
My fear is that the near completion of nuclear production in Iran is the trigger for Israeli intervention and then we will have our two sides lining up for World War III with all the dreadful consequences that this will create.
I am rather sad that the hoped for Peace Dividend arising from the end of the Cold War has evaporated but then I, like so many others, have probably been delusional and the reality has been that there never was any Peace Dividend to be had as the Cold War never really ceased.
Complain about this comment
#56
South Osetia is not Kosovo
In Georgia?s enclaves, Russian forces have acted as self-interested troublemakers, not as neutral peacekeepers. Serbia?s Slobodan Milosevic long oppressed the Kosovo Albanians, as well as perpetrating war and ethnic cleansing right across former Yugoslavia. But it was the Georgians who ended up as the bigger victims of ethnic cleansing in Abkhazia in the 1990s, and have been again in South Ossetia in the past three weeks. Unlike Milosevic, Georgia?s Mikheil Saakashvili is a democratically elected president who will surely be held to account by voters for his impetuous decision to invade South Ossetia on August 7th.
Motive provides an even clearer difference. Throughout the 1990s the Americans and Europeans were extremely reluctant to get involved in the Balkans. After Milosevic?s withdrawal from Kosovo in 1999, the main role of the UN and NATO forces in the province was to protect the Serb minority and Serb religious sites. The Western powers devoted years to negotiations over the province?s future, culminating in UN-led talks under Martti Ahtisaari, a former Finnish president. Only when these failed, again thanks mainly to Russian intransigence, did Kosovo?s unilateral independence become inevitable.
In total contrast, Russia has nakedly pursued its own interests in the Caucasus. It did its utmost to provoke Mr Saakashvili into a fight. Its ?peacekeepers? have made no pretence of protecting minorities in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It has not even tried to promote serious negotiations over the territories? future. Instead, it has steadily cemented their links with Russia, building up military facilities and giving the local people Russian passports (a transparent ploy to justify a later purported need to ?protect? Russian citizens). Although Mr Saakashvili took the catastrophic decision to send in the Georgian army, resulting in many civilian deaths, no evidence has been offered by the Russians to support their wild claims of genocide or ethnic cleansing.
Complain about this comment
Peacekeepers or piece-keepers?
The difference between Kosovo and South Ossetia has been starker still in the war?s aftermath. In 1999 the Western powers went in as a last resort and quickly internationalised the issue, bringing in the UN and international peacekeepers. Eight years of patient diplomacy preceded Kosovo?s independence. The Russians invaded Georgia in a fever of war enthusiasm; have refused to pull out and rejected attempts to internationalise the dispute; and have now recognised the enclaves? independence less than three weeks after the war began.
In principle, sub-national states should sometimes be able to secede, but South Ossetia and Abkhazia clearly do not qualify. Neither enclave has properly consulted its people, including huge numbers of Georgian refugees. Nor has there been a long, hard effort to find a negotiated settlement. Mr Saakashvili should stop promising to regain control of the enclaves, and the West should insist on the case for international peacekeepers. But Russia?s aggression in Georgia must not be rewarded by conceding the enclaves? independence. That really could set a dangerous precedent, in Ukraine, Moldova and?not least?inside Russia itself.
Complain about this comment
#55 scotandr1
There was a huge fuss at the time and look how many nations in the world recognise North Cyprus...
...er one - Turkey.
Perhaps you are looking 34 years into the future of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Complain about this comment
I'm not sure of what exactly was signed in this agreement between Russia and the EU but the only thing that matters is that it has enabled to stop the killings, fights and it has settled the basis for talks and diplomacy and in this sense, this has already been HUGE.
For those who complain about the EU policy being everything but strong, lame or whatever, i remind you that talking is better, smarter and more productive than fighting, Diplomacy is always better than war ... What would you have prefered? a wold war? maybe a war? tons of thousands of deaths? .... No matter how weak is this agreement, no matter how long it takes to implement it, THE IMPORTANT IS THAT NO MORE PEOPLE DIE... Deal with it and that's definitely the smartest way to behave.
Complain about this comment
#61 frenchattitude
Killings are bad but the killing had stopped anyway.
If that principle had always applied, France would still be occupied by Nazi Germany.
It is this thinking, surely, that the bully relies on. It means his violent behaviour will always be rewarded by 'facts on the ground' which no-one will alter because it would mean something, well, unpleasant.
Complain about this comment
#61 Frenchattitude (again)
In the meantime, killing goes on in Darfur.
What do you think the international community should do about that ? There is a proposed UN force constantly obstructed and people are being killed so that the Chinese can get their oil. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7559196.stm).
The Chinese will block any action against Sudan in the UNSC.
What do you say to the Fur people, the Zaghawa and the Massalit whom the Janjaweed are killing ? Are they glad of the diplomacy do you think ?
Complain about this comment
Frenchattitude @61
That is very lame.
Do you suggest that the EU should agree to anything the Russians want just like the Vichy French talked with Germany in 1940 and settled down to living with the Germans in half their country. Of course, the deaths continued elsewhere in Europe but as long as the French were alright then talking was good, peaceful and the Vichy Agreement was not a stain on the character of France?
How about Deladier and Czechoslovakia in 1938. Neveille Chamberlain had no axe to grind other than to keep France from having to go to war. On the other hand, Deladier, for France, agreed to the Munich Treaty and the surrender of the Sudetenlands to Germany even though there was an existing treaty between France and Czechoslovakia to provide mutual assistance in the event of hostilities - Czechoslovakia was prepared to fight Germany but France preferred to surrender its honour in talking to Hitler at Munich in order to keep itself out of war. The World War that France tried to avoid still came around and people died in their millons. So much for French talking to avoid deaths and be diplomatic.
Phooey! Stuff and nonsense from the French. Glib tongues, gallic superiority complexes and no courage in the face of a threat to world peace.
Now we have Sarkosy with another "Peace for our time" and he has all but agreed to let things go on as normal between the EU and Russia even though Russia is still occupying South Ossetia and Abkhazia - part of the sovereign territory of Georgia.
But then that is par for the course with the French - they would sell off anyone else's land, cut any shady deal and surrender their honour rather than fight for justice and what is right.
"How many Frenchmen does it take to defend France?" "Just one, armed with a glib tongue, a pen in one hand and a treaty of surrender in his other hand!"
Boom, boom!
Complain about this comment
Crisis Over?
What crisi is being referred to here?
A spat in Georgia involving the Russians?
Answer yes but not only.
Read the first sentence again carefully and see if you can find any mention of Georgia. You will not because it is not there.
The real question is why did did not only Sarkozy but also Barroso and Solana go to Moscow just now. Just to sign an agreement on Georgia, I do not think so. We have not been told, nor will we be but this may be what is going on.
Emanuelkant (44) is nearly there, except that the wedge between the EU and the USA has been driven not by the Russians but the present United States Administration under President Bush.
Not only that, their action seem to be designed to push Russia and the EU together. The present trip of Dick Chaney to Eastern Europe is a case in point. I am sure he was not just sent to keep him away from the Republican Party National Convention. But with American polotics you can never be sure.
Here we come to the main issue facing not only Russia and the E.U. and that is the very probibly collapse of the American Financial Empire. It just might not happen but the rest of the world is preparing plans for what to do if and when it does. They would be very remiss if they were not doing so.
Complain about this comment
Sarkozy has merely given the Russians a thin veil to hide their invasion and occupation behind. This small victory will cost them. Nobody will trust them now. The wolf is still a wolf in wolf's clothing. Perhaps it will drive the rest of the former USSR closer to the EU for protection. I just hope they don't expect America to come to their defense. We have enough problems with Iraq, North Korea, and Afghanistan without them too.
Complain about this comment
15. Named-Erion
You are correct in saying that RF went in to SO without UN backing but you are wrong insaying that RF did not contact UN. One hour after the attack on SO began RF officials went to the UN but were told to wait for a reply. The government waited 24 hours but no reply came so a decigion was made to go in anyway. The UN official reply was given 4-5 days after RF approached UN but by that time the war was over. It was said by RF representatives that if the government waited for this reply before taking action there would have been noone left alive to talk about and I agree with that. The decigion to go in was sensible due to the fact that Goergia used very heavy weapon and a civilian population.
By the way there was a mobile phone video released showing 3 Georgian tank crews spinning around on a road in SO capital randomly shooting shells and 50 cal machine guns at civilian buildings. They were doing it for fun all while laughing, swearing and probably drunk. Shows alot about Georgias intentions in SO.
Complain about this comment
You would think that the Russian people would be far more interested in raising their own standard of living with their new found pocket money than engaging in foreign adventures. The preoccupation with what is going on in someone elses country is a diversion from the pathetc ruin that is the reality of Russia. But some people never seem to learn. Instead of working with the outside world to create jobs inside Russia, to attract investment, to gain access to medical and industrial technology, Russia's government is pushing it away, maybe for a generation or more before anyone on the outside will take another chance and risk investing there. The price of oil is dropping. Russia's new found wealth could evaporate into thin air. The last thing Russia needs is a conflict with the EU and US or another empire. They didn't learn their lesson by being bankrupted with the last one, they need and will probably get a refresher course. They will get exactly what they deserve.
Complain about this comment
The crisis is over so far, thanks to France and the EU. I'm not French, but we have to recognise the French diplomacy is being very effective on this issue an also in Middle East, taking Syria out of the "Axis of Evil".
I know the French/Euro achievements are tough to swallow for those who call themselves "the West", but in reality, they're only thinking in UK and US.
If UK could make a different foreign policy from that dictated in White House, maybe the next time we will be praising Britain. Otherwise, the world will continue to see UK as a US vassall.
Complain about this comment
Regarding above mentioned differences in culture, and exclusivness in the way some of the participants are trying to express their thoughts, I would like to remind us of the actual subject of this blog. Let's take a look to some of the glorious days of Europe.
For example, the success of Alexander the Great, which still remains misterious to many historians. Not everybody think it was just his talent and cruelty, which has given him the reputation of a world conqueror. One possible explanation is that he had a vision of the unity of the human race.
Let's draw imediatelly a parallel. Why today's Europe ought to be reluctant in expanding more eastward? The idea has already been accepted and welcomed by a majority of population. Who or what is a real danger to the Europe's unity?
This is not sentimental and too idealistic. What blocks the way to better Europe, we all know very well, are old ideas, prejudices. If "it is uselless to say" - as we can read these days - that differences between nations, races, etc., are not playing a role, at least not a main role, what remains? If this is the case, We should not wander when old fears start to reapper.
Complain about this comment
Question for EU: who would they rather buy energy supplies from Russia or Georgia who will serve as transfer agent for USA? Does EU needs another Iraq next to their boarders later on like Georgia? Who gets to decide which country is more democratic then the other? I?m sure democracy like in Iraq or Georgia..Russia doesn?t want to have... as far as Russia concerned is Why NATO moving closer to its boarders against intr. law
Complain about this comment
#69 betuli
French diplomacy appears to have taken the EU back to 'business as usual' after Russia invaded a neighbouring country.
Even if you dispute the word 'invasion', the investigation has not yet happened so how could 'business as usual' have been conceded so soon ?
#67 Evan-blog
This is the first account I can find of a UN meeting after the Georgian crisis started.
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/sc9418.doc.htm
It started at 16:15 (presumably US EST) on 8th Aug. It refers to a meeting which had happened 12 hours earlier.
Can you explain this from your post:
In the context of the discussion minutes of the UN meeting, a 'reply' does not seem to have a lot of meaning.
Do you have a link to that video ? Perhaps it will help to establish who these people are.
Complain about this comment
#71 andrey1234
Azerbaijan and Norway
Complain about this comment
@betuli (69)
Efectiveness of this diplomacy is fairly questionable. I don't see people of Georgia acclaiming cheer. What will happen with those pieces of land? Are they going to loose their homes? EU diplomacy is just to extinguish the immediate fire.
Complain about this comment
betuli @69
How on earth you can come up with this being an EU success I don't know!
Russia has announced to day that it is going to create two military bases in South Ossetia and Abkhazia and station 7600 troops in those two enclaves that remain part of the sovereign territory of Georgia. If that isn't occupation then that would explain why the French never minded the Germans 'residing' in France from 1940 to 1944.
President Sarkozy signed his name to the EU-Russia Report that came out of the Extraordinary Meeting on 1 September 2008 of the EU Council of Ministers.
That Report determined that the EU would not accept the autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia as recognised by Russia.
It also required Sarkozy to continue discussions with the Russians to ensure they complied with the requirements of the EU brokered six-point plan which requires the immediate withdrawal of troops to their status quo ante positions of 7th August 2008.
Sarkosy has come away from Moscow without agreement from Russia to rescind it's recognition of the autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and today the Russians say they are going to garrison those enclaves with occupying troops.
That is a French achievement?
You are right. It is hard to swallow as I can hardly see what Sarkozy has achieved?
If this mission was a success, I definitely don't want to have the French along side me as I'd hate to think what a French failure was?
Sarkozy's success is an almighty failure and he has basically connived with Russia to save his own pompous and arrogant facade. Leaders like Sarkozy, Europe can do without.
Complain about this comment
I personally think the conflict is far from over. Just look at the official positions from all sides:
Geargia: adamant on their territorial integrity and says it will never give up land for either break away region
South Ossetia: has been saying for 15+ years that they will never be a part of Georgia and same goes for Abhazia (Both regions actually refused to join Georgia in about 1920-1921 and Geargia sent in the army [Korateli] which ended in 17000 dead civilians)
Russia: says that Geaorgia has forever lost the two break away regions and has no hope to regain control over them
with positions like that can an agreement ever be reached? If all sides don't agree with anyone but their perspective what constructive dialogue can there be?
Complain about this comment
Menedenus...
You're such an idiot ... comparing today's events to what happened in the second WWII ? you'd be ashamed of insulting your grandpa's, what happened 60 years has nothing to do with what's going on today ... France surrendered in 1940, indeed, the army wasn't prepared, trained, armed enough to face the germans, indeed ... The vichy's government signed in with the germans, indeed but we had DeGaulle, we had the "Resistance" and not all of the people got on well with the government's actions...
Concerning our so-called "coward" attitude when it's time to sanction or go to war ... i don't know where you're from, but France has been involved in conflicts all over the world for decades, in Africa mainl,Rwanda or Tchad recently in the scope of peace keeping,humanitarian missions,in Kosovo, Afghanistan and more globally whereever a confict has needed an international body to settle peace. You can say what you want, but WE DID STH in all of those conflicts ... Not sure you did, unless you're american but in this case, you're merely at the origin of it than helping on it.
To get back to our subject, a third world war with Russia and neither you, nor i, could survive this ... Starting a war now with Russia is totally NONSENSES, there's absolutely nothing to gain from it, from both sides. Let's be smarter, and save lives....
Complain about this comment
7,600 Russian troops to remain in the breakaway regions of Georgia. A triumph of cheese eating diplomacy?
Well I hope they keep those 2,000 bodies on ice to show the EU when they arrive. I started this giving Russia the benefit of the doubt, but right now their credibility is zero.
Evan-blog: Link it or it never happened (Russia should be having a field day with it).
Complain about this comment
#59 neoAcid
'Eight years of patient diplomacy preceded Kosovo?s independence. he Russians ... recognised the enclaves? independence less than three weeks after the war began.'
Eight years, how very impressive. Russia recognised enclaves' independence sixteen years after they won separatist war against Georgia in 1992. Update your history records, and do try to keep them balanced.
'Mr Saakashvili should stop promising to regain control of the enclaves... But Russia?s aggression in Georgia must not be rewarded by conceding the enclaves? independence.'
Mr Saakashvili provoked this whole crisis, in the first place, by trying to regain control by force. I think we can both agree it was not his wisest decision - but still, it was him who started all this mess.
As for Russian reaction (invasion), after having seeing Russian citizens in S. Osetia dying under the bombs of a 'second rate potential NATO ally', as of indignant Russian TV commentator put it, I honestly think this was our only option. Stop NATO from killing Russian citizens, as you can imagine, is tremendously effective propaganda slogan.
Now, of course the West will never recognizes enclaves as in this conflict it inevitably sides with good NATO/EU-aspiring Georgia. You are not impartial, so why should I be surprised you are biased.
Complain about this comment
72. chill0
Sure here is the video:
1) 3 Geoergian tanks rolling through SO capital unopposed, plenty of shouts like "Woohooo!" while firing at civilian building. All the gunfore is one sided there is no Russia army there yet (video taken from mobile phone of a dead Georgian soldier)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
2) Georgian tanks rolling thorugh capital unopposed, no army to resist them there, buldings destroyed
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
There are plenty more out there: some such as an Ossetian man leading a crew of jornalists in to his house and showing them the bedroom where his wife and daughter lie naked in bed with their heads cut off. Journalists being fired on while in clearly marked TV crew cars trying to escape SO capital and so on and on and on
There is so much video evidence out there that Georgia was in SO first and most importantly unopposed by anyone killing civilians and TV crews.
Complain about this comment
Manedemus 75,
I am Catalan/Spanish living and working in London, I like this city and only can say positive things over my life here. In this sense, I can claim certain "neutrality" in front of the eternal Bristish-French rivalry.
It seems to me the level of francophobia, paradoxically combined with strong admiration towards French culture and way of life, among some Britons (and Americans) are quite worrying.
Have a look at your previous posts and you will know what I'm talking about.
Having said that, just to remind that today in Georgia there are not dead poeple to count and this is thanks to French and EU diplomacy, like it or not.
Complain about this comment
Success, failure, weak or strong... pathetic EU, wise diplomacy. Pissing in the wind phrase comes to mind... I guess make sure you hve chosen the correct direction.
What is strength here? Having a bigger military? Bigger economy? Shouting the loudest? Or making the most threats against the other side?
To me strength is getting what you can... if you attempt to get more than what you can, you end up as Georgia did (though I reserve my final judgment on this one until all the facts come out).
The EU got as much as it can at this point in time.
There is no stronger action that can be taken at this time that is not more talk. Europe's options are limited, neither side is willing or capable to go to war over this. At least Georgia remains an independent and democratic country.
Europe has been caught with its pants down, it is co-dependant on Russia, and there is only so much it can do without damaging itself as much as the Russians.
Currently calling the EU weak or diplomatic is a little irrelevant, as this dispute is a medium to long term one. What REALLY matters is how the EU responds to Russia from now on. The success or failure of the dispute depends on how the EU addresses and removes its dependances on Russia.
I think it is too EARLY to say who has won or failed on this one.
Complain about this comment
Frenchattitude @77
Call me an idiot, I shall call you a nincompoop ? it is less insulting but more apt!
The examples of history were given to show that France does not have dialogue with Opponents ? France is simply too weak in the face of aggression.
Your examples of French activities in Rwanda (where there are allegations of French Genocide yet to be answered) and Chad are hardly examples of France's finest hours and indeed French Troops armed with the most modern equipment are hardly likely to find stiff resistance from child soldiers with no shoes and little education. Not exactly hard fought battles are they?
Sarkozy has had dialogue with Russia and had the delegated remit from the other 26 EU Ministers to ensure that Russia complied with the requirements of the EU brokered six-point peace plan (which Medvedev for Russia has signed) which requires all troops to withdraw to their 7th August status quo ante positions.
Has he done this? No, he has not and Russia has announced today that it is going to create military bases in both South Ossetia and Abkhazia for 7600 occupying troops. Some success ther for Sarkozy?
Sarkozy has also accepted that there will be an international conference to discuss the autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If that is not surrendering the firmness of the EU Leaders of their meeting of 1st September then I don't know what else to call it?
Sarkozy has not had dialogue he has gone to Moscow and agreed to everything that the Russian want. A delay in removing the bulk of their military forces form Georgia for another month, a failure to comply with the six-point peace plan except on Russia terms and a surrender of territory belonging to Georgia.
This hardly France's finest hour acting on behalf of the EU who had shown remarkably stern resolve on 1st September 2008.
And please! De Gaulle was an arrogant Frenchman who was merely a Colonel who escaped to Great Britain and was then a pain in the backside of Europe for the rest of his life - he withdrew France from NATO because he hated the Americans and now France is only too keen to get back into the NATO fold as it really does know it is knackered trying to be aloof from the rest of Europe?s self-defence scheme.
And the French Resistance? Who heard of them before 1944 and the D-Day Landings by which time the USA had provided sufficient soldiers to start Europe thinking that liberation might come some time soon.
The French Resistance was comprised of different groups of communists, Maquis bandits and ex-soldiers and the whole Resistance could not get its act together until early 1944 when Great Britain started to provide agents to coordinate the disparate Resistance Groups activities. Even then, some groups simply could not work with other groups because of their backgrounds and political persuasions. How many French resistance members went to the firing squads of the Germans because they were betrayed by other Frenchmen - hundreds if not thousands?
France has character but unfortunately the character of France is that of being obnoxious in the presence of allies and meek in the presence of it opponents.
Sarkozy epitomise that meekness as he waves his hands in the air, glibly connives with Medvedev and scurrilously surrenders the honour of the EU and France (if either the EU or France ever had any honour!) to, as you suggest ?save lives? . . . . . of Frenchmen but not those living close to the conflict about whom Sarkozy does not give a damn!
Complain about this comment
I posted the links to the videos showing Georgian tank crews firing on civilian buildings in SO capital for fun but it doesnt look like the moderators will allow those links to be posted ............
Complain about this comment
#77 Frenchattitude
I am afraid I am also an idiot.
Boy, I bet the people of Rwanda threw a big thank you party.
I am not sure the people of Afghanistan know that France brought them peace yet. Perhaps if President Sarkozy goes to explain it to them he can save us and the Americans a lot of bother.
Chad, of course, is bound up with Darfur...
Complain about this comment
#79 AlexR1709
A frequently offered view. Even though there is evidence of a russian military buildup beforehand and a South Ossetian russian-backed attack before as well.
Perhaps Russia is trying to create 'Facts in the Mind' by this constant repetition.
Complain about this comment
#84 Evan-blog
You're being picked on - I've posted lots of links here.
O those moderators... MI6 agents I expect.
Complain about this comment
#84 and you know those soviet built tanks are 'georgian' how? A georgian T72 firing on a hideous apartment building in S.O looks rather like a Russian T72 firing on a Chechen apartment building unless you can identify divisional insignia or there are handy roadsigns in the film... and I bet there aren't.
Equally if the film is true (and despite my first paragraph I've no particular reason to doubt it) I'd be fairly confident the Georgian tank crews aren't firing off ammo for 'fun'. The South Ossetian militia seem as well armed as any balkan bandit group.
Complain about this comment
"How many French resistance members went to the firing squads of the Germans because they were betrayed by other Frenchmen - hundreds if not thousands?"
Damn right! And in the case of the massacre at Oradour (inititiated by two Frenchmen informing on their neighbours to the SS) the bulk of the SS men doing the slaughtering were actually French! (From Alsace) and French SS men of the Charlamagne Division were about the last defenders of Berlin.
I bet that isn't taught in French schools
Complain about this comment
87. chill0
Damn those MI6 agents :)
No problem go to youtube and type in "Georgians fire on civilians in Tskhinvali"
Complain about this comment
88. Peter_Sym
You know because they are speaking Georgian and this video was taken from a dead Georgian soldier's mobile phone
Complain about this comment
betuli @ #81
France is a great country, it is five times the size of the United Kingdom and it could do so much more for Europe but it does not. My problem is that when France is asked to do something on behalf of Europe it does it badly or with abject dishonour.
France fights easy wars against child soldiers in Angola, Rwanda and Chad.
It's most recent and hardest fight was with the Algerians seeking independence and it could not win that fight.
Before that it tried to win in Indo-China (Vietnam) and could not win there either delegating the fight to the Americans whom Frenchmen seem to hate with a vegeance . . . probably because the Americans made French Cinemas show Hollywood films as part of the requirement of getting investment from the post-War Marshall Plan! Those 1940s films are enough to drive anyone crackers!
When it comes to real fights - Germany in 1940 or potentially now in 2008, The true French character comes through.
The French will talk the hind legs off a donkey but they will never stand up to aggression and a determined opponent as is Russia.
Sarkozy has talked and flapped his hands in the air but, basically, he has dissolved the resolute stance of the Council of Minister meeting of 1st of September 2008 by not standing frim on the EU brokered six-point plan that he himself was so keen to take to Mededev to sign and which requires Russia to withdraw its troops immediately. He has also, tacitly, agreed to there beign an International Conference to "discuss" the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
With the news today of the 7600 troops going to be occupying South Ossetia and Abkhazia one can hardly imagine a more apt postscript to Sarkozy's abject surrender of all honour before the Russian Prime Minister . . . and this man is supposed to represent ALL of us in the EU not just France.
We Europeans have lost all honour because we sent a Frenchman to represent us in the talks to enforce the six-point peace plan and he has bodged the job! Russia does not have to comply with the six-point peace plan now because Sarkozy has agreed to the variations. Some resolve and resolute determination - Not!
Complain about this comment
88. Peter_Sym
"Equally if the film is true (and despite my first paragraph I've no particular reason to doubt it) I'd be fairly confident the Georgian tank crews aren't firing off ammo for 'fun'. The South Ossetian militia seem as well armed as any balkan bandit group."
I seriously doubt you would be on top of a tank screaming "Woohooo" and filming with a mobile phone in one hand as some militia was firing at you....
and regarding the video could be Russian T72 in a Chechen town, please show me one mobile phone that had a portable camera on it in 1999...
Complain about this comment
Menedemus ...
Duno what happened to ya but you look fiercely ANTI-FRENCH ... Too bad for ya ... It's sad.
There're a lot of british where i live, in the south of France, on the mediterranean sea shore and they seem quite happy of being here.
I suggest we have a coffee on a sunbathed "terrasse de café", contemplating the med; we could talk about all of this ? Arfff there's so much more good things to take advantage of, instead of spreading your anger toward your neighbours on the BBC...
Take it easy.
Cya
Complain about this comment
TO: CHILLO
REGARDING #71
Question for EU: who would they rather buy energy supplies from Russia or Georgia/USA
Azerbaijan and Norway
Norway is getting it from Russia and Azerbaijan just switched to Russian pipes from Georgia, but USA is trying hard to convince Azerbaijan to pump gas/oil thru Georgia and the answer is NO, why u think reticently Dick Cheney visited Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Ukraine? Ask yourself why USA wants Georgia to be a NATO member? (To stay closer to Russian boarders) what a joke this BUSH/CHENEY and they just proposed 1 billion to Georgia, for what?
Complain about this comment
Frenchattitude @77,
There is an English saying that goes: "When you are in a hole, stop digging"
And, as Basil Fawlty reminds us: "Don't mention the War!"
Personally I think that Sarkozy did a typical EU job: Lot's of noise and posturing achieving zilch.
Complain about this comment
Thank you Evan-blog. Not quite '2000 dead civilians' convincing but a start.
Andrey:
Norway has massive amounts of oil/gas under the North Sea. They squandered a lot less than Britain did.
Azerbaijan is routing via Russia rather than Georgia? Considering Russia's implied threat to destroy the pipeline, I can believe that.
Complain about this comment
@Named-Erion (10)
I completely agree, EU 'foreign policy' is a complete farce. As a matter of opinion, I consider the EU itself to be superfluous to demands. Everything it claims as benefits can be done without the EU, through intergovernmental cooperation.
@chill0 (85)
he also forgot to mention how the French started the Vietnam war because they just couldn't accept independence of Vietnam. And all of this was after 1945, when others had restored French independence.
Thanks again, France.
And who can forget to mention how the French are scamming everyone by getting others to pay for French farming subsidies?
Complain about this comment
Interestingly the President of Turkey has just visted Armenia on a State visit. This is a first.
Neither side mentioned the long-standing dispute between them over the numbers of Armenians massacred by Turks when both countries were part of the Ottoman Empire. That too is a first.
I suspect that the hands of the Americans and/or Europeans are guiding the two countries to some kind of conciliation between Turkey and Armenia. That would be a tremendous move and the next step would be that there will be an agreement between the two countries for pipelines to go directly from Armenia into Turkey and release Georgia from having to defend the Georgian leg of the Azerbaijan/Caspian Sea gas and oil supplies.
Something that was unthinkable may be coming a reality and this would allow the Azerbaijan oil to flow through Armenia, into Turkey and bypass the clear and present danger of the Russians to the three pipelines in Georgia.
Rook takes Castle assuming this is all a big Chess Game!
Complain about this comment
"9. At 6:28pm on 08 Sep 2008, andrey1234 wrote:
To: Menedemus regarding #8
Whose goanna investigate? Same people that told you there mass destructive weapons in Iraq?..."
Well hopefully not the ones who told Medvedev that thousands upon thousands of civilians were killed in Georgia trying to pacify part of its own country.
I notice the SO claims have now come down to about 500 and I bet that is highly inflated. Still shows Medvedev, and his puppet master Putin, as the scheming liars they are. Shame Saakashvili walked into the trap when the Russians provoked Georgia to action.
We need to re-equip Georgia so should Russia get uppity with its neighbor again they enjoy welcoming some more bodybags home.
Complain about this comment
Whole thing has been bottom-line, unimaginative, (badly) media managed, trivialisation of the whole unpleasant situation.
Surprise surprise every 'statesman' in the world is trying to get credibility from this BRIEF conflict and making good on a chance to score points and justify long term, predesigned stratagem.
The Russians knew a Georgian attack was imminent; so did the UN. I would imagine, so did the EU and US.
Every party had more to gain from the attack, except the South Ossetians and the ironically the Georgians themselves.
I think this gets the 'same old bullshit different day', media award for the most childishly self interested manipulation of the suffering of other peoples, ever to have the misfortune to attract media attention at all.
Lets face it the media turns a blind eye if there is no big money, cutesy tourist, military industrial interest for them to sink their talons into.
The long term aims of those involved are not secrets; they are published theories and objectives... the fact that so many (usually) media sceptic sections of the public, so rampantly jump on the bandwagon, just goes to show how devoid of reality and self gratifyingly naive and vindictive (or parts there of) that the main media consumers really are.
Russia: Bad, 'West': Good, Georgians: victims, Separatists: who cares, Fact: fiction, Truth: hoax...
You need to sort yourselves out before any of the interests involved take any more power over you than they already have. They treat you like the dummies you play up to being. Quit the false sanctimony and actually listen to a variety of sources BEFORE you make up your mind.
Recognise those sources that will always give the view you would expect them to and then go talk to somebody else.
If it comes down to 'Cheney is a nasty piece of work; but at least he's not Russian', then you are an idiot.
One rule for me and another for all others is not the way forward.
Complain about this comment
#88. Doesn't the fact that the film was taken (allegedly) from a DEAD Georgian soldiers mobile phone rather prove the other side was armed unless you reckon he conveniently shot himself?
I'd also suggest that if a mobile phone was found on a dead Iraqi showing Saddam stockpiling WMD you'd be the first to scream it was a CIA / Mossad plant.
Presuming it WAS found on a phone, whats to stop you uploading camcorder footage of the Chechen war onto a mobile?
Complain about this comment
Mark:
This crisis is not over....Because there is no cease-fire agreement and or other agreements to protect the soverignty of the countries involved.
Complain about this comment
The joys of endlessly manipulating digital information. We can muddle the facts and not learn any lessons for the future...
I mean, have you seen some of the doctored images that have been given SO much media exposure that it is impossible for the real experts to refute them on a mass scale.
They don't even have to put any effort into it.
Even if they look fake, people so want to believe they are genuine to justify their outrage (or lack thereof); and when a genuine one is shown we can say. 'Its mindboggling what people can do with computers these days...'
We are inviting the digital execution of reality; as we believe the shoddy lies we see day to day and then criticise any opposition for being 'untrustworthy'.
Quite frankly, laughable.
Complain about this comment
Firstly and most importantly how sad that this is once again all about and oil pipeline. How many more people have to die before we realise that our oil addicion if far far far far far more dangerous than any drug addiction. This lust for control of oil that we kill for it how pathetic.
You all talk about it so avidly Russia were wrong, SO were wrong, Georgia were wrong , you all have blood on your hands.
You know what this is all b*lls*it. The idea of Nations is the biggest con ever. It just makes it easier for the elite to control us
'Divide and Conquer'
Complain about this comment
France is only showing the two faceted attitude of West.Earlier, troops did not vacate Iraq or Afganistan.
Now when Russia is involved in this crisis, they are asking Russians to pull out.
With all regards to Mr.Sarkozy, this looks funny..
First the withdrawal of troops should begin and then intervention in this matter should start.
Complain about this comment
Peter_Sym @102,
Whomsoever it was needs a manicure. That trigger thumb (on the 0.5 calibre machine gun) was disgusting.
(It definitely wasn't the Prussians - they're far too well turned out.)
I'm pretty sure it was taken from a dead soldier. The idiot was obviously too busy playing at being an amateur cameraman and whooping it up, and didn't look out for snipers.
So long as we're not involved I really don't give a damn.
Complain about this comment
I will not believe the lies and the liar. Yesterday, I read the propaganda magazine the Economist. First, (published the first weeks of the conflict) it was blame Russia, then when the undoubtable facts where that Saakashvili started the war - they (halfway) admit it but still blame Russia. Russia had everything set in motion they say, it was a big plot they say. Russia is bad, they say. How they cut and paste the facts around it doesn't matter. It is all MANIPULATION. Russia can move forward of its own devices. The South Ossetians have the right, not to be killed. I have the right not to be manipulated by the press. It is a fait au complete. South Ossetia and Abkhazia are now out of Georgian control. Too bad. Believe it or not, some people don't fit in with the neoconservative ideology and they want to stay allied with Russia. You lost with force, now you want to win with propaganda. Economist Magazine: "analogies with Kosovo and Iraq do not wash" you state. They do wash. The double standards are exposed. Russia/Georgia was 5 days. Bombing Serbia was at least 87 days and putting all its leaders on trail, after hunting them down. Kosovo Independence? Well, South Ossetian and Abkhazia Independence. Many lawyers are liars, Saakashvili thinks he can lie his way out of this one. Sad part is his propaganda machine along with many western writers, has it working. Self determination: Cypress, Taiwan, and other partially recognized regions? Oh, well. Life goes on. History says, Georgia is the LOSER.
Complain about this comment
this are real good news for all of us that we were telling everybody the true story.I can see that the EU is coming to understand that if you come with the real facts and the true in your hands and dont try to spin everything like the United States does you will get results in a positive way.The visit to Moscow by the EU leaders this monday showed that Russia was right, and the claims that the west were making were untrue so they have no choice but to accept the Russians terms,this is a real set back to the arrogance of the US Iám very happy about this I would like to see the faces of the three stooges Bush,Cheney,Rice about the outcome in todays events.And you are right the EU accept the status of independence of the this two provinces,this is a direct punch in the face to the United States it feels good to see that Russia has done this and I hope the EU will see Russia as a friend because the real friend to the EU is Russia not the US the only interest the US have in Europe is to divide the European comunity so they can sell there weapons and to control some countries inside the comunity and to continue the campaing of fear,look I dont beleive a single word coming from the US and British goverments they lost all the credibility . Best regards from Russians
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud @105
Your comments are full of idealism. I would not decry anyone for being idealistic but idealists should not try to foist their idealism upon others.
Petroleum Oil and Gas is what provides people with transport, heating, plastics, insulation, power for manufacturing, ingredients in chemicals and many, many everyday items we wear, eat , drink and are merry with.
Naive people only presume that fossil fuels are used for motorised transport and fuel.
From your monicker I am hopefully safe to presume you do have the privilege of having the right to live in England which has a natural temperate climate with wet summers and mild winters. Somewhere where the risk of death from the cold is limited to the elderly who cannot afford the cost of heating in winter.
In other parts of Europe, the citizens are not so fortunate and have to live through hot summers but try to survive freezing winters that are not suitable for male monkeys made of brass.
Heating oil is not a luxury, it is an essential for those people less fortunate than you lucky, lucky English people.
The ease and comfort of life in the British Isles allows the English to be the leading edge of those who decry oil wars and pontificate about climate change and green issues but the lifestyles imposed upon other less comfortable Europeans drives a little bit more realistim towards gas and oil - for them it is a necessity and not a luxury.
So decry the world for busting into conflict about oil and gas but for others less comfortable than the English, realism means that oil and gas are a diminishing resource that has to be protected, cherished and, if necesssary, fought for.
Complain about this comment
First things first.
At No 25, and repeated again at No 75:
"As that six-point agreement requires all military forces to withdraw to their status quo ante position as of 7th August 2008 IMMEDIATELY (one can hardly see what Sarkozy has got to be so thrilled about?)
(P.S. sorry, I understood you will neglect me when I am "trolling", I will just borrow this your paragraph).
The point I wish to make is the 6-step plan (the first deal) has nothing of the kind.
Step 4 is about Georgian military forces to return to positions of PERMANENT location.
(They didn't do it, but it's about Georgia honest word, their reputation, I don't care).
Step 5 is indeed that Russian military forces are to return to the - that Latin above - status quo ante - as was on 7th September position, HOWEVER (please note that this "HOWEVER" is within the same sentence) until international security mechanisms are in place Russia takes additional security measures.
I knew that people are used to see Step 5 as it was printed in English-speaking media, without "Russia takes additional security measues" but simply "gets out" - full stop.
So I tried to bring here the French version of the document (message No 37), but moderators have called it off, as the text is, indeed, in French.
However if someone doesn't trust Sarkozy to understand what he has signed with Medvedev, and invents own versions,
you can now find this Step 6 in English
(mentioned as a possible stumble-point in discussions to be held further) in the very editor's story here, the previous to this one.
By putting block-posts by the port of Poti, where US ships get un-loaded, and keeping block-posts in the "buffer area" - let's put it straight - in "Georgia land proper" - Russia exactly takes those very "additional security measures."
As most here are keen on knowing very details, I can even enlighten you that the Russian wording of the text of the Medvedev-Sarkozy deal is even more strict than the French and the English, saying Russia takes these "additional measures" by means of its peacekeeping troops.
You may not like it, and wish that there were 3 better parties to the deal (Medvedev, Saakashvili, Sarkozy), and the deal would be more strict on Russia, or better formulated, with more exact definition of what these measures could be - whatever - but this is then your wishful thinking.
One can reason as well that any soldier re-dressed into peacekeeping uniform looks like a peacekeeper. No denial. Yes. However, "the West" is so un-careful
in looking into this whole affair, nobody even disputed once what exactly peacekeepers are in Poti, and since when they became peace-keepers.
To the contrary, Russia was careful as to what it signed, and made sure the total amount of peacekeepers on Georgia land proper is within the 1992 peace-keeping deal.
Sorry. It is what it is. Russia signed, Saakashvili signed, Sarkozy signed - and Russia keeps to the deal.
All the comments that "Russia does not stand to its word", "Do you ever thought they will keep to the deal? I - didn't" , etc.
is, well, of course it's people's right to invent what you desire.
Moreover, when Medvedev signed the deal and Sarkozy flew down with it in hands to Tbilisi, Saakashvili refused flat, to sign Step 6 - "Beginning of int'l discussion of the status of SO and Abhasia."
Saakashvili agreed on all Steps other (including "additional security measures until int'l mechanisms are in place), but said about int's status there is nothing to discuss, they are Georgia and full stop. Sarkozy mediated and together he and Saakashvili have come up with Step 6 modified to "int'l discussion of safety", not "status" anymore.
Medvedev very generously agreed to the correction.
I think Saakashvili would be better off with int'l discussion of the status, as was suggested by Moscow. Most countries in the UN might then vote for keeping SO and Abhasia within Georgia. The worst risj ke was taking was if they'd rule to arrange a referendum in SO and Abhasia, asking people what they want. Anyway he'd have time to figure out something and collect support.
However he refused flat - the status will never ever be dicussed.
With no int'l discussion anymore in the agenda of the "6 step plan towards peace" -
its full name, FYI, it's more like a road-map, well, Russia decided it is good time to agree to the SO and Abhasia requests to recognise their independence. And they were asking for a looong time. Several times a year, on V-day, on all holidays, regular thing, for years. Only we never agreed before, afraid of int'l scandal, and worsening the relations with Europe.
We knew the moment we recognise them there will be a shout up to the skies, as minimum. So that's what it is, exactly as was feared.
But everyone choses for himself, to take the risk or not. We decided we'll take.
Complain about this comment
Interesting how the cards on the table start to shape up.
Dubya, Dick, Condi, and Hank went to the middle east for more rock oil this year, did not get any.
John picked Sarah from Alaska, hmm, but the Tricky Dick, Henry, Saudi MOU still holds, so what? Steady Eddy keeps the boys digging in the sand; no debt and no deficit, but Stephen rolls the dice. Barrack said NO MORE within 10 years time (but then again Tricky Dick said the same and so did Gerry, and Jimmy for the last 40 years, you believe them now or does the MOU still hold?) Hugo and Vladimir are gonna play with some toys in hot water. Lula is happy with the platforms that come on stream. Peter Carpenter gambled and lost. Hu and Monmohan want some too, last year Mon already had to close 5 NPPlants. Still the average house in the west needs 50 slaves in a treadmill 24*7 to run just the electricity. Who is going to kill the electric car this time? Agassi and cohorts are having fun.
For how much longer can we take energy for granted? Give me control of the energy supply and I do not care who writes the laws of the land.
Complain about this comment
It takes all kinds in an alliance... whatever their other qualities, good or bad, the French may have the solution for Europe out of all this... and that it is a well developed and advanced Nuclear Power industry. This alone may do more to put Russian aggression in its place than an army or two.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob @113,
I agree that the French were, and are, sensible in having an advanced and widespread nuclear power industry.
We, unfortunately, let the enviro-nutters dictate the agenda and take us down the road to energy servitude and ruin.
Let see how the windmills keep us all warm this winter.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @ 110
"Your comments are full of idealism. I would not decry anyone for being idealistic but idealists should not try to foist their idealism upon others."
Why do idealist have less rights to extress there opinions than you?
"for them it is a necessity and not a luxury"
its neither its an addiction! there's such an obsession with oil that other forms of heating and energy are not properly researched, and when they are there broght by oil companys and locked away
"realism means that oil and gas are a diminishing resource that has to be protected, cherished and, if necesssary, fought for."
but it's neither cherished or protected its exploited and fought over. your less a realist than a fool.
Complain about this comment
I wonder if the NASHI movement has the purpose of trolling all blogs to put across the Russian perspective so that genuine discussion is discoloured by the propaganda of the Russians.
Western media is all lies.
There were 2000 South Ossetians killed. The Russians tried to get UN approval.
What else could we do.
Saakashvilli eats his tie in a doctored video. Look at this video showing GRAD launchers (even though we don't know if they were Georgian or Russian.)
We're entitled to occupy Georgia until we say it's okay to withdraw.
We don't want to annexe South Ossetia.
We don't want to annexe Abkhazia.
We're only building bases in S. Ossetia and Abkhazia because those beastly Georgians are going to come back and fight.
It's all the Georgians fault.
You can only trust Russian Media.
Propaganda is being spouted in the BBC Commentaries and I detest it.
Would this propaganda be to counter free speech and contradict any ideas that Russian enemies are anything other than "innocent dupes" of a very carefully planned Russian invasion.
In my mind's eye I see a picture of a young but big bear-like guy called "Ivan" rowing a dinghy towards the shore - for all he's worth - leaving behind the sinking ship called "SS Motherland Russia". On his teeshirt are the words "NASHI".
The trouble is the ship will sink with all it's crew and passengers and "Ivan" will be left with no friends . . . . . a bit of an "Ivan No-mates" if you like.
Guys like this reap what they sow.
Complain about this comment
#86 chill0
'Even though there is evidence of a russian military buildup beforehand and a South Ossetian russian-backed attack before as well.'
Sounds weak. Russia can arrange military buildup anywhere within its territory. Besides, quoting Stratfor article (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/russo_georgian_war_and_balance_power), 'It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia?s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?'
I also invite you to read Wikipedia article on this war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2008_South_Ossetia_war#cite_ref-5). It has an impressive 280 sources so I guess you may expect it to be reasonably impartial. Pay notice that on August 5 Russia publicly warned it would intervene (see link from this very site - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7543099.stm).
To conclude, Russian military preparations, and our position, were all known in advance. Nonetheless Georgians chose to strike - and we counterstriked, just as promised.
Complain about this comment
mendemenus
Your the same as IVAN you just have the oposing view. The problem is neither of you can debate you just exude arrogant so-called fact!
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud @ 115
I do not deny your right to idealism and I do not deny your right to an opinion and express it but I did not call you a fool so why insult me?
You claim that oil is an addiction but that is your opinion and not a fact for which you can adduce any evidence.
You claim there is an obsession with oil and for you that may be your perspective but other will disagree with your cosy English and quaint perspective.
Please look up the dictionary for the definition of "Cherished". Then maybe you'll understand me better.
Of course, there are no guards around oil terminals, storage depots or oil fields that is why "protected" is not a relevant term I suppose. Yeah, right!
Oil is exploited, yes and fought over definitely.
Your very quaint anglo-saxon lifestyle allows you to pontificate about the world and look at the rest of the world and scoff but your rose-tinted spectacles simply give you means to be ever the idealist Dolt!
Complain about this comment
Imagine if the european citiziens voted the EU constitution or Lisbon Treaty and now when Sarkozy, Barosso or Solana was in Russia this was in force..
Sarkozy and the rest of them would have dishonoured the very same constitution or treaty in front of russian bullying.
Complain about this comment
karolina001 @120,
Please don't mention the blasted EU Constitutional Treaty (aka Lisbon Treaty).
So far as I'm concerned, support of it is Casus belli.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud @ 118
Perhaps like Ivan but being English that you are "Johnny" . . .
Would that make you "Johhny no-mates" too!
ROTFLMBO
Complain about this comment
Firstly i did not insult you. A person who has been fooled into believing a lie is a fool. so rather than a insult it was a statement of fact.
You believe on one hand that people who live in areas that are so cold that they would die without oil to keep them warm deserve that fuel, even if it means killing others to attain it.
As for the term protected of course oil is guarded but it is not protected in the way that say Rhino are protected for instance.
It is not the world I scoff at it is the simple minded people who can not see a future where oil and gas will run out. I
t may be a 100 years from now or even longer but why wait till its gone. Before we seriously try to find an alternative.
Instead of giving more and more of our money to oil and gas producing Country's many of whom are morally and ideologically suspect.
You veiw that it is ok to start a war and kill people to get oil and gas for those who would sie without it is abhornt and unacceptable in civilised debate
Complain about this comment
I've heard Pom and limey whats and johnny?
Complain about this comment
BBC is disgraced.
So called ?free press?, especially BBC and CNN failed to present am unbiased facts on Georgian-Osetian conflict to the US public, instead they were druged into special US intelligent operation called ?Russian Aggression?. Both BBC and CNN acted on one scenario.
1) They only started to dose information only on 8th of August when Russian Federation came for help, a day after Georgian American armed forces shelled Tshinvali and killed hundreds civilians at night.
2) BBC showed footage of destroyed S,.Osetian capital Tshunvali and commented those footage saying that this is Georgian Gori destroyed.
3) BBC has been showing footage of a single hit residential house in Gori showing from different viewpoints, whereas In Tshinvali(SO) there are hundreds houses destroyed completely. Those building in Tshinvaly are REALLY destroyed, other with holes in roof and walls. Yet this building in Gori has walls intact. But this ?inaccuracy? doesn?t? bother BBC editors whatsoever.
4) President Saakashvilly is given 10-15 prime time minutes life interview first on BBC, then on CNN almost every day. Let?s take aside what he is saying, but why BBC doesn?t let Russian point of view be explaining equally?
5) What is interesting is why CNN and BBC ?interviewers? having spent so much time for Mr.Saakashvili did?t dare to ask him why he is ordered 4- hours long rocket indiscriminate bombardment on civil population of Tshinvally (SO) and then tank attacks?
6) The interviews of Russian officials are largely distorted on BBC by bad translation and editorial cuts.
Shame on this corrupted (or intimidated??) reporters and presenters!!!
This is not ?free media? this is a secret intelligence service.
Complain about this comment
Rob_Hob @113,
Some good points fellows. Nuclear can have a very peacefull purpose. As far as world oil is concerned Sam and the Sauds have an understanding, Sabah (Kuwait) and the other little ones signed up also, Hugo says Njet. Sadam and Khomeini did not sign up. Sadam got his job description changed. How long before Mikheil's job description is going to change and when do Ali and Mahmoud look in the career sections for new work? The EHMs (Economic Hit Men), IMF and Dick, have been send into Georgia already. Europe: Please show leadership, keep at it, solve your energy challenges, and do not forget Russia is the most powerful European country. Do not get bogged down by the symptoms. Two dogs fight for a bone and the third one runs away with it.
Complain about this comment
WhiteEnglishProud @ #123
So instead of a direct insult you think an indirect insult is okay?
You suggest I am a fool because I believe what you believe to be lies!
You scoff at simple minded people because they take what they can now.
How naive you are.
Naive fools are no more sensible than pompous arrogant Englishmen who look down their noses at people they see as their inferiors because they do not believe everything that the English would have us believe. Perfidious Albion indeed.
More fool you, my pompous and arrogant Englishman who is white and proud . . . perhaps too proud!
Complain about this comment
Washington Post: ?Georgians question Saakashvili?s actions?
According to The Washington Post, ?Georgians inside and outside the government have begun to question the wisdom of the costly confrontation, and of the leaders who set it in motion?. One of the oldest and most respectable U.S. newspapers has published an article on the political situation in Georgia following the South Ossetian crisis.
Initially, questions made by Georgia?s opposition to Saakashvili were raised quietly. Now they are growing louder and louder. While Russian peacekeepers are still in Georgia, some opposition leaders have spoken out about what they call ?failures in diplomacy and warfare?, claiming that Saakashvili?s own actions have damaged his standing in Georgia.
Others predict Saakashvili, who reclaimed South Ossetia and Abkhazia back in 2003, will be forced from office by a war he hoped would earn him a place in history.
?Through military force, and all kinds of provocations, Saakashvili tried to show that he had the ability to reclaim these territories?, said the leader of the opposition New Rights party David Gamkrelidze to The Washington Post.
Saakashvili is blamed for not having a clear outlook on the situation due to the information provided to him by ?his small circle? of intimate followers.
Though an anonymous official quoted by the Post predicts that Saakashvili will be out of office this very year, the president himself is convinced that he will survive this crisis politically.
Complain about this comment
Russians are cundcting one of the cruelest ethnic cleansing in SO...
entire Georgian villages were wiped out by Russians...
international peacekeepers needed now!
Complain about this comment
Can the civilized world let Russians ethnicly clean teritoies it has ocupied??
Russian goverment should be held at international tribunal for crimes against humanity!!
Complain about this comment
neoAcid your way too late with your prapoganda here
Complain about this comment
Observan wrote:
'BBC is disgraced.
2) BBC showed footage of destroyed S,.Osetian capital Tshunvali and commented those footage saying that this is Georgian Gori destroyed.'
Russian state controlled channels showed footage of destroyed Georgian Gori and commented those footage saying that this is Tshunvali destroyed.
Complain about this comment
andrey1234 wrote
'It?s much cheaper for EU recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia Independence'
Should EU recognize this 'government' of the independent republic South Ossetia?
Prime Minister - Russian bureaucrat Yuri Morozov
minister of Defense - russian general Vasilii Lynev,
head of the Security Council - russian general Anatoly Barankevich,
head of security service - FSB general Anatoly Baranov.
Complain about this comment
neoAcid re #131
Yes sadly we have had to put up with a lot of pro-Russian propaganda for days now.
Son't give up heart neoacid though - you're contribution to the propaganda war is just as, if not more, welcome!
Complain about this comment
andrey1234 wrote:'The EU won?t say it, but it has essentially recognised that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are no longer and will never again be part of Georgia.'
Perhaps Abkhaz minority do not want to be part of Georgia. Abkhaz formed only 17% of population of Abkhazia
Complain about this comment
crisis over the EUs crisis as not even started. people will revolt sooner or later
Complain about this comment
alexius_3 wrote:
Observan wrote:
'BBC is disgraced.
2) BBC showed footage of destroyed S,.Osetian capital Tshunvali and commented those footage saying that this is Georgian Gori destroyed.'
Russian state controlled channels showed footage of destroyed Georgian Gori and commented those footage saying that this is Tshunvali destroyed.
Nice, try alexius_3, are you ping-pong player?
In fact, Russian channels covered almost life (while it was possible) during first day of Georgian assault on Tshinvaly ? so the pictures were taken there along with their (correspondent) presence. These pictures were cut and shown by BBC and CNN as pictures from Gory. Same applies for the first two days refugees footage.
Isn?t that strange, that first 16 hours of this war, started at 23-30 on 7th of August, when after 2 hours of Saakashvilli peace talks announcement for tomorrow, when all civil population got asleep in their houses in Tshinvali (S.O.) and Georgian Army having cut off electricity and water from the city, started flattening the entire city ? for all this nightmare times, with vivid life pictured shown by Russian TV didn?t let sleep people in Russia ? all this 16 hours BBC and CNN hasn?t notice the ?news??
And when Russian 58th Army, 16 hours later, when Georgian destroyed the city, enter the South Ossetia to protect their peacekeepers and civil population both BBC, Fox and CNN accordingly started to blame Russia in invasion in same words, always showing by the way pictures of destroying Tshinvali by Georgian American armed Forces and saying that this is Georgia under Russian assault ???
Complain about this comment
There is no place for an article about Tschinvali wounds and grief at the BBC. Even though it is this town resembles Stalingrad after Georgian ?journey? there. It is there the largest death toll.
Deceased South Osetian victims list
A complete list of all victims of the conflict is not yet available as information is still being collected by South Ossetian authorities. The following are the names, dates of birth, causes of death and burial places of 311 South Ossetian citizens so far confirmed killed in the fighting between the 7th and 12th of August 2008.
300. Hubaev Murat Arsenovich, 1963 D. O. B. Killed during the
conflict. Buried in courtyard of apartment block.
301. Kotaev Soslan Sadulovich, 1948 D. O. B. Killed by a tank shot. .
Buried in courtyard of apartment block.
302. Bibilov Alan Georgievich, 1960 D. O. B. Killed in the conflict.
Buried in Bibyltykau village.
303. Gabaraev Genady Matveevich, 1951 D. O. B. Killed during the
conflict. Place of burial unknown.
304. Dzhigkaeva Lidija Vasilevna, 1947 D. O. B. Killed when house was
shelled. Buried in Vladikavkaz.
305. Kuduhov Vsevolod Ilyich, 1947 D. O. B. Shot by a Georgian sniper.
Buried in Dmenis village.
306. Bazzaeva Zhenja Gavrilovna, 1940 D. O. B. Killed in shelling of
Zarskoi road. Place of burial unknown.
307. Dzhabiev Albert Vasilevich, 1976 D. O. B. Killed in the conflict.
Buried in Rustau village.
308. Parastaev Lev Pavlovich, 1949 D. O. B. Killed when a car was
shelled. Buried outside his house.
309. Kabisov Vasily Sosoevich, 1936 D. O. B. Killed by artillery fire
on Zarskoi road. Place of burial unknown.
310. Bolataeva Zemfira Aleksandrovna, 1941 D. O. B. Fatally wounded by
shelling. . Buried in Zguderskom cemetery.
311. Dzahov Valery Borisovich, 1987 D. O. B. Shot by a Georgian sniper
during the conflict. . Buried in Tbet village.
Continues here: http://www.osetinfo.ru/victims
It is there people buried firebrands and ashes in bags ? one bag for every burnt family member. CNN, BBC like discuss future status of S.O. but they don?t give a dime about S.Osettian people tragedy.
A large proportion of continuing unfairness and future blood is lying on western journalists, who can have their thirty pieces of silver from Condy now.
Complain about this comment
@ 136 - Jaws1912
Russia has strengthened its grip on Europe's energy supply after Serbia's parliament ratified a deal that gives Moscow control of the country's oil and gas industry as well as allowing it to lay a controversial pipeline across Serb territory.
Mirko Cvetkovic, Serbia's prime minister, insisted that his country could be friends with both Russia and Europe Photo: Reuters
Trying to balance its national interest between the West and the East, MPs also agreed to set Serbia on the path towards membership of the European Union.
The passage of both bills by large majorities reflects the difficulties faced by Serbia's pro-western government in seeking integration with Europe while maintaining its historic ties with Russia, seen by many Serbs as their country's only true protector.
Speaking after the parliamentary session was completed, Mirko Cvetkovic, Serbia's prime minister, insisted that his country could be friends with both Russia and Europe even at a time when East-West relations are at their most strained since the Cold War.
"We can cooperate at the same time between the East and the West," he said. "We would like Serbia to be a driving engine in the region and offer some kind of a bridge between the East and the West."
Under the energy deal, originally signed in January, the Russian state energy giant Gazprom will buy a controlling stake in Serbia's oil and gas monopoly NIS. Gazprom's proposed South Stream pipeline will also cross southern Serbia, carrying Russian gas into the heart of Europe.
The deal represents another blow to a proposed EU pipeline Nabucco which is meant to carry gas from the Caspian basin along a route that bypasses Russia, thus reducing Europe's energy dependency on Russia.
But the EU has failed to unite over the plan and Gazprom has managed to persuade Bulgaria, Hungary, Greece, Slovenia and Austria to sign up to the South Stream project.
In the past year, Russia has also signed a cooperation deal with major gas supplier Algeria and is attempting to secure agreements to carry gas from central Asian countries through Russian territory ? a move that could cause the collapse of the Nabucco project.
Some European diplomats had hoped that Serbia could be persuaded to rescind its deal with Gazprom after several cabinet ministers complained that the sale of NIS was too cheap. Auditors had valued the stake at triple the amount Gazprom had paid for it.
The original agreement had been made at a time when Serbia was seeking Russian support over the future of Kosovo and before either elections that returned a pro-western government to power or the arrest of Bosnian-Serb warlord Radovan Karadzic, which lifted one of the last obstacles to Serbia's EU membership.
According to sources, some European diplomats had attempted to persuade Serbia to sell the stake in NIS to Austria's biggest energy company OMV.
Despite the disappointment, the EU could give Serbia candidate member status as early as next year.
Of course that people will revolt and revolution or civil disturbances may involve EU, if we allow troyan horses penetrate the EU key corridors of power.
By allowing hiden enemey who want to join us in order to take revange, and giving them the rights, positions and knoledge of power, we efectively are making our own grave.
How this will end up we all know, EU will soon be taken hostage of pro-russian EU citiziens by default.
Complain about this comment
alexius_3 wrote:
Perhaps Abkhaz minority do not want to be part of Georgia. Abkhaz formed only 17% of population of Abkhazia
Why not 5%?
Please provide a credible source of this ?fact?, so we all know that you are not liar.
Complain about this comment
The interesting thing is that Russian reports say that that's exactly what they wanted themselves and insisted on from the moment the dust has settled over the crisis. They recognized the independence of the two republics and there's nothing anyone can do about it (they have recently been recognized by Nicaragua too). Additionally, they have agreed that OECD monitors will be stationed near the two republics' borders, which is what both the EU and Russia wanted - it does not contradict the Russian policy of recognition of the two territories and only places neutral observers between the hostile people.
Complain about this comment
Isn?t that strange, that first 16 hours of this war, started at 23-30 on 7th of August, when after 2 hours of Saakashvilli peace talks announcement for tomorrow, when all civil population got asleep in their houses in Tshinvali (S.O.) and Georgian Army having cut off electricity and water from the city, started flattening the entire city ?
At 21-30 on 7th of August russian artillery stared heavy shelling of Georgian villages
Complain about this comment
Observan wrote::
'alexius_3
Perhaps Abkhaz minority do not want to be part of Georgia. Abkhaz formed only 17% of population of Abkhazia
Why not 5%?
Please provide a credible source of this ?fact?, so we all know that you are not liar.'
Please provide a credible source of this fact, that Abkhaz formed only 5% of population of Abkhazia, but not 17%
Complain about this comment
Post No 166 suggests the Russian side "propaganda" in here is done by "nashi" people (an ultra-nationalist organisation said to be financed by Putin, who of course refuses, but all of course suspect anyway).
A good attempt to undermine the credibility of the Russian voices.
I know you won't believe it, but I am Russian and I am not "nashi". And I hate "nashi" and always despised them.
FYI "nashi" is a small trouble here, they exist only while they are paid salaries. Nobody joins them. It's, like, a company, not a mind-possessing youth movement.
No ideals. Only salary. When idealistic people are involved - that's when things get scary.
In case you suggest I am simply KGB or something - no, no KGB in my family tree.
That I am an old Soviet "brainwashed long time ago" - nope.
I am not so old, and anyway all family was rather fond of samizdat. Kind of, on the other side of the barricades.
That Stalin is a murderer and Communism - criminal - I knew at the age of about 10. Likewise, I knew I better not tell this to friends in school, unless I want all family in prizon.
You may suggest I am simply nationalistic by nature, like "Russia for Russians", that's why all Russia does is sacred. You are going to be disappointed here as well.
I am a quarter Polish (of those Polish sentenced to Siberia as a result of an anti-Russian occupation up-rising at home) (up-rising No 100 approx. in the history of Poland) , 1/4 Ukrainian, 1/4 Russian (one grandfather from poor peasants in Volga river) and 1/4 English. To top this combination.
(A merchant came to St. Petersburg, liked the business, married a British community in St. Petersburg similar class merchant's daughter, and stayed. Didn't account on the Revolution to happen, and then it became too late to run.)
However, anyone reading my posts here - I don't think has any doubts that I am absolutely Russian.
Russian - it's not nationality. It's state of affairs. After you have troubles - you become Russian. The more sufferings you get through - the more Russian you become. That's how we have here melted 222 nationalities - in 1 Russia.
But you won't understand it. It's a Russian thing.
"Not thanks to - but in spite of" - this is the Russian colours.
Back to the "portrait of an average KGB speaker" in this thread.
We have here 2 main trends - for centuries - Zapadniki (Westerners) and Slavyanofili (Slav culture admirers). A typical Zapadnik - to make it easier for you to understand - was tzar Peter the 1st - to copy Western ways. Built St. Petersburg, cut priests' beards, created navy - actually - not a bad approach, works well on the Russian soil. He was a "Westerner" and did Russia a lot of good.
Slavyanofils - ex. Leo Toltoy, Dostoevsky, Solzhenitsyn - are against copying Western habits. They are for "things to evolve naturally, not to copy anyone." Also, more lazy folks. Slav culture demands thinking and writing, and not doing much practically - this is the main diff. between the two.
An active way and a passive way.
Slavs think that ideas are more powerful than deeds - so one should work on ideas.
So slavs don't build cities, so to say. Instead a slavyanofil would sit and write a whole book around one subject "Is the tear of a one baby worth - to make it shed - when on the other plate of the weighs we put the lives of the whole humanity other?"
(Dostoevsky).
The two trends - Western and Slav - fiercely compete in Russia for centuries.
Medvedev, for example, was supposed to be a Zapadnik. But now leads the way away, in which direction - unclear - but definitely off the zapadnik values.
The way West dealt with Russia in this conflict - most unfair - (we think, it is our own and of course only Russian side opinion) - there isn't one Zapadnik left in Russia. Expired. A huge blow to Western value believers. You are unfair. We don't want to be like you.
I suppose I was making a pretty Zapadnik myself. As minimum - by external features.
MBA-s, Oxford, cousins in England, worked in American companies, and all that jazz.
Never worked a day for a Russian company, as minimum.
Thought Russia is a disaster and awful wrong. Had other ideals, so to say.
But now... A turning point. Hope I will have enough brains not to join ultra-right "patriots", but the West is not an orientation point for me any longer. Out.
I'll better follow the Polar Star.
est either.
Comfort? yes.
Complain about this comment
alexius_3 wrote:
At 21-30 on 7th of August russian artillery stared heavy shelling of Georgian villages
Strongly enough that western media haven?t noticed that either?
BTW, Russian peacekeepers didn?t have any artillery?
Complain about this comment
His mistake as nicely put by western leaders about Saaka?s civil city heavy bombardment at night right two hours after he promissed S.Ossetian and scheduled peace talks for next day.
I am curious, now when ?free press? information dust is settled and there is a consensus that indeed Georgian lunatic president has ordered and lunched an assault on Tshinvali slipping civilians? WILL a single western politician openly demand to send him to international criminal court?
Or the Georgian long planned and well American armed aggression against S.Ossetia will pay and Saaka will be nominated for Nobel Peace Prize?
Complain about this comment
The Times:
At the time of my visits, Stalin, a Georgian by birth, was still officially a non-person, airbrushed by his successors from the annals of Soviet history. But in defiance of Moscow his portraits could still be seen in Georgian state farms and government offices. I asked a Georgian official why this was so. ?Because he killed so many Russians,? came the sardonic reply.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article4656255.ece
BBC:
Ask for a glass of the delicious Georgian spring water called Borjumi and you will be proudly told it was "Stalin's favourite drink".
A heroic statue of that murderous dictator still stands in his home town of Gori, which took such a battering in the recent conflict.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/7576305.stm
Complain about this comment
It is very sad that all this hope that our countries could became allies is broken by consecutive actions of U/UK against Russia for last 15 years.
US have been taking advantage of inevitable weaking of the country which did choose to change its regime and economics from socialism to capitalism ? all Russians clearly have understood it now.
US ain't for a peace in the Earth - US are for its domination in the World.
Complain about this comment
This was written by American to Washington Post, I think this applies to many western so called free press:
timepass wrote:
Some people refer to this paper as the Washington Pravda, no doubt with good reason, though Der Stürmer, the reputable Nazi publication would be a more accurate portrayal.
Nobody, but nobody in his right senses can fathom what interest a nondescript little principality called Georgia should have for the US. The old bluff of democracy is tattered and torn, none, not one of the US's bedmates in the Middle East is a democracy - Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Egypt etc. It is on record that the US actually engineered the overthrow of a democratically elected party to bring the Baathists, lead by its erswhile ally, Saddam Hussain to power - let alone the fact that it gave him large amounts of chemical weapons and assorted WMDs. The number of coups the US has engineered and dictators supported is unmatched. Domestically, the Patriot Act and various other authoritarian measures are already in place to kill freedom and liberty. Democracy is a ruse that no longer works, period.
Which brings us to the issue of 'Western impotence' - a matter of great concern to the author of this piece. It has been observed that impotent men often try and establish their potency by preying on underage children and minors. Is it possible, dear Editor, that the US's killing of 90 civilians including 60 children, yes, 60 kids, in Afghanistan yesterday was yet another attempt at establishing 'Western potency". It is interesting that, inspite of a statement by the UN verifying the cold blooded murder of these 60 children , WaPo ignores it and instead the editors go off on a tangent about impotence and Georgia. The killing of civilians and children which is now a well established hallmark of illegal US invasions in Iraq and Afghanistan is in fact the real measure of Western Impotence, dear Editor.
Goebbels had the Der Angriff, the Bush regime has you. Shame!!
8/26/2008 3:21:15 PM
Recommended (9)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/25/AR2008082502212_Comments.html
Complain about this comment
alexius_3 @ 143
"Please provide a credible source of this fact, that Abkhaz formed only 5% of population of Abkhazia, but not 17%"
I think what Observan meant here by 5% is that you were taking the figures out of the blue, he didn't state the number as a fact, it was just a sarcastic comment to say that you should have just invented a lower number than 17.
alexius_3 @ 142
"At 21-30 on 7th of August russian artillery stared heavy shelling of Georgian villages"
Please provide a source for this statement, as this is the first time I hear it, and, quite frankly, I won't believe it until there is something to back it up.
As for the general situation around Georgia, it does indeed seem to be moving towards a solution. Not an optimal, but at least an acceptable one. The two breakaway republics are now finally lost to Georgia, and it seems like Saakashvili is going to be out of the office pretty soon. The Russian peacekeepers in the buffer zone are going to be withdrawn and an international force will take it place.
I can not say that I fully trust the EU investigation to be objective and impartial in uncovering the facts, as the general EU attitude towards Russia before now has been fairly hostile. Although, I have to admit that that is practically the best option we have at the moment to find the real truth (although I don't really think there is such a thing anymore).
WebAliceinwonderland @ 144
"But now... A turning point."
You are so right in this - as I have stated in my previous post in an earlier blog entry, the Western reaction in this conflict made me fairly sympathetic to Putin/Medvedev, although before I was very critical of them. It seems like the West is just bent on devouring us whole and, well, I don't like that and I will probably support any actions of my government aimed at stopping that. (Though I still think recognising A/SO was a huge mistake).
Complain about this comment
Through dark memories and inaccurate reporting, Russia has a very bad image in the 'western world'. Taking that as granted the media and general way of life; meaning our laws customs and of course our prejudices, the 'west is getting worse BY THE DAY.
Some of the things our lot get up to; and we have the cheek to make the disparaging 'only following orders' guff about other sadistic regimes.
Just because its our lot doing it DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT!
Complain about this comment
#144, WebAlice, how do you think the West
should deal with Russia from this point onwards?
Complain about this comment
The American policy towards Russia is the same as it was towards the USSR, one of containment. The only difference is that now the container is smaller. The Europeans largely suppor this because they are sticklers for the letter of the law...until they violate laws themselves which they always find a way to rationalize (attack on Kosovo/Serbia without a UN Resolution, abandonment of the Growth and Stability pact in Maastrict when its authors France and Germany repeatedly violated it, etc.) To the US, the invaions and occupation of SO and AB is a leaking out of the container, to Europe it is a violaton of inviolable laws. This combined with the way it expropriated investments from big oil companies Shell and BP do not bode well for its future. Looks like the cold war just got colder. It won't ever really thaw until Russia changes its ways but that doesn't seem like its in the offing anytime soon. BTW, notice that the price of oil has dropped from $150 a barrel to just over $100 a barrel in only a few weeks? I wouldn't count my chickens just yet if I was Czar of all the Russias.
Complain about this comment
Yes, MAII, this and if Europe moves away from reliance on Russian energy supplies in the longer term, and the Russians may start crying pretty soon.
... like I said before, we maybe in the Economic World War I.
I just wonder how, or even if, governments have influence on the economic developments? Or if the system is self correcting as a response to Russian actions.
Either way, the governments do have at least a few options to push the process along, and finally and for all times show the Russians that they can not have it both ways... they can not have the economic benefits of association and trading with the West, while using the same wealth to attack or try to push around the West.
The more interesting question is if a similar situation would work out in the same way with China involved as the opposition, with the bigger economy, etc.
Complain about this comment
The population of Abkhazia is mostly comprised of ethnic Abkhaz, Georgians, Armenians, and Russians. Prior to the 1992-1993 War, ethnic Georgians made up almost half of Abkhazia's population, while the Abkhaz accounted for less than one-fifth. However, by 1993, most Georgians and some Russians and Armenians had fled Abkhazia[95] following a war and the ethnic cleansing of Georgians in Abkhazia. As a result, the population of Abkhazia dropped abruptly from more than 500,000 at the time of the 1989 census to approximately 200,000 in 1994-1995.[96]
The 1994 U.S. State Department Country Reports describes scenes of massive human rights abuse, which Human Rights Watch supported based on their own evidence:
The [Abkhaz] separatist forces committed widespread atrocities against the Georgian civilian population, killing many women, children, and elderly, capturing some as hostages and torturing others ... they also killed large numbers of Georgian civilians who remained behind in Abkhaz-seized territory...
The separatists launched a reign of terror against the majority Georgian population, although other nationalities also suffered. Chechens and other north Caucasians from the Russian Federation reportedly joined local Abkhaz troops in the commission of atrocities... Those fleeing Abkhazia made highly credible claims of atrocities, including the killing of civilians without regard for age or sex. Corpses recovered from Abkhaz-held territory showed signs of extensive torture[26]
Complain about this comment
The ethnic cleansing and massacres of Georgians has been officially recognized by the OSCE conventions in 1994, 1996 and again in 1997 during the Budapest, Lisbon and Istanbul summits and condemned the ?perpetrators of war crimes committed during the conflict.?[19] On May 15 2008, UN General Assembly adopted a resolution (GA/10708) which acknowledges the ethnic cleansing campaign which have been described by OSCE conventions, and strongly emphasizes the return of all Georgian IDPs back to Abkhazia, protection of their property rights and full restoration of the pre-war population.[20]
See also: Cases before the International Criminal Court#Georgia
The International Criminal Court is currently investigating allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity in Abkhazia.[21] The ICC was provided with the documents selected from the 300 volumes of evidence about the genocide of Georgians in Abkhazia. These materials were collected by the Georgian Prosecutors' Office beginning in 1993 and allegedly contain horrific accounts of atrocities committed by the Abkhaz fighters and mercenaries from Russia.[22] The reports included a detailed description of how the separatists played soccer with the heads of dead Georgians on the field after the executions in Gagra.[23]
Complain about this comment
US/UK tactics against Russia: When Lies Become Facts - As the antirussian campaign heats up, untrue claims gain currency before they can be disproved.
(Information genocide recipes).
Complain about this comment
NeoAcid, even if you can not post links, let people know where the quotes are from. Doing this would make what you posted a better and more believable argument.
And, YES, this is the kind of details that NEED to come out about the conflict, rather than the propaganda spam we have been subjected to. It will be a long process, but Georgia needs to go through the courts, inernational comissions, and prove and distribute information about Russian actions... and not just in the last few weeks, but ALL the events leading up to the most recent conflict.
Complain about this comment
"The reports included a detailed description of how the separatists played soccer with the heads of dead Georgians on the field after the executions in Gagra"
Sadly I have no problem believing that because I saw it happen in Croatia. Two militia (I don't even know what ethnicity) kicked a head backwards and forwards in front of our convoy all afternoon just to show that they could and to rub it in that our rules of engagement made us utterly impotent to stop anything. I have no problem believing that the people of the causas are any different from those in the Balkans.
Complain about this comment
=> Testimony of Eric S. Edelman, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Department of Defense, September 9, 2008
Senate Armed Services Committee
That night, the Georgians announced that they were compelled to protect their citizens and began to suppress South Ossetian firing positions with ground operations. Georgia expanded operations, shelling the city of Tskhinvali.
The use of artillery fire and multiple launched rockets into urban areas and into the proximity of Russian peacekeepers is lamentable, and we do not condone this activity.
On the 7th, we had indications of Georgia?s general mobilization, as Georgian troops being trained for their future deployment to Iraq did not show up for training.
http://www.echo.msk.ru/doc/539660-echo.html
Complain about this comment
Won't see on CNN:
U.S. Congressman Dana Rohrabacher: ?U.S.-Russia Relations in the Aftermath of the Georgia Crisis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIZu-rLLtlY
Complain about this comment
To No 152, gunsandreligion -
I am thinking.
Just spotted your message, until this moment I was on the defensive. Will try to turn my brains work in another direction.
Thank you for the very idea.
Complain about this comment
To #162, WebAliceinwonderland
I would like to thank you for your posts, and hope you will continue writing them.
They are, despite the sometimes rabid hostility they face, some of the most lucid, intelligent, and enlightning ones I have read on these pages.
Do you frequent other online forums, Alice? I would be greatly interested in reading more of your writing.
Sincerely,
Joember
Complain about this comment
Press conference!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xt99E6zxlq0
Complain about this comment
Russia's foreign minister said it would not permit EU monitors in South Ossetia or Abkhazia but that the deal signed by the EU with Georgia allowed this.
I'm asking pro Russian's on this forum,why they are refusing EU monitoring of the conflict zone??
what Russians have to hide??
who will protect Georgian population of SO??
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The video made by Georgian soldiers only adds to that next day they feel funny in the city shouting residential buildings with no Russian troops yet to retaliate.
1) US armed Georgian boys are having fun on S.Ossetia jorney.
http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=sw2Rdj5wtqQ
They just shoot up indiscriminately to deserted buildings in residential area (Down town of Tshinvali) ? apartment buildings, a school, etc.
2) Here is another Georgian "home" video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zPJ0dkHaOw
Georgian officer?s voice-over translation:
"Burn down houses, save shells, choose an object and do on 2-3 shots on a roof, set fire to houses...?
Complain about this comment
Homo Sapience vs. Homo Neoconus
What has happing for the last 15 years and maybe before is nothing else than informational genocide against Russia. It looks that it is vary difficult to find a single Anglo-Saxon journalist with at least neutral attitude to Russia. It has been for last 15 years before Georgian/American provocation in S.Ossetia, but right after that when the scale of orchestrated manipulations and not allowing to even ask yourself what was the action, which inflict Russian reaction ? this scale of naked hypocrisy is unheard of.
That?s by the way what happened during Chechen war ? Russian journalists and their families were intimidated by Chechen wahabits and didn?t dare to tell the truth. These who wasn?t agree were beheaded.
The only thing I can compare the scale of propaganda on western press and television is the one during a war.
It makes me believe that these journalists are not free and either intimidated or bribed by US/UK neocons club.
Is Russophobe a kind of racism?
Complain about this comment
To Joember - thank you ever so very much - for the compliments!
Really, undeserved, and, again - the pleasure is all mine.
I am new to int'l forums, never took part before. It's all this war, you know, when the horn is blowing...
But I am inclined to writing, and usually bother my e-mail list of "cousins in England" and various other int'l "friends and acquaintance" with one or other kind of news from Russia. For the most part Russian poetry self-translated that absolutely nobody ever enjoyed but all keep with most politely and courageously.
Like when I saw Tshinvali the night 7/8 on TV here - I gave a shout to all -"there is a new war in the Caucasus, began 1 hr ago.
How unelegant it is to start a Caucasus war, and on the Eve of the Olympics.
If Putin in Beijing gives a whistle this night for us to step in - well, I hope we are not in war with you tomorrow morning because Georgia is not yet NATO." etc., and then kept issue-ing "Alice's Express Gazette" - like a good old front-line correspondent.
One very wise English lady from my e-mail list must have decided finally she also wants a life, not only read my "Express gazette", and turned my attention to the existence of BBC. That's how I ended up here and spent many lovely hours in Have Your Say, where there are many more maniacs like me, I mean people who like to write and do nothing. And now here in the editor's blog. Also visited the economist site and said a couple of hearty words there, but economist is much less popular, fewer people, BBC is a better harbour.
I will continue if/when/while there is a Russia-related forum.
Yes, pleanty of messages here are kind of, well, .. anyway,
but I guess we shlould all view this with a share of humour. Won't harm, as minimum.
Sincerely,
Alice
Complain about this comment
I've seen here a lot of jokes about poor French, to the degree that they seem to have disappeared from the discussion entirely. Well. Since Sarkozy was stepping in ...to neutralise Russia's pirate behaviour... taking prizes.. and all..
I'll stretch Russian hospitality further and offer here a couple of shots in the US direction. (Come on, France! Vive, and all! They are simply jealous about your Sarkozy kicking out the 58th army out of Georgia proper!)
__________
The moment Senator McCain carelessly said "All Americans are now Georgians!" Saakashvili announced himself the new, lawful and democratically elected president of the United States.
Every day of president Bush starts alike. Condoleezza Rice reports to him who he is and where he is. But she is very cunning, she never tells him the difference between Georgia and Georgia.
Georgian army asked USA for humanitarian help. Americam military airplanes immediately delivered it 100 tons of diapers.
- The war was initiated by the United States!
- No! Never! what for?!
- At the kneeling plea of US army commanders, who have lost all hope other to get rid of the two Georgian battallions in Iraq.
- So, what are the news today? Did we take any gold or silver?
- No. No hope. We only took Tshinvali.
Complain about this comment
Russia Started the Georgian War
Interview with a wounded company commander from the 135th motorized rifle regiment, in ?Red Star,? [a Russian military newspaper]
?We were doing exercises,? captain Sidristy?s story starts. ?This was relatively close to the capital of South Ossetia. Nizhny Zaramakh is a wilderness area in North Ossetia. We made camp there after our scheduled exercises, but on August 7th, the order came to move out towards Tskhinvali. We were raised to a state of alarm, and went on the march. We arrived, settled in, and already on August 8th the fire came down with such force that many even lost their bearings. No, everyone understood that Georgia was preparing something, but it was hard to even imagine what we saw. Immediately after midnight, a massive shelling of the city and peacekeeping positions was started. They hit it from all types of weapons, including artillery rocket systems.?
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=141790
Complain about this comment
Why does Russia want to destroy Georgia. To stop the oil pipeline through Georgia suppling Europe with and alernate source of fuel.
Its simple really.
Complain about this comment
The very same reason that Uk and US troops are in Afganistan to secure the route of the oil.
Complain about this comment
I strongly doubt that people discussing ?status of former Georgian parts?, ?unified western responses?, ?an proportional use of force? and so on, with NO reference to at least 300 people died in S.Ossetia and especially little children and women at night of 7/8 August on Tshinvali under ferocious artillery and missiles attack ordered by Saakashvili ? can sound honestly and unbiased.
Complain about this comment
Where is the media now?
Have you noticed or not noticed something about Western media coverage of Russia since the Medvedev-Sarkozy deal? Well I have ? there hasn?t been much. And at a time in which seeing the peace process move forward is of up-most importance. It would appear the ?commentariat? (which means most of Western mainstream TV and print media) much prefers stories that show Russia in the worst possible light. When Russia constructively works to establish peace and security in its own backyard, in tandem with the EU, the commentariat loses interest.
Why does this happen? The reasons seem obvious to me.
As far as the commentariat is concerned, if Russia gets something positive out of negotiations settling the South Caucasian crisis something is wrong. The conclusion drawn is either the EU, for example, screwed up or Russia is up to no good. It is part of the commentariat?s gospel of faith that Russia should not be allowed to have ANY national security interests. And if Russia disagrees with the West, it is because Russia is against ?democracy,? ?liberal values,? and other ideological principles the West hides behind to promote its geopolitical interests at the expense others. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, but West?s media is becoming more Soviet with every passing day.
When Russia claims it is protecting its national security interests, the commentariat automatically translate anything Moscow does into ?hostility,? ?aggression,? and bullying.? What was Russia supposed to do when Saakashvili embarked upon his genocidal campaign against South Ossetia? Was it supposed to stand on the sidelines and telephone the UN for a Security Council meeting? Well, that?s what the commentariat was probably hoping ? hoping that Russia would cave into Western sponsored aggression. The storyline the commentariat wanted to write was ?Russian occupiers rightly pushed out of Georgian territory.? They same copy probably would have never mentioned ethnic cleansing committed against the South Ossetian people. Well, Russian peacekeepers and military DID step in and foiled a humanitarian catastrophe ? and the commentariat has demonized Russia every since. The commentariat is on the wrong side of morality and common decency ? not to mention the obligations of responsible media.
Then there is the issue of the main villain in this plot ? Mikhail Saakashvili. It is appalling how the commentariat protects him. The US State Department is on the defensive recalling its close ties with him and Georgia?s crippled political opposition (because of Saakashvili authoritarian tendencies) now openly demands to know why Georgia?s sovereignty and territorial integrity have been compromised. The commentariat doesn?t have the moral fortitude to even make a pretense toward serving the public good by really questioning why the West continues to support ?the beacon of democracy in the Caucuses.?
All of this strikes me as quite strange and an obvious double-standard. Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic proved to be quite popular for the commentariat to demonize (and maybe for good reason). However, Saakashvili strikes me as part of that crowd who should be subject to intense scrutiny as well. But the commentariat will never admit this or do what is right. Milosevic and Karadzic were not puppets or supporters of the West, but Saakashvili is. This is why Saakashvili is getting a free pass. Again, this is a disgrace and a dereliction of duty on the part of Western media.
I can only guess when the commentariat will again consider Russia ? like when claiming Russia ?again fails to fulfill its ceasefire commitments.? I bet you that this will never be said about the Georgian side. Saying as much doesn?t sell.
Complain about this comment
new UN sattelite images suggest that 95% of the buildings in Cxinvali suffer any damage,while 50% of the Georgian villages buildings were complitly desroyed(deliberately)... [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] Georgian used it's artillery to destroy Russian 58th army units, as Russian soldier interviewd in "red star" jurnal has confirmed..
Complain about this comment
A piece of documentary
source: Russian Chief Prosecutor's Office.
interrogation of Georgian captives:
- What's your rank?
- Soldier.
- We know soldier, but what's your rank?
- Silence.
- Are you a regular army or a draftee from the reserve?
- I don't know.
- How did you get to the army?
- I was in Turkey. Then came uncle Lado. Said: You will serve in the police. But the shirt - they didn't give me. Said: "You served in the army before, so will serve now as well". Gave me military uniform. And said "To the police we'll take you later." You don't know, all will be taken to the police?
- Who is your commander?
- Silence.
- Who did you take the oath to?
- I don't know.
- You know what is "take the oath"?
- Yes. We all said.
- So, who did you take it to?
- Silence.
- Who is the main man in your country?
- In Gori? I am from Gori.
- No, in the whole of Georgia.
- Then, Stalin.
- Don't say nonsence. Stalin is dead. Who is the main person in Georgia?
- Then - Bush. Honestly! Bush.
- Did you know you were shooting at peace-keepers?
- What peace-keepers? What for peace-keepers?
Peace-keepers are priests. No, no priests were there. I haven't seen.
- So, who did you think you shot at?
- Bandits. They told us - there are bandits there. Drink wine and don't let anyone pass. Stop merchant goods. Stop tourists. Don't let Georgia sell wine to Russia. That's why we have to increase price of cigarettes. Bandits from Sukhumi.
- Why Sukhumi?
- I don't know.
- What has Sukhumi to do with it! You know what is Sukhumi?
- No. Must be such a country, Tsukumi.
- What did your commander tell you?
- Said - by the tunnel we'll be met by Turks.
- What Turks?
- Turks from Turkey.
- Which "turks"? How would Turkish people get there?
- I don't know. A batallion. Or - a regiment.
- How would they appear there?
- Don't know. They said - marines, turks. Said - when we pass through Tshinvali - don't shoot after, by the tunnel will be turks. But I didn't shoot. At all. Chiga can prove you.
- What Chiga?
- My buddy, over there.
Complain about this comment
I am a Russian man.
To understand where the truth and where the lie is impossible. Today to make it it is difficult . You see and hear that we are agressor and so on. But there are things which do not hide. I see amicable condemnation which doesnt sets as the purpose to secure people living in Georgia, Ossetias or Abkhazia. That there now nobody shoots, and that Georgian`s and Ossets dont killing one another, it is not interesting as I can see. There is a forcing in a society of fear in front of Russia. Here on site BBC the message on that Ossets celebrate the victory, and over a photo to this artical not joyful children and their mothers, but their husbands with the weapon. I did not look at a photo concern independence of Kosovo, I think there were just joyful civil. That animosities in public opinion of the West is forced artificial and single-minded, it is obvious to me. I remember that so was in the same way before intrusion into Iraq, or before bombing Serbia. I know that today at authority in our country not flexible policies,They think enough that they are sure in truth themself. I do not know as far it will proceed, but it conducts obviously to war. Europe and Russia will weaken itself accrueing confrontation. Who takes benefits there?
Complain about this comment
Re: #177
Greetings, WebAliceinwonderland!
The excerpts you show are incredible... in many ways it seems unreal... but I find it inconceivable that anybody would make something like this up. A person or agency looking to fabricate evidence would doubtless make up something less outlandish.
I would welcome your commentary on its contents. Some of the questions I have include:
(1) Is there any significance to the expectation of Turkish military help?
(2) Is the young man's reference to Stalin and Bush somehow a linguistic and/or cultural misunderstanding? Are the interrogators meaning to ask "Who is in charge of the military operation?" whereas he instead answers the question "Whose ideology do you[r people] follow?"
(3) Is the "peace-keepers are priests" part also a linguistic misunderstanding, with the Russians meaning "peacekeeping soldiers" and he understanding "keepers of peace" (which could rationally be assumed to be a description of priests).
(4) Was the interview conducted with an interpreter, or just in Russian, or just in Georgian? Were both the interrogators and the young man equally fluent?
(5) What/where is Sukhumi?
(6) How young is the young man being interrogated?
Also, are you familiar with this: Mogoo li ya bit' na vashyem spisok soobshshyeniy? Moye imya plyoos dvadtsat' dyevyat' na domyena "goryachyey pochtye".
---
On a related note, I found out yesterday about CNN's propaganda job on a recent Putin interview. Are you familiar with that incident?
I was unsurprised at how intelligent, rational, and reasonable Putin sounded in the unedited version; but most Anglophones would be shocked. Well... no they wouldn't. Judging by the BBC comment boards, even those capable of thoughtful analysis of Western European events and power-dynamics would just ostrich-like find a way of discount the evidence right in front of their eyes.
The degree of Russiophobia and its continuing rise concerns me greatly. Particularly because I do not believe it is simply Russiophobia, but rather just the natural continuation of Western Europe's historical view of East Europeans as being unpleasant savages.
Poland and the Ukraine can host all the American rockets they want, even their grandchildren will never be respected the same way that citizens of even the dirtiest, poorest, most corrupt West European countries are.
It is depressing. I will be honest, I do not always feel like Russia is an ideal partner for all East European countries... but even on the worst day, Russians do not look down on us the way West Europeans do.
At the end of the day, despite the EU expansion... for the vast majority of West Europeans, Europe... the *real* Europe... the *good* Europe still ends at the Eastern borders of Finland, Germany, Austria, and Italy (including Greece as an exclave). The countries and people beyond those borders are just an inconvenience that can be (and is) readily avoided.
- Joember
Complain about this comment
The war Russia manufactured in Georgia is a diversion to get the minds of Russians off the fact that their society is in big trouble. After 74 years of going nowhere under communism, and 17 years of corruption and now thinly disguised despotism, Russia will waste much of its new found money on weapons to fight a war it should never think about and could not possibly win. A new cold war, an arms race with the US will end the same way the last one did, with Russia bankrupt. Russia need housing, medical care, technology, improvements to its infrastructure, and a thousand other things. One thing it does not need is wars in the Caucuses or Crimea or anywhere else. Russia should forget international politics and concentrate its efforts on fixing its domestic problems. Russians are dying at twice the rate they are being born. 2 million deaths a year compared to 1 million births. At this rate, one day the depopulated areas of Eastern Russia will look irresistable to the growing population of China.
Complain about this comment
To Joember29, Re 179, from aponomar
The questions you've asked, in the order:
1./ No, there was no significance attached, to the expectations of Turkish military help.
Because nothing of it was heard, seen, expected or noticed, not at all from other sources. But since it was curiously mentioned by several captives, not one, the conclusion was made that simply Georgian commanders lied a little bit to their soldiers, to encourage them up, like, they are not alone, there will be more help after they pass through Tshinvali.
Not all the records of Georgian soldiers' interrogation were published here, only these ones as most outstanding, kind of unusual, and with a commentary below giving simply the summary of what was said by the rest, in percentages.
The most remarkable one was that 40% captives believed Georgia is NATO. The commanders told the men they are NATO, and if any aggravations - then "Turkey as the nearest NATO country will come to help
them out, and then - USA." So this crazy idea of "turkish marines, by the tunnel" must have been simply invented by Georgian commanders, as a practical explanation, easy to understand by their soldiers, how "NATO will come to help".
2./ Who is in charge of the military operation? and why "Stalin"?
The commentary of the General Prosecution offce here says that nobody of course expected such a hilarious reply, but the probing was done simply because hardly anyone of the captives knew the name of the Georgian top brass in the country, their military commander. They all said their immediate commander's name, of small respective units, but noone knew higher commanders, or divisions in the army.
Joining the army all took the oath, but nobody paid attention to who. The conclusion was drawn they are not very informed about their army rules and structure, who is who.
And yes, it can be simply linguistic misunderstanding. The question was about the oath, the "correct" answer would be "Saakashvili", because Georgian army takes the oath to him.
Such an answer would be handy to the Prosecution office, (that damn Saakashvili!), besides, it helps as minimum to know the citizenship of the soldier, like, honestly, maybe there were foreign troops fighting along the Georgia ones (Turkish? etc?).
But no, no foreigners fought Tshinvali.
And the man understood the question not in military terms, but simply - "who is the most important".
These captives were asked in Russian, as they said they understand Russian. There were also ottaken in georgia army to Saakashvili, so hers who said they don't - these were asked via an interpretor.
3./ Peace-keepers. The captive soldier simply isn't aware of such a term existance, of such special troops, simply didn't know the word, so he must have looked mentally for what it can be, and decided he is asked about priests.
This shows the Georgian army commanders did not tell their soldiers about the peace-keeping garrison, that it is wrong and not allowed to shoot at peace-keepers.
They knew the peacekeepers are there, I mean, they are there for 16 years, but they opted to describe them as "bandits", that exactly should be shot at.
4./ Sukhumi is the capital city of Abhasia.
"Bandits, from Sukhumi", must have been invented by Georgian army commanders to describe peace-keepers, because they were indeed a mixture, not Russians there only, Abhasians as well, and many from parts of Caucasus other.
The crazy thing about the soldier not knowing what Sukhumi is is his general state of education. I mean, if Georgia so badly wants its province back, considering it "Georgia proper" - why Georgians don't know about Abhasia region in Georgia existence, and the capital city name of it?
This was characteristic - most soldiers of the Georgian army didn't know the name Abhasia and Sukhumi - kind of - is supposed to be - their own land.
5./ I saw captives interrogation on TV as well. No, not all young, some 20+ but some 40+. Russian TV was showing them non-stop because Georgian TV of course suggested we torture captives non-stop,
so they were shown as much as possible in reply - to show that they are allright, and many were using the chance to say hello home. Basically, some became total movie stars! One was wounded, in hospital - swarmed with media gang. He wasn't even wounded, had a leg broken, and his friends left him behind because of the broken leg, so he was very angry with his freinds and therefore most talkative of all. Kept telling journalists :"See? I did not fight. Only leg broken. I simply slipped." And then was taking off his pajamas to show his breast - "see? no wounds. Not a scratch. I didn't shoot anyone, didn't fight". In fact, he looked quite ugly. But was very talkative so media loved him.
Of 200 captives Russian army got only 30 proved to be normal army, the rest - hell knows what. So these 30 were kept, the rest sent over that bridge where all seems to happen. Like, asked "do you want to stay in Russia? No? then - sign here - and sent across the bridge, and the mayor of Gori was meeting them on the bridge half-way. "Normal army" it's when you take captives in soldier uniforms and with arms in hand and in action, and when Russian army does it, not improvised South Osetian military units, who of course also want to be considered an army, but technically they can't take proper captives. All they took was illegal catch, and illegal catch was sent home first.
By now even 30 "proper" are also home in Georgia, we have long time ago made the exchange. Besides, what worth, honestly, are captives' words? They can always deny everything later. So not much was expected in the first place, just, some general ideas to be gotten.
And these general ideas are Georgian folks are not very educated, don't know basic facts ab own country, and were mis-informed by their commanders re NATO and peace-keeper status and very existence.
Most said they were there to fight "bandits" and "because of the increasing price of the cigarettes". Like, if they'd take Tshinvali - cigarettes will become more cheap, somehow! Hilarious. We didn't know it was the war for the cigarettes!
And 100% captives said a./ they dearly love mother-Russia!!!
didn't shoot at nobody!!!
and "will say anything you want if you call this telephone number and they will bring you money and you will let me free!"
Overall Georgian army morals leave much to be desired, so to say, - this was the only conclusion drawn, plus some funny quotes, like Bush and Stalin and "war for cigarettes."
Complain about this comment
To MarcusAureliusII - who'd dispute this! surely heaps of troubles at home that need to be taken care of.
Cannot agree with you better, except the war was not pre-planned, it simply damn happened, as , you know, what happens.
In fact the moods here before the war were quite high, seemed to be nothing "to divert attention from."
Troubles began after the war, not before.
Personally I was always for the idea to keep Russia as compact as possible. The more loosely-connected pieces leaving us the better. But on the other hand, a compact Russia is an oxymoron that never existed on earth. The essence of the country, its driving force and strength is expansionism, mastering distances.
By the way, USA without an old competitor has also lost some momentum, in the past years. Some competition you ought to have to stay fit.
Complain about this comment
And, Jo, indeed Russians don't look down at Europe in between Russia and "old Europe".
The attitude I think it is on country-per-country basis, not "all together cobined" - at all.
We are not yet used to think about new Europe as alltogether, it's a recent thing, we view countries separately. Enough of history and experience about each known to be able to have separate opinions. I mean, every country has so much of own personality, how can you combine.
No, of course you can, now, in the EU, but Russians still view all separately.
Old Europe just sometimes tends to view "new Europe" combined because they never knew it in the first place. Was "backwoods" to them, dark unknown areas on the edge, certainly as late as before the 2ndWW. That's why so easily surrendered to Stalin. Not dear. And Stalin was a so sly guy, he knew what to ask for to get it easily granted.
For example Red Army also liberated Austria from Germans, took Wien, and all. But didn't even attempt to keep it, never asked to have Austria, because knew the answer will be negative. Re the phrase you quoted, yes, familiar, like "aponomar v goryachey pochte kom."
Complain about this comment
Once the USSR disappeared, the US should have quit NATO and walked out of Europe. Russia was not a threat to the US. It does not want and cannot take over the world the way the USSR could have. This is all Clinton's fault, him and his foolish advisors Hollbrook, Albright, and Lake. These are European issues. What is the US doing in Georgia anyway? Does the US intend to defend every government that it sees as a democracy? This talk of an American empire is utter nonsense. Kosovo, Ukraine, Ossetia, Abkhazia are all European problems. The only problem the US has in common with Russia is Islamic terrorism and we are on the same side. If Europe wants to fight a new cold war with Russia, let them do it themselves and pay for it with their own money and blood. If Russia cuts off Europe's oil and gas this winter, I do not want to see Americans sacrifice to try to help them out. Let them get out of the mess they've made for themselves by themselves. Besides, they keep bragging about how rich and independent that are. Let them prove it.
Complain about this comment
Worse than the Cold War
The current Russia-West bilateral relationship is at an extreme low. And the oft asked question about the return to a new Cold War misses the point. A return to the Cold War is simply impossible. The same historical, ideological, and political imperatives do not exist today. However, the conflict brewing between Russia and the West could become far worse than the US-Soviet standoff of the past.
The world survived the Cold War because there was a set of rules both the United States and the Soviet Union accepted. The most important rule was to avoid - at all costs - direct confrontation. The Cuban missile crisis was a lesson learned by both the Russians and the Americans ? both understand how direct confrontation could end. With direct confrontation out of the question, promoting and backing of proxy conflicts was the plan of action. And we saw this happen all over the world. When Russia unilaterally withdrew from the Cold War conflict and ended communist rule (and ideology) that global conflict came to an end ? peacefully.
The Soviet collapse gave Russia a new lease on life. Russia eagerly embraced market capitalism, started its own democracy project, and desired to be integrated into international institutions. And the West encouraged this. However, there was a catch: Russia would enter Western institutions on terms that suited the West. Like a schoolboy, Russia would be judged every step of the way.
While Russia was weak, Moscow had little choice. Russia made countless concessions to the West (primarily to Washington). Moscow?s Western partners did not make a single concession. The concessions Russia made covered issues related to security, trade, investment, and involvement on the world stage. That all changed with the rise of Vladimir Putin. (And for all the sceptics ? no, it is not only because of high energy prices!).
What Putin recognised and Dmitry Medvedev is continuing to recognise is the fact that the US will not accept any limits on its global reach. Washington is not interested in having any equal partners. And it uses terms like ?democracy promotion? when in fact democracy is the least of Washington?s real concerns. We have repeatedly seen how the US will turn a blind eye on a country?s democracy (like Georgia?s) when it suits America?s geopolitical and economic aims. This is not new. But what is new is far more frightening than what we saw during the Cold War.
Georgia?s aggression against South Ossetia is disturbingly new and very dangerous. No matter how you see it, this aggression was somehow sponsored by Washington - an American string-puppet all but attacked Russia. This never happened during the Cold War. This has changed everything. Any level of trust the between Moscow and Washington has been destroyed. From now on, Russia will not only be overtly and openly suspicious of the US and its controlled institutions (like NATO), but it will - without hesitation - go eye-to-eye with Washington when the time and place is right.
The West?s toolbox to punish Russia for having an independent foreign policy (and home grown democracy) is very limited. And it is going to find this out more and more as time passes. The West?s support of and the commentariat?s free pass for Saakashvili?s brutal regime has long term consequences.
For years I have said that Russia can help the West when it wants to but can also be very unhelpful when it chooses to. It never should have come to this. Now we are left with the new reality of deep-seated suspicions separating natural allies. It is Washington?s Soviet-like neocon ideological genetic code that is getting in the way.
This is how all of this seen from Moscow: The US supported a direct attack against Russia. That attack failed. Nonetheless, the aggressor is rewarded and the victims blamed. This will be remembered.
We are not returning to anything resembling the Cold War. What we are seeing unfold is a very different and challenging conflict. The US has demonstrated yet again that it refuses to acknowledge Russia?s own self-defined interests (in every sense) and it will even use military force to undermine any country that defies Washington?s unilateralism.
Yes, we are seeing a new Russia-West conflict. And the script is being written by the West. If Russia again is to be the enemy, then be wary. Today?s Russia is not an enemy to be trifled with. As I see it, there are no winners in this scenario. Unlike the Cold War, there are no rules agreed to. It is this uncertainty that should worry us.
Complain about this comment
I for one am not concerned with what happens to Europe as a consequence. I just think the US should stay out of it. I don't see that the US has anything to gain out of this. Technically South Ossetia and Abkhazia are not Russia. Neither is the Crimea. But the point is well taken. The US should let Europe deal with it. Let them absorb the cost of an attack, pay the consequences of the conflict. Hopefully it will turn out that way anyway. Shutting off the oil and gas for just a few weeks will teach the Europeans a lesson they won't soon forget.
Russia for its part has not been helpful. Not in Iran or Iraq. These and Pakistan and Afghanistan are where real American security threats were and are. And North Korea. Whether or not Russia knows it, its faces the same threats from Islamic terrorism the US and the rest of the world faces.
Complain about this comment
to MarcusAureliusII:
Regarding:
Whether or not Russia knows it, its faces the same threats from Islamic terrorism the US and the rest of the world faces.
If you look at all terrorists, like Somalia pirates, Syria, Afghan, you name it?they adore Russians for producing weapons such as Ak-47. It?s only USA and NATO Nations faced with threats.
Complain about this comment
I am a late arrival to this from Mark's Lisbon Treaty blog.
I remember lying in bed listening to RTE Radio news (Irish National Radio)at 7am and hearing about the very first ceasefire. The report said that the ceasfire was brokered by the Russians and this before Mr Sarkosy landed in Georgia. The news commentator stated that this was probably done "to steal a march on Sarkosy and prevent him taking the credit for it".
That was the only mention of the ceasefire until the midday news and the this report stated that it was brokered by Mr Sarkosy.
There are only two conclusions I can draw from the conflicting accounts of the ceasfire negotiations.
1. That the early morning report of the Russian brokered ceasefire was incorrect and taken off the air or
2. That the early morning report was correct but that it was taken off the air so that Sarkosy could claim credit for it and the ceasefire announced after he had arrived in Georgia.
My second option may be a little paranoid , but it would suit Sarkosy to show what a Lisbon Treaty Europe could do. It would suit the Russians to allow the solution to be arrived at by Europeans talking to Europeans so butt out USA. I have no real problem with this but I would not like to see a NATO without the US
My problem is the lack of democracy in the Lisbon Treaty. The EU , as Sarkosy has shown (perhaps ?), can broker a ceasefire without the Lisbon Treaty so lets carry on as we are and fine tune the EU. Drop the Lisbon Treaty
There are many areas in the Lisbon Treaty that require unanimity in order to pass.
How can any small EU country have confidence that their decision will be respected in these areas when the unanimity rule is dropped at the very first test.
Sarkosy, and his ilk, are trying to bully us (Irish) into voting again but we do not want to give the EU Constitution primacy over our Constitution. We want to stay in the EU and we want it to carry on as it is under Nice and the eurocrats can get on and improve the EU without Lisbon
100% of the Irish people who voted in the Lisbon Treaty Referendum were in favour of the EU. The majority just voted against a Lisbon Treaty EU
Complain about this comment
Andrey1234
Really? Then how do you explain Beslan, the theater in Moscow, and the apartments that got blown up? They may love AK47s but that doesn't mean they won't hesitate to use them against the nation that invented them. The Saudis, Indonesians, Pakistanis, Kenyans and a lot of others thought they were safe too. Even the US did. Surprise. You think they have forgotten Chechnya? They haven't even forgotten Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
to MarcusAureliusII:
Regarding:
Then how do you explain Beslan, the theater in Moscow, and the apartments that got blown up?
Yes, Beslan and many other parts of Russia were faced with Chechen rebels that were sponsored by the west or who ever wanted to see weak Russia, because Russia was still weak integrated into Democratic country at that time, but that was then and now Chechnya is part of Russia and many Chechens fought Georgians in South Osettian war?so those days of threats from Chechnya is over and Russia/Chechnya is very united now and if you don?t believe me?then take a trip to Groznyy city in Chechnya
Complain about this comment
I?ll tell you even more, I?m Russian and in Russia I have a lots of Georgian friends who really against regime of Shakashvilly that is heavily supported by the West. What the West is trying in Georgia is like to force a democracy in Iraq under Sadam Hussein?I know you have this impression that after this future Georgian regime collapse Russia and Georgia will always be enemy, but I know it?s not the case?USA and NATO is really wasting their time/money there?.West is really after Russia there?looking for reason to stay closer by the Russian boarders, maybe going after Russian oil pipes supply to EU?who knows?
Complain about this comment
you think the West supplied the Chechen rebels? You are delusional. Nobody in the west cared about Chechnya until Russia blew up Grozny and killed many of its people.
BTW, I'm not going to Grozny, Russia, or Georgia. I'm not leaving the USA ever again. I've seen more of the world than I care to already.
Russia wants a cold war with the USA? Fine with me. Russia will lose this one just like it lost the last one. Broken and bankrupt. A few bucks in its pocket from a bubble in the oil market and Russians are big shots again. The money has been wasted. Instead of houses, roads, doctors, medicine, hospitals....they bought weapons. And they are utterly useless too...and junk. Whom exacty does Russia intend to fight. Not the US I hope. That would be a very big mistake.
Complain about this comment
187. andrey1234
"It?s only USA and NATO Nations faced with threats. "
Major terror attacks in Russia:
* Beslan school hostage crisis (2004)
* Russian aircraft bombings (2004)
* Moscow metro bombing (2004)
* Moscow theater hostage crisis (2002)
* Russian apartment bombings (1999)
* Budyonnovsk hospital hostage crisis (1995)
It's not just USA and NATO that faces that threat, most countries do!
Complain about this comment
SilentIvan read my # 190
And
MarcusAureliusII regarding:
You think the West supplied the Chechen rebels?
Yes, but I would say more like sponsored
(Money) wise not trained them
Russia and Chechnya united now, no worries
Infect they more encouraged to fight Americans now
As far as Cold War read my #188
Just think for a second if Russia would supply latest weapons to Iraq, Afghan and Syria
Complain about this comment
NATO and the "unacceptable"
NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer is a politician having difficulty dealing with reality. Before leading a huge alliance junket to Tbilisi Monday he told the Financial Times "The option of keeping Russian forces in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is not acceptable." He also berated the EU for not getting a better ceasefire agreement from Russia. De Hoop Scheffer's indignation is indicative of what is wrong with NATO and the current state of international relations.
When the head of NATO says something is "unacceptable" to the alliance, a double-standard is not too far behind. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, most of what NATO has done is completely unacceptable - an insult to commonsense and usually international law.
I'll spare readers my usual litany of NATO's broken promises (like expansion) and complete disregard for international law (military action against the former Yugoslavia and the illegal recognition of Kosovo). The alliance finds it acceptable to be beyond any law. NATO's arrogance appears to have no bounds.
Let's consider Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. This decision was not easy and needless to say problematic. However, Russia took into consideration the new political facts on the ground. Tbilisi's Western backers have refused to condemn Saakashvili's reckless adventurism. The opposite has happened. NATO, now more than ever, wants to eventually see Georgia in the alliance and Western money is targeted to rebuild Georgia (and I suspect that includes Tbilisi's
military).
It is unacceptable on the part of NATO to expect the people of South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Russia to believe the alliance has any interest in their security. NATO's support of the Saakashvili regime sends the signal that it will reward aggression to further its geopolitical reach. For NATO, Georgia admission is only a matter of time - though not just yet.
While in Tbilisi, de Hoop Scheffer appeared to step away from the immediate induction of Georgia into the alliance. Why? Because of one big problem - and that problem is known as Saakashvili. NATO wants Georgia, but not its current leader. Saakashvili is a liability and an embarrassing failure for the alliance. It started with the Washington Post and then all the way to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty to face up to the fact that Saakashvili is now on life support.
Washington and NATO aren't interested in propping up Saakashvili anymore. They are looking for a graceful way to dump him. When riots again breakout on the streets of Tbilisi in November (marking Saakashvili's truly anti-democratic assault on Georgian society and political life last year), we should all assume that Saakashvili will flee to a safe (read: Western) haven.
Once the neck-tie eater is gone, expect NATO to ratchet-up its PR campaign in favor of Georgia and against Russia. And don't expect the alliance to change its behavior - it has an unalterable genetic code.
Consider the following: NATO claims what others do is unacceptable. But what of itself - does NATO live up to its own lofty ideals and commitments? The alliance's continued desire to induct Georgia into its ranks breaks its own rules. It is not only standard policy, but also an internal alliance legal requirement that NATO cannot give entry to a new member that has border disputes with its neighbors.
Clearly Russia and Georgia have massive border disputes - and they don't look to be resolved anytime soon. Then again, respecting rules and the law don't appear to be part of NATO's writ. It is this elitism that, slowly and surely, erodes respect of the alliance even among member countries. This something I very much welcome.
De Hoop Scheffer's shepherding 26 alliance ambassadors to Tbilisi still again shows NATO's true colors. On Tuesday the NATO herd will visit the Georgian town of Gori. Saakashvili, with his huge appetite to cover his tracks and with a handful of neck-ties, will show "evidence" of Russian aggression against his small country. Of course the media circus will continue.
Does de Hoop Scheffer have the foresight and guts to take the NATO herd to Tskhinval? I doubt it.
Predictably, I find this "unacceptable."
Complain about this comment
MarcusAurelius,
You are kind of right, Russia cannot full-heartily support you in Iraq and Iran, never will.
The max USA can expect from Russia in this respect - is that it stays neutral.
Absolute maximum that USA can hope for, (and even this will be stretching the reality).
Iraq - you know - we simply hated your attack on it.
1./ Russia doesn't like the idea of taking away monsters ruling other countries by force, as a dangerous idea, you know, when you start with this, it can take you far...)
(Note we didn't grab Saakashvili either. If he were a good guy - we might have. But as he is a monster - we leave monsters at place.)
2./ Memories of 2ndWW fresh here - we hate the simple looks of mass attack on a peaceful city, the shelling, ugh. It goes against Russian genes and nerves. Creep in secretely, slowly, do the coups - this we can stand - but not the open brazen mass fire attack.
3./ We knew you are going to be in the East that requires fine-tuning like a bull in the china-store. Which will cause troubles for the whole world later.
Like a bear in the china-store. We knew you are going to repeat own own mistakes, recognised own pattern of behaviour immediately in US - "oh no! they are going to do what we did in Afhganistan and in Chechnya!"
Re Iran - it is really simple. Russia is friends with Azerbajan. More importantly, Azerbajan wants to be friends with Russia.
There isn't a single newspaper here which you open and don't see the central insert - Azerbajan news - paid by Azrbajan government - explaining Russians how nice and wonderful Azerbajan is for work and play, for holidays and investment, in culture and what not. They spend millions on marketing itself in Russia. The only"ex".
Azerbajan we wonder why they want to be friends with us but the fact is they somehow want. The other half of Azerbajan is in Iran, also called Azerbajan. They all have relatives there and go back and forward non-stop. Closest relations. We can't possibly be happy with USA bombing away relatives of Azerbajan who strangely wants to be friends with us, one of the very few people on Earth.
And - Iran is muslim world, and Russia largely consists of own muslims. We don't want them how to say, to be unhappy, with Russian government, just to imagine! to support USA in its attack on the muslim world. Simple.
So I am afraid we aren't a companion to you in your Iraq/Iran adventures.
In Afghanistan you have stuck, because no pro-active action. The garrissons there simply react to Talibs separate raids, but don't do anything otherwise on own initiative. In this manner of fashion you can stay there forever. But, again, it depends on you, what mode you've selected for yourselves. When to be active when passive. You are passive in Afghanistan. Don't know why, haven't thought about it.
Apparently suits you somehow.
Complain about this comment
I read someplace here on BBC Russia does not let peaceful watchers and monitors or something else international
to enter South Osetia and Abhasia.
To watch and monitor and check for violations of Georgians' rights, like "Russia is scared about what they would find there!"
That Russia violates the conditions of the 2nd deal in a row signed with Sarkozy.
What a b-t.
Medvedev signed with Sarkozy that int'l monitors and watchers and what not are to be placed IN BUFFER ZONES - NOT IN SOUTH OSETIA AND ABKHASIA.
In Georgia mainland proper. Not a metre into S Osetia and Abhkasia.
Sarkozy now says "We should be guided by the spirit of the document."
Please, be guided by the letter, not by "spirit".
Hell knows what the "spirit" would dictate to the EU.
Russia keeps to what it signed. Plenty of anyone you wish - to Georgia. Nobody - to SO and Abhasia.
And if EU wishes so much to keep monitors on the continuous basis in SO and Abhasia - EU will have to negotiate with these independent countries. You want to enter them? Ask them.
This is the Russian position in the case.
Chancy entrants - ask SO and Abhasia.
Permanent monitors - ask them, again.
Complain about this comment
To lasso23205 who is "new to this forum"
You are right in suspecting, I mean, that we simply handed down to Sarkozy the cease -fire, as well as exit of 58th army out of Georgia land "proper" later on.
And played a little bit to him as the rep of EU, like, like to please the EU, that they could own they did it.
Surely we simply didn't want to bomb Georgia mainland more, were feeling we have out-done it even too much ourselves, time to stop, and of course never planned to stay in Georgia forever, or change their government or anything. We simply took what we wanted and left.
But then what is wrong with trying to please the EU a little bit, it is still a good intention. We are honestly thankful for the EU to step in, to take role as mediators, because UN did nil at all, and EU at least tried. So it's like favour for favour - EU stepped in, we made a step towards EU as well.
How all this develops further is another thing, but those steps were just a small exchange of polite dancing steps.
And please explain to me a Russian about that Lisbon Treaty that many mention here a lot and I have no idea what all woory about, what's that a mysterious and so important thing that all refer to. Seriously, simply a lack of education on my side. No idea what the Lisbon Treaty is about. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
to WebAliceinwonderland
Regarding:
I read someplace here on BBC Russia does not let peaceful watchers and monitors or something else international
to enter South Osetia and Abhasia.
South Osetia and Abhasia independed countries (maybe not recognized by UN) and now they don?t need monitoring by others as countries they have their national army (Russian army) peace watchers will be monitoring in Georgian buffer zones Georgian Army
Complain about this comment
As far as Russia is concerned, the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia has already been decided. Tbilisi has lost ? forever ? the moral right to rule over them.
The EU won?t say it, but it has essentially recognised that South Ossetia and Abkhazia are no longer and will never again be part of Georgia. This is a victory for the people of both and a vindication of Russian patience throughout the crisis.
The new agreement accepts the political realities on the ground. Saakashvili used force to recapture South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Now the EU will make sure ? through peaceful means ? that Tbilisi never resorts to violence again. Saakashvili has only himself to blame for destroying the territoral intergrity of his own country.
The EU chose pragmatism. And Russia has never asked for the unreasonable. I am sure the commentariat won't see it this way. And I am curious about how the US will respond.
Complain about this comment
MAII at #192, I agree with you. Russia today is a paper tiger (or bear), with delusions of grandeur and imperial ambitions WELL BEYOND its means. My own point about economic weakness in Russia, and the way to attack it seems to be coming true. The stock markets in Russia have lost half their value recently. Western investors are pulling out. The West, the US and the EU, and others, are looking to and making a future without over-reliance on fossil fuels. The Russian economic miracle may well end up to be very short lived and the Russians may end up very poor again.
I only want to laugh, and am eagerly anticipating the day, when Russia poor and broken again, comes back begging the West for handouts. Then we can negotiate the outstanding issues with it, territorial disputes, TAKE AWAY THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPONS (they have no right or justification to have them after threatening non-nuclear countries withnuclear attack, and behaving like a bully), give indepedence to those republics and territories that did not manage to break away from Russia during the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc.
Complain about this comment
to dumb Rob_Hob
Why don?t you laugh about failed policies like lost wars in Iraq, Afghan, Iran, Vietnam, and N.Koria? Ohh wait did you hear latest news US Treasuries in default?that?s funny
But ofcause your administration won?t say that
Complain about this comment
With your attitude your space program that Ronald Regain invested billions and billons maybe have to be the END. I can see your laughing face with no more NFL Monday?s night broadcast
Complain about this comment
To andrey1234
Hate to burst your bubble but we haven't lost Iraq, that is yet to be seen. Some area's of our economy have been hit hard but we are not in a recession. Where I live you would never know that there were any kind of economiic problems such as all the housing closures etc...Reagan's Star Wars program is alive and well thanks to Iran. Oh and Russia for giving them the nuclear technology that they need. So pat yourself on your back its Russia's fault. If Russia didn't give Iran the nuclear technology the Democrats would have had the Star Wars program scrapped. As far as my Sunday night Football gotta love them Chicago Bears and Indy Colts!
Complain about this comment
Have you noticed or not noticed something about Western media coverage of Russia since the Medvedev-Sarkozy deal? Well I have ? there hasn?t been much. And at a time in which seeing the peace process move forward is of up-most importance. It would appear the ?commentariat? (which means most of Western mainstream TV and print media) much prefers stories that show Russia in the worst possible light. When Russia constructively works to establish peace and security in its own backyard, in tandem with the EU, the commentariat loses interest.
Why does this happen? The reasons seem obvious to me.
As far as the commentariat is concerned, if Russia gets something positive out of negotiations settling the South Caucasian crisis something is wrong. The conclusion drawn is either the EU, for example, screwed up or Russia is up to no good. It is part of the commentariat?s gospel of faith that Russia should not be allowed to have ANY national security interests. And if Russia disagrees with the West, it is because Russia is against ?democracy,? ?liberal values,? and other ideological principles the West hides behind to promote its geopolitical interests at the expense others. Russia is no longer the Soviet Union, but West?s media is becoming more Soviet with every passing day.
When Russia claims it is protecting its national security interests, the commentariat automatically translate anything Moscow does into ?hostility,? ?aggression,? and bullying.? What was Russia supposed to do when Saakashvili embarked upon his genocidal campaign against South Ossetia? Was it supposed to stand on the sidelines and telephone the UN for a Security Council meeting? Well, that?s what the commentariat was probably hoping ? hoping that Russia would cave into Western sponsored aggression. The storyline the commentariat wanted to write was ?Russian occupiers rightly pushed out of Georgian territory.? They same copy probably would have never mentioned ethnic cleansing committed against the South Ossetian people. Well, Russian peacekeepers and military DID step in and foiled a humanitarian catastrophe ? and the commentariat has demonized Russia every since. The commentariat is on the wrong side of morality and common decency ? not to mention the obligations of responsible media.
Then there is the issue of the main villain in this plot ? Mikhail Saakashvili. It is appalling how the commentariat protects him. The US State Department is on the defensive recalling its close ties with him and Georgia?s crippled political opposition (because of Saakashvili authoritarian tendencies) now openly demands to know why Georgia?s sovereignty and territorial integrity have been compromised. The commentariat doesn?t have the moral fortitude to even make a pretense toward serving the public good by really questioning why the West continues to support ?the beacon of democracy in the Caucuses.?
All of this strikes me as quite strange and an obvious double-standard. Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic proved to be quite popular for the commentariat to demonize (and maybe for good reason). However, Saakashvili strikes me as part of that crowd who should be subject to intense scrutiny as well. But the commentariat will never admit this or do what is right. Milosevic and Karadzic were not puppets or supporters of the West, but Saakashvili is. This is why Saakashvili is getting a free pass. Again, this is a disgrace and a dereliction of duty on the part of Western media.
I can only guess when the commentariat will again consider Russia ? like when claiming Russia ?again fails to fulfill its ceasefire commitments.? I bet you that this will never be said about the Georgian side. Saying as much doesn?t sell.
Complain about this comment
In other news (still have to confirm), Putin has announced that Russia will increase its military budget by close to a third, to about 100 billion US dollars for 2009. Considering that Russia's economy is tiny compared to the USA, smaller than a few of the bigger conomies in the EU, etc, for Russia to spend this much money on weapons and not economic development is silly.
Perhaps Russia will end up like Burma... HUGE military compared to population size and the country's GDP, and opressive government with its own ultra-rich oligrachy, dominated by China, all living off starving and frightened Burmese people.
Good luck my Russian brothers... you will need a LOT of it with Tsar Putin running the country.
Complain about this comment
Following the period of hard hesitations and pondering what to do British Foreign Office finally decided to aplly measures to Russia for its military "operation to force Georgia into peace". Britain struck on the very soft Russian spot - its love for the bagpipes music. As Milliband has warned earlier, co-operation with Russia indeed may be stopped in a whole set of working directions. So, an employee of the Foreign Office commented that given Russia's behaviour in Georgia, Britain prohibits its military bagpipe orchestra to participate in the "Kremlin sunrises" bagpipe world festival in Moscow.
This news was discussed by thousands of Russians in the blogs.
Here is a translation of the comments from 14:38 to 16:30 on the 5th of September.
- I hoped to the last, that we will be able to avoid serious sanctions from the side of the West... But to no avail....
- Oh that's why the Russian stock exchange index has fallen so rapidly down!
- Heavy loss. A music festival in Moscow - and without English bagpipes! That's a real hit into the belly!
- Jesus Christ! It looks like Russia will have to do a military operation in the UK territory on "forcing the UK to making the arrival of the bagpipe orchestra possible".
- 40 excellent bagpipers - and sent to the dogs by the British Foreign Office! Scoundrels. But we will revenge for them.
- Exactly. Long time due. How long can one "pull the bagpipe" (make things delayed) with these sanctions.
- Oh yes. We can revenge. In revenge we won't send the Big Choir of the Red Army to the music festival in Britain !
- What do you mean - to send not the Big Choir of the Red Army?
We will send the choir. Together with the army.
- And I think that was Foreign Office personal revenge for not being able to get into EURO-2008 football, simply delayed. English revenge for EURO -2008
- I think we should all here try to cool down and wait for the Resolution of the UN Security Council on this matter, meanwhile we watch carefully the development of events.
Complain about this comment
Russians must be masochists. The bagpipes are a weapon for inflicting pain, torture without any visible scars.
Webaliceinwonderland, you are right, the US has been far too passive in Afghanistan. And it has foolishly allowed the terrorists to escape to the Pakistan side of the border where it has granted them sanctuary. If it doesn't change, that war will never end.
It was Putin himself who warned President Bush that Saddam Hussein was planning an attack on the US on American soil. He said he'd gotten this from his intelligence agencies. Then how could he be surprised or angry at a pre-emptive American strike? Maybe it's because of all the lost business and kickbacks Russia received from Saddam Hussein in deals which violated the UN sanctions...like selling Iraq arms.
Once Iran's nuclear threat becomes credible, the US or Israel or both will act. They won't care who they kill there so long as the threat is gone. I wouldn't be planning any vacations to Teheran anytime soon if I were you. The Russians have only themselves to thank. They were the ones foolish enough to provide Iran with the nuclear technology it wanted without any control over it. Who is anyone kidding? How could ten anti missile missiles in Poland defend against Russia when it still has about 12,000 nuclear weapons including those on ICBMs on submarines right off the coasts of the US? That propagand is for Russian domestic consumption only. It's a good diversion from the fact that most of the people in Russia need work, decent pay, and a better quality of life.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII finally you've figured it out.
(Forgot how the joke goes, something Doctor, doctor, what is it with me? tra la la , ???, may be I am a patriot?
- No need to worry, darling, you are simply a normal Russian masochist. )
I am not sure we sold Iraq arms. I'd think we researched something in this direction, but haven't sold. (But then I am always mixing up Iraq and Iran, like that blond in the anecdotes.) (However I think my "feeling is believing", as we have here the proverb converted, is true ab both).
And, like, I am sure I have a nice dress from Iran brought to me once by my, eh, distant relative.
What I wanted to say in that prev. message
is we can't allow ourselves to join you in your anti-muslim world expedition. Not the same calibre. Can't. Some things we can, This - sorry.
Re peculiar style in Afghanistan - it's Nogovitsyn who I mentioned earlier was wondering, what are the Americans there really up to, in this style. You are limited to garrisson life and literally can't step out.
The place has become far more dangerous than earlier, I mean, even by Afghan standards. And still you continue and continue deliveries there, we know because done via Russia, looks like a black hole.
Re Poland etc. it's not that Russia worries you'd be able to catch its missiles.
The idea here is Poland and Chech are just small bricks in your round the world defence system, the wall not completed yet, but it's being built continuously and steadily, step after step, and every step in this total control direction we surely don't like.
Because nuclear arms are diametrically opp. to regular arms. In the regular arms race the key is offence weapons, the more ofensive - the better. In the nuclear armament the key is defence. The one who builds defence (USA) plans to attack.
Complain about this comment
Webalice you really are in wonderland.
The ten American anti-balistic missiles planned for Poland are meant to defend against an attack from Iran. An attack from Russia would come over the north pole fired from inside Russia as well as from the sea. They would not pass over Poland. To defend against those launched from Russia, the anti-balistic missile would have to be located in Canada...or in outer space. We could do that if we wanted to violate the treaty against putting nuclear weapons in space. These ten missiles could not protect Western Europe from a Russian attack either. I don't think anyone in the US cares if Russia attacks Western Europe anyway. Most Americans IMO feel Western Europe is not worth defending anymore. The American public has a notoriously short memory but one thing Americans never forget is betrayal. Neither does the US government.
Russians made tons of money selling arms to Iraq. I'm sure that's where their night vision equipment came from. So did China, France and Germany. That's why they voted nyet in the Security Council.
America doesn't have an anti Muslim world expedition. It is not fighting a war against Islam. It is fighting against terrorists who happen to call themselves Moslems and use Islam as a pretext for their attacks. Some Moslems are sympathetic to them, many disown them and denounce them. Even among themselves, they are beginning to discuss if what they do is anti-Islamic. In most wars where Moslems are in conflict with non Moslems in recent years, America has sided with the Moslems. Proof? Kosovo.
If the US cannot defend itself against an Iranian attack before it is launched, that is prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it will attack Iran first. So will Israel. According to BBC reports in the current airing of "From Our Own Correspondent" Iranians are very well aware of the danger Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's words and deeds have put their nation in and they don't like it. They are angry at the economic impact the sanctions are having and they are rightly worried that they might be attacked.
Russia really is a black hole. It was clear to me after the fall of the USSR that anyone who invested their money there was crazy. Two giant international oil companies Shell and BP have had their assets stolen by the Russian government. Russia is as corrupt as anywhere in the world. You can't do business there without constant payoffs, bribes. The war between the KGB and the Oligarchs is just about over. The KGB has won. The population at large never stood a chance. Isn't it ironic that nobody in Russia questions how it is that during the USSR, the government owned everything, the dictatorship of the Proletariat and after 1991, most of the wealth wound up in just a few hands. They were allowed to get rich on the condition that they stayed out of politics. They could have one or the other but not both. But they forgot the deal with the devil they made and were greedy for power. That is why the KGB had to stop them. And Putin has. But as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, Putin has assumed the power of a dictator. He's killed off his critics at home including journalists, taken over the media, and now he is beginning his international expansion abroad. Whatever chance Russia had for desperately needed foreign capital investment, management skills, technical skills, and products of all sorts, Putin killed that too. Russia will remain a backwater in decline as China rises and the US remains powerful.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
Regarding ur #210
Everything you mention is nonsense, there is no direct link to KGB or indication of dictatorship by Putin, you said ?It was clear to me after the fall of the USSR that anyone who invested their money there was crazy? Iran is building nuclear power plan with Russian resources, its Iran?s investment. What does this have to do with everything you mention regarding past Russians internal problems? Which country doesn?t have any problems today rebuilding democratic country since their collapse? Once again Russia never treated its neighbors, fully complied with International law of UN. So What threat does Russia posses today? if US/NATO is not playing by International law, building their radars next to Russian boarders? What Rules should Russia fallow when Georgians started attacking? It?s supposed to call UN first? Let 70,000 innocent people die? Wait I know what your going to say next?Russia has Imperialistic ambitions (Georgian land) For what? It?s not like Georgia has oil/gas, they used to serve as transfer agent of energy supplies from Azbrzan. Who the hell wants to do Business with Georgian regime today? I know what your going to say (yes, after Russian?s damaged all Georgian infrastructure like, transfer pipes, hospitals airports, etc.) your full of propaganda nonsense, I say GIVE IT UP!!!
Complain about this comment
oj oj oj
Only USA and Russia have stayed in this forum. People with genuine interest in Georgian affairs, so to say. (though USA denies it).
Where is that Europe, that is supposed to be our mediator?! So short-lived interest.
Well, we still have BBC Britain for the mediators, that's something.
_____________
In fact I think USA and Georgia do have some mutually appealing cultural things in common, that kind of unites them. A./ both are crazy about family matters. All this "I love you, I love you too" can be re-planted from Georgia into Georgia.
B./ Crazy about children. Children in Georgia are gods. And very good-looking, small Georgians are one of the loveliest children on Earth. They say only small Japanese with straight black shiny hair look same much like dolls like small Georgians. Who, in their turn, ought to look like small curly cupids.
Only Georgians are crazy about boys only, in their Southern ways. When a 3-year old son in Georgia is being capriciously fed his dinner, all his sisters would stand around in a circle and entertain him. And all aunts, grandams and the whole family female folk in attention. Standing and adoring. Myself saw how one small girl held a huge plastic bowl with water, and the other held a tray with pebbles, so that the precious son could take pebbles and throw into the water, to help him live through the boredom of his dinner ceremony.
__________
So, America, understand us! You like to be liked by Georgia, it's always pleasant to be loved.
Likewise, Russia loves to be loved by Abkhasia, nobody else does - and they do!
I think it's kind of natural we both spoil our pets.
You give your own boy arms and other toys.
We gave our own one a country.
Looks like we simply compete in hospitality.
_____________________
MarcusAureliusII,
re the Polish missiles. I won't say much now, forgot where I tucked away the scheme, with arrows and interrupted lines and all that flying jazz, but I think you will have soon a similar thing in Canada or in Alaska or both, and by the way, you haven't signed smth re those early warning systems positioning in space. Surely you are completing the circle. But I don't have the needed paper now in hands so can't contradict you sensibly without it.
Re selling armament to Iraq and Iran.
I wanted to say I do not think we sold there nuclear arms, not ordinary arms. Sorry, mis-understanding. Normal arms sure we sold, some airplanes like SU jets or smth. And then had heaps of troubles trying to teach their pilots. Which reminds me of the navy fight btw Georgian vessels and Russian fleet in the Black Sea on Aug 10th. (:
With night-vision devices it's some strange Western obsession that Russia has them and sells them. Several foreigners throughout my life has asked me if I can get for them those night-vision gorgles or whatever from the Russian army.
FYI in this recent conflict it's Georgians who had them, not Russians. Who stared at the equipment of their captives with wow-wow eyes.
But then all possible, Russian army is the last point on Earth that gets Russia-made armament and gear. We sell all and army gets crumbs left-overs 20 yrs later, when it was made sure that all the rest like China etc. don't want it anymore.
Re muslim worldwide expedition, Kosovo indeed true but looks more like an exception from the rule. In fact, we wondered, you took the muslim side in the conflict. So unusual of you. What for you created 2 Albania-s in 1 small Europe is still a mystery. You do recognise it's same folk, and they even sported same Albanian flag, on their Kosovo independence day. Absolutely one and the same thing.
An additional muslim country in the centre of Europe - hardly a favour to Europe from USA ?
Well, I think you simply couldn't take the Serbs side in the conflict, because Serbs are Russia.
Even if what you do, in the muslim expedition, is not what it seems, it pretty much seems to all it is an anti-muslim world expedition of yours. As minimum, you'll never be able to prove it to the contrary to the muslim countries' governments.
Iranians yes I pity. Many of them interviewed, and how they live in the scare of your attack any other day...
_____________
Complain about this comment
Andrey1234
No reason for me to say anything, you've said it all for me. Your only problem, you don't want to believe it. I can't say I blame you, I wouldn't want to either if I were in your shoes.
Meanwhile, enjoy this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZtW8QwkwVo
Complain about this comment
What about human rights?
International law has hit a roadblock. Russia has recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia. To date, it appears unlikely many countries in the world will follow Russia?s lead any time soon. Kosovo, which declared unilateral independence in February, has been recognized by scores of countries, but many other countries are steadfast that they will continue to refuse to acknowledge Kosovo?s statehood.
Interestingly enough, South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Kosovo are recognized (or not recognized) due to interpretations of international law. Almost everyone touts the UN Charter and/or the Helsinki Final Act to justify their stance on recognition of a country?s international legal status. How did it come to this? How can the same basic legal documents be interpreted so differently?
What has happened to international law? During the Cold War there were differing opinions about how it should work, but since then consensus has slowly vanished. Was there something about the Cold War that made consensus about international law easier and more straightforward? Why is this not the case today?
In my humble opinion all of this happened because the West no longer sees the need for international law after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It claims it won the Cold War and now can do what it wants ? even if that means ignoring international law or making it up as it went along. We have seen this time and again ? be it the illegal invasion of Iraq or the dubious recognition of Kosovo. The consequences of this are grave and unpredictable.
I find all of this interesting. International law probably helped us avoid a major Cold War confrontation. What can?t it be of use today when the past Cold War rivalries find former foes having so many common international interests? I don?t have the answer(s). However, it is clear to me that Russia has come to the conclusion that if international law is not interpreted universally its new default position is the respect of human rights.
Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia because of its understanding of international law (and still does not recognize Kosovo for the same reasons). However, there is an important caveat. Russia has brought human rights ? the right to not be killed in an aggressive war ? back on the table. The Saakashvili regime is not repentant. Just the opposite, its aggression has been rewarded by its Western backers. This called for action ? particularly as Russia is always impacted by violence on its borders.
Russia has done the right thing. Sadly international law doesn?t stop wars (and sometimes it is ignored to start them). Until international law again has any salient meaning, falling back on what is undeniably important should be respected. And that is the protection of human rights.
Since the end of Cold War the West has used and abused international law to advance its geopolitical advantage (and usually against Russia?s legitimate security interests). The human rights factor is not part of the West?s international legal equation. But alas, at least the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia can now sleep at night knowing Tbilisi is no longer a threat to them.
If this is Russia?s understanding of international law, then I agree with it.
Complain about this comment
andrey1234
"What about human rights?"
I'll believe Russia's interested in human rights when I see it invade Sudan to protect the two million refugees whose homes have been burned, whose friends and families have been killed and whose lives are in grave risk in refugee camps this very minute, all committed by government troops and their militia allies (just like Serbia committed in the Balkins) and just like in the Balkins under the pretext of fighting rebel. Until that day, I'm not holding my breath waiting. This was a clear cut case of Russian imperial expansion. You can see the case already being made to do the same in the Crimea with their warning about Sevastopol.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII, yes, ab Sudan, really don't know. Never thought of them. Don't even know what's the cause there how happened, and can very approx. imagine where they are.
But you sure if we step in there you won't call it Russian imperialism?
You never know, I mean, you alone I can hold on the word, since we are kind of acquainted there, but I am in doubts ab America other (America minus one Mark).
With Sebastopol, your most grave expectations are correct. You've noticed
I am open (and in wonderland and all), so you might trust me when I say I don't view Russia (potentially) taking Crimea from Ukraine as theft. Not as imperial expansion. I feel Sebastopol my own, how to explain you, like my cat and dog.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII What is wrong with you? USSR is over long time ago....please keep Russian intirial long forgotten problems to yourslf. if USA is so innesent according to you, then how do you explain Columbine shooting, Oklahoma bombing, West Virginia shooting, WTC, embassy bombing, that makes USA really is a black hole?
Complain about this comment
Webaliceinwonderland, Crimea is part of Ukraine, not Russia. The problem you and your fellow countrymen have is that...they don't seem to understand that. It is putting them on a collision course with World War III. Sooner or later they will invade one country too many. As far as Sudan is concerned, the Chinese are already there...on the side of the government. Why do you think there were so many protests against the Chinese in the west when the Olympic torch was touring around the world? Sudan and Tibet.
andrey1234
What to terrorist attacks and crimes comitted in the US have to do with the price of tea in China? In other words... what does that have to do with the Russian invasion of other nations to build back its empire? If they keep it up, they are headed for more trouble than you can possibly imagine.
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII
regarding:
If they keep it up, they are headed for more trouble than you can possibly imagine.
What possible threat Russia is to the world?
I can see more thread comming from US/NATO to every week country
Complain about this comment
Regarding Crimea: 90% of the population is Russian. So if they choose to be part of Russia there is nothing on this planet that can stop it.
Russians built Sevastopol 200 years a go. It is Russian today as much as it ever was.
A lot of Russians have lost their lives defending it from the British, French and Turkish alliance in 1854. And again in 1943 from Germany. I am sure they will defend this piece of land again if they have to. As you may know it was just an administrative move when Chruschev assigned it to Ukraine. He sure did not mean for the Western Ukrainians (Galicians) to own it.
Complain about this comment
The US built the Panama Canal. Britain built Hong Kong into what it became. That has nothing to do with it. There are parts of Brooklyn in New York City like Brighton Beach that have a large concentration of Russian emigrees and their decendants. Does Russia want to take that over too? Annexing Savistopol the way it annexed South Ossetia and Abkhazia would be a giant step towards war.
Complain about this comment
It depends how they do it Self Determination has awas been one of the principles of Democracy, of course it would be bad for the world but that part of the problem with people being able to choose often the make bad decisions, like 'Bush' twice (for christs sake) invading Iraq (WMD's anybody?)
Complain about this comment
The thing about Ukrain and Crimea is alot of noise about nothing. Panic like hysteria of the west is all it seems to be. Why would Russia want to retake Crimea?
The Ukranean presidents popularity is like what 5%? The alternative and oppostion are all pro Russian. All Russia has to do is wait for the current administration to leave (and judging by recent political crisis and break up of the governing alliance its gonna happen sooner rather than later) Then a pro Russian government will be back in control. Russia will renew the lease for the port in Sevastopol, relations will improve.
Makes no sence to go to war over Crimea. The Georgian crisis has been in the making since war in 1991, it had 17 years to get to war in August 2008.
There is no such crisis between Ukrain and Russia as far as I see it. Way too much connects our two nations and its much much more than what connected RF with Georgia!
What connected Russia with Georgia is 200 years of history and 1 million Georgians working IN Russia and sending money home to relatives. Thats about it...
Complain about this comment
Rice lectures to the end
U.S. Secretary of the State, Condoleezza Rice, delivered what is probably her last major speech on Russia while in office. Addressing the German Marshall Fund, she demonstrated that she understands very little of what Russia?s foreign policy is all about. Rice can?t get beyond the web of double-standards and self-righteousness that has been part and parcel of U.S. foreign policy for almost the last twenty years.
Like a headmaster of a prep school, Rice told her audience what was right (preciously little) and wrong about Russia?s foreign policy (and a few condescending comments on Russia?s domestic policies). In a nutshell Russia ? the schoolboy ? misbehaves badly in the world. Rice?s speech sounded like a report card being read out to parents who should be ashamed.
Everyone ?miscalculated? when it came to the origins of Saakashvili?s war. Rice went on to state that Tbilisi was provoked by Russia to start the war. This is utter nonsense and an insult to those who needlessly died. Let?s give it a thought: Russia tricked the Georgians into killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers. Russia tricked Tbilisi into shelling women and children as they slept. How did Russia stand to benefit from that? Rice did not mention a word on the militarisation of the Saakashvili regime ? paid for and trained by Washington. What was that beefed-up military for? Well we know the answer to the question now.
Rice claims Russia violated international law and dismembered a sovereign state. But she contradicted herself. She admitted that Tbilisi started military operations first (though because of a ?provocation?). International law became a dead letter when Saakashvili ordered the first shot. Rice is right on one point ? Georgia?s sovereignty has been changed. However, it was Saakashvili?s regime with American support that created this new reality. Russia is not selfishly seeking security on its borders.
Just as an aside, I would have liked to ask her the following question: Americans are regarded as occupiers in Iraq. Are Russians seen as occupiers in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? The answer is obvious! Russian troops are seen as liberators. Anyone who believes that we can go back to the status quo ante in Georgia is delusional. The good news is Tbilisi will never again threaten its former breakaway republics.
Rice spoke with contempt when referring to Dmitry Medvedev?s claim that Russia has ?privileged? interests in the region of the world where it is situated. This comes from an American Secretary of State who sees the entire world as Washington?s sphere of influence! I don?t even have words to describe this enormous double-standard.
Again Rice went on to talk about how wonderful, friendly, democratic and open, blah, blah, etc NATO is. She repeated the usual litanies about how it projects peace and security. Ask the Serbs what they think about this flowery language. Ask ethnic Russians in Ukraine what they think about peace-loving NATO. The fact is Rice and NATO never think about anybody else?s security ? least of all Russia?s. Never once did Rice mention how Russia understands its own security interests. Never once - to my mind ? has the US ever sat down with Russia to cut a deal both can live with.
Rice really annoyed me by her remarks that Russia bullies its neighbors - and the reference to using energy as a blackmail tool is simply ludicrous. The U.S. has spent millions of dollars to promote regime changes in the post-Soviet space. Is Russia really expected to stand on the sidelines and watch the U.S. overthrow regimes it doesn?t like in favor of those that promote its global geopolitical agenda (that is almost always directed against Russia?s influence in the post-Soviet space)? Any Russian leader who would allow this to happen would be charged with dereliction of duty.
As for using energy to blackmail its neighbors, Rice obviously does not know much about Russia?s energy policy. Prior to about 2001, Russia DID use energy as a political tool. But such a policy did not produce dividends. Russia provided CHEAP energy to its neighbors in the HOPE of political deference. What happened? Russia?s neighbors gladly accepted Russia?s cheap energy, but at the same time entertained Western approaches. Essentially what Russia tried to do was to subsidise its neighbours? foreign policies and it didn?t work. Going to market prices takes politics out of the equation. But Dick Cheney doesn?t agree. Energy is his favourite weapon of choice to start wars.
Rice?s speech was pathetic. It never entered her mind that others have their own opinion and interests. The U.S. has needlessly created havoc in the world. It has made potential friends into enemies. It ignores international law when it suits its purposes. But it condemns others for not following it. It supports aggression, but never admits its own. And it can?t even run its own economy-based market principles it claims to hold so dear.
I, for one, will be very happy to see Ms Rice leave the scene. She insults even average intelligence. Her views on Russia and how the world should kneel to American interests are Orwellian. The only upside to all of this is the plain fact that Rice and the rest of the Bush people have basically bankrupted the U.S. Washington today has few resources to play the world as its own chessboard. Its ideologically driven over-reach is ending in the checkmate of itself.
In Russian there is a saying: The dogs bark, but the caravan passes. And Rice?s bark has no bite.
Complain about this comment
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2WBAXOgevA
Complain about this comment
From a Western perspective, Russia did in South Ossetia and Abkhazia what Serbia failed to do in the Balkins, ethnic cleansing (genocide) followed by a military takeover. By Western standards, the attack by the Georgian government was an internal affair of Georgia even if Russians didn't see it that way. By Western reasoning, Russia provoked it in order to achieve the takeover it planned all along. This will cost Russia heavily. It's on a collision course for a lot of bad times facing isolation and exclusion from Western capital investment, technology, and being part of the modern world. It's part of a tapestry of other actions as well.
Russia has always had the capacity to destroy the US and the rest of the world since the at least the late 1960s or mid 1970s. There is no secret to that. The US can do the same. The war propaganda film is stupid. It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know but it does point out the imbecility of the claim that 10 antiballistic missiles in Poland are a threat to Russia's security.
I once read an interesting article back in the early 80s. It said Moscow was believed to be the most heavily targeted city in the world. Between the British, French, and Americans, it was believed that at least 67 nuclear weapons were aimed at destroying it. The interesting point about it was that by the time the B-52 bombers were expected to arrrive, they would have had great difficulty finding the target by any visual cues, the first few dozen thermonuclear warheads having left no trace of where the city had once been only a short time earlier. They'd have had to drop their bombs on what was in effect an empty terrain only going by the coordinates of where Moscow had once been. Other than blow up the world or freeze Europe out and shut it down by cutting off its gas and oil, it doesn't seem like there is much Russia can do in this world. What a waste of money, energy, and talent when there is so much its people really need so desperately. And if they complain, they will probably be shot or poisoned the way their journalists were or maybe put into a Gulag and treated for "creeping schizophrenia" Russian psychiatrists invented to torture political prisoners with thorazine in the USSR days.
BTW, the music in the video seems to have been plagerized from Carl Orff's Carmina Burana. Not an exact copy but close enough to be instantly recognizable.
Here's an interesting link to "Big Ivan" also known as Tsar Bomba, the king of bombs.
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html
Useless as a weapon but still interesting. This site also contains a great deal of information about nuclear weapons for anyone interested.
Complain about this comment
I am an American living in Prague, which makes the EU situation very interesting to me as an outside observer living in an EU country. I currently work in a hotel, and we get many guests from EU countries who want to know my opinion on the EU as an American. My problem is that I don't know enough about the role of the rotating EU Presidency. Can someone explain this role to me? Also, I know that the Czech Republic is next in line for the Presidency. Can anyone tell me what this may mean for the EU?
Thanks
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS