Ive no particular insight on the disinformation, Cactus, but as i've commented earlier in this thread, when it kicked off, it seemed that some branch of 'government' in London was scrambling to get their 'experts' on sky and the bbc.

And the maelstrom of lies......

SeathrúnCeitinn wrote:

Squire wrote:

I have copied this link off Politics.ie. Mark Almond is an excellent lecturer with the necessary cynicism for history and politics. Some interesting observations. A lot of good points and well worth taking the time to listen.

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/

I was going to post that up here. It's hilarious in parts and the Enron prize quote was a hoot. I hope those on the frontlines could laugh as heartily but sometimes gallows humour can deliver the message better

Mark Almond's talk on video is as you say amusing and informative. He also in part answers my question about the disinformation regurgitated by the media.

Squire wrote:

I have copied this link off Politics.ie. Mark Almond is an excellent lecturer with the necessary cynicism for history and politics. Some interesting observations. A lot of good points and well worth taking the time to listen.

http://unrepentantcommunist.blogspot.com/

Very informative. Confirmed a few suspicions

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm

I do not wish to suggest that the deaths for 133 people was not horrific, or tragic, however, it does counteract the view (put forward by the likes of Russia today) that those deaths were part of a genocidal campaign, and not just unfortunate casualties caught in the crossfire, or as a result of a reckless attack ignoring potential civilian casualties. It also undermines Russia's casus belli, given that the Georgians had announced an end to hostilities before the Russians even invaded.

riadach wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm

I do not wish to suggest that the deaths for 133 people was not horrific, or tragic, however, it does counteract the view (put forward by the likes of Russia today) that those deaths were part of a genocidal campaign, and not just unfortunate casualties caught in the crossfire, or as a result of a reckless attack ignoring potential civilian casualties. It also undermines Russia's casus belli, given that the Georgians had announced an end to hostilities before the Russians even invaded.

Níor chreid mé na huimhreacha sin agus mé ag féachaint air........d'éirigh go mór leis na Rúisigh chun a mbolscaireacht a chur chun tosaigh ar dtús

D'éirigh cinnte, agus is mór an fheidhm a bhain siad aisti.

A casual viewer would have assumed that Russia had invaded Georgia out of the blue, and would have had no notion that Georgia had bombed a town without warning and killed peace keepers who they had a Treaty with. We were shown the same damaged building in Gori over and over again, and nothing of the demolished streets in Tskhinvali.


But precisely the same holds true as regards the Russian reporting/spin as regards the Georgian incursions into... er, the sovereign territory of the Georgian state in South Ossetia. And it is quite irrelevant whether the Russian line was taken or not in the media as regards the basic principles of international law. South Ossetia was and remains part of Georgia and it is only the massive use of military power by the Russians - a use that breached sovereignty - that over-rides that fact.

I really find the approach towards Russia quite odd in the current context. This is a state with a dismal history of dealing with secessionist movements within its own borders. I sort of can grasp that for some Saakashvili has lost any legitimacy because he's pro-western, but it seems utterly thin as a basis for analysing the current issues. Not least in that - whatever the flaws and dismal elements of his own administration - he remains elected, he is the leader of his own state, he's obviously a Georgian nataionalist (as you say yourself at the last election his opponent was equally pro-Western) and retains - for now - the support of his people, etc, etc. Linkage or or support of Washington doesn't invalidate any of those things. And what worries me is the sense that in order to minimise the appalling rupture of the international order that Russian incursions in Georgia represent, and they really do because until they moved that way they at least could be said to be upholding that international law and order in the absence of the US under Bush, it is necessary to paint Saakashvili in the worst possible light and it just seems so partisan. And let's take this a bit further. Now the Russians are playing this game where does it end? There's no end of conflicts around the globe where one region of a state 'belongs' due to ethnic/historic/other neighboring states. Everyone has a license now whereas even after Iraq that wasn't true because the Russians (again for all their flaws in the Chechen conflict) still kept to the spirit of international law. We could blame the US, or we could say that the Russians were merely biding their time for an opportune moment. Either way it's a huge pity.

As regards death tolls and damage, probably the only reputable source is Human Rights Watch.

Now, let's look at Mark Almond. Sadly not the excellent singer who spells his first name with a c... Some of you are no doubt aware that he is a member of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, a most interesting essentially right-wing organisation (it's founder Norman Stone is profoundly reactionary). I'd take anything he says with a considerable grain of salt.

[quote="WorldbyStorm"]A casual viewer would have assumed that Russia had invaded Georgia out of the blue, and would have had no notion that Georgia had bombed a town without warning and killed peace keepers who they had a Treaty with. We were shown the same damaged building in Gori over and over again, and nothing of the demolished streets in Tskhinvali.

Quote :

But precisely the same holds true as regards the Russian reporting/spin as regards the Georgian incursions into... er, the sovereign territory of the Georgian state in South Ossetia. And it is quite irrelevant whether the Russian line was taken or not in the media as regards the basic principles of international law. South Ossetia was and remains part of Georgia and it is only the massive use of military power by the Russians - a use that breached sovereignty - that over-rides that fact.

What was the untrue reporting from Russia ? The number of deaths in South Ossetia was overestimated, yes. It was ill-judged and reckless to put out a figure in the first days when there was no clear picture. Otherwise, I watched and read Russian coverage and the essential story was not spun. But on the other hand a stream of gross inventions and ludicrous lies came from Saakashvili. Are you saying that International Law in terms of the 1992 Treaty was irrelevant?

Quote :

I really find the approach towards Russia quite odd in the current context. This is a state with a dismal history of dealing with secessionist movements within its own borders

.

Uncontested. States tend not to deal with secession well. But one man's secession is another man's liberation movement. Are you equally opposed to the Kosovo 'secession'? If so, fair does to you, it is a consistent position.

Quote :

I sort of can grasp that for some Saakashvili has lost any legitimacy because he's pro-western, but it seems utterly thin as a basis for analysing the current issues. Not least in that - whatever the flaws and dismal elements of his own administration - he remains elected, he is the leader of his own state, he's obviously a Georgian nataionalist (as you say yourself at the last election his opponent was equally pro-Western) and retains - for now - the support of his people, etc, etc. Linkage or or support of Washington doesn't invalidate any of those things. And what worries me is the sense that in order to minimise the appalling rupture of the international order that Russian incursions in Georgia represent, and they really do because until they moved that way they at least could be said to be upholding that international law and order in the absence of the US under Bush, it is necessary to paint Saakashvili in the worst possible light and it just seems so partisan.

What is meant here by "pro western"? Are you talking about a positive attitude to 'the west', or something more? Do you apply the test of "he/she's democratically elected" to all politicians, beyond which they may not be criticised ?

Quote :

And let's take this a bit further. Now the Russians are playing this game where does it end? There's no end of conflicts around the globe where one region of a state 'belongs' due to ethnic/historic/other neighboring states. Everyone has a license now whereas even after Iraq that wasn't true because the Russians (again for all their flaws in the Chechen conflict) still kept to the spirit of international law. We could blame the US, or we could say that the Russians were merely biding their time for an opportune moment. Either way it's a huge pity.

Russia has been provoked and was between a rock and a hard place. Georgia's strings were pulled. The people who've died in the last two week were not the ones who started this.

On the propoganda war, I agree with much of what this Russian guy says: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080811/115963702.html

Quote :

As regards death tolls and damage, probably the only reputable source is Human Rights Watch.

Now, let's look at Mark Almond. Sadly not the excellent singer who spells his first name with a c... Some of you are no doubt aware that he is a member of the British Helsinki Human Rights Group, a most interesting essentially right-wing organisation (it's founder Norman Stone is profoundly reactionary). I'd take anything he says with a considerable grain of salt.

Well, I'm a believer in listening to all sides to get a rounded picture. When the same story about Saakashvili and the attack on South Ossetia is being told by people from the left, right and centre, it is possible they are telling the truth. Human Rights Watch confirmed early on that Tskhinvalli was very seriously damaged by Georgian rockets and shelling.

Is it realistic to expect the Russian government to be a beacon of light and democracy? The Russian government is essentially not that different in character to the Georgian one - it is a bigger power, with oil. Its history in relation to neighbouring states bar a very short period has been oppressive and self serving. It has a population that is increasingly anti-US, but the Russia of the USSR has gone, and with it the underlying remains of the workers' state that had given it some role and orientation as a counterbalance to the US. There are no serious checks and balances on the US government now, apart from the end of line resistence of local populationsm, its economic weakness and international unpopularity.

Well, let's start at the top. It wasn't that the Russians simply overestimated the number of deaths, they also branded them a 'genocide'. I didn't say the Russian reports were untrue, I said that the same was true of Russian reporting/spin as regards the situation in South Ossetia, that this reporting/spin completely lacked any context whatsoever, not least that Georgian forces had been attacked by Sth. Ossetian militias, sometimes to lethal effect, that Russian forces had made provocative acts in the months and years leading up to it, etc. So it seems unreasonable to criticise Georgia for precisely the same approach to the conflict as that taken by Russia. All very convenient if one wishes to whip up a war hysteria in Russia and of a piece with Medvedev's 'scum' comment early last week.

Take the 1992 Treaty, that was an imposed agreement. One may agree with its terms or not, but one of the combatants, Russia, dictated terms against a smaller nation and they accepted it because they had to. Bottom line remains that Georgia had every right under international law to enter South Ossetia. One may, as I do, take the line that Georgian intervention was adventurism, but that's by the by. In any other context bar the current one where Sth. Ossetia had a Russian sponsor there would be no quibble. And frankly the Russians are entirely hypocritical about this considering their behaviour in Chechnya.

As for Saakashvilis lies, well, which ones in particular? This is the leader of a nation attacked on its territory (again, and I'm sorry to labour the point in contravention of int'l law) by it's largest neighbour, one that has had a fractious history as a victim of that neighbours imperium. I really think it's a misrepresentation to accuse him of 'gross inventions' and ludicrous lies when we now are in a situation where Russia effectively has bisected his country for over a week now. It also seems to ignore the disproportionality in terms of the respective power of the two states.

My position re Kosovo is - I hope - reasonably consistent. I've long argued on the CLR that granting K independence was entirely wrong and that strong local autonomy/self-government within Serbia (or a federative structure) was the only sensible course particularly in the context of the Balkans. I believe, but sadly no one in power listens to me , that Serbia within the EU with the rest of the Balkans is the only long term solution whereby those borders can begin to come down or be rendered irrelevant. So yes, I was and am opposed to the secession and the manner in which it happened.


Re pro-western, what's the distinction, or rather what is 'something more'? Re democratically elected, broadly yes, but no, that doesn't mean they're beyond criticism. Saakashvili acted profoundly unwisely, possibly criminally, in which case I'd like to see him brought to book. But his actions aren't in a vacuum. Let me put it this way. Pragamatically speaking I have much less problem with Russia acting to maintain security under the 1992 Treaty in South Ossetia and thereby partially infringing on Georgian sovereignty (albeit within a flawed agreement) than I do with Russia literally bulldozing that out of the way and entering Georgia proper and thereby completely infringing its sovereignty. One I could just about accept as a response to a difficult bind, the other is a denial of all state rights and is simply wrong. If the Russians had stopped at the Sth. Ossetian border fair enough. That way Georgian adventurism would have been exposed. But they went and spoiled it all by crossing the border and turned it into their own little imperial adventure. As for Georgia's strings being pulled. Most unlikely. The US had consistently advised them not to use force to retake South Ossetia in preceding years. I think this was a product of internal Georgian political dynamics, not least a nationalist one.

And here's the thing. I disagree that Russia was provoked, not least because South Ossetia is not part of its national territory. Nor does it seem right for a supposed 'peacekeeper' to take sides. As easily one could say that Georgia was provoked by a continuing occupation of its territory. Russia having disproportionately more power furthermore had a responsibility not to escalate the conflict beyond the borders of South Ossetia.

I agree, it is important to listen to as many views as possible, but equally important to know who are partisans. Almond and his group are at the very least biased in favour of certain regional powers and in a most peculiar way for a supposed 'human rights' group.

That's a good question you ask at the end. My answer, FWIW, is that large powers should at all costs avoid acting in provocative or adventurist ways. Not least because it weakens them and the arguments they make. For most of the 1990s and 00s the West held its nose and looked the other way during the Chechen wars. I'll bet you that will change now.

I wouldn't count Georgia, a very very small nation as being in the league of oppressors. It is true that nationalist fervour was unleashed directly after independence in the early 1990s, but we see that dynamic in many countries that gain independence, not least our own where the period around independence threw up some pretty unpleasant stuff.

As for the US being unchecked, I would be a bit dubious about that line of argument. I think the US is checked in many places and many ways. It is possible that for a very short period, directly after the collapse of the Soviets the US was pre-eminent, but even then powers like China and Russia retained their strategic capability as they do today and then extended it. The US is far from being able to project itself with impunity, even Iraq was a bit atypical not least because there was just a fig leaf of international legitimacy to a continuing US/UK presence there during the 1990s and then in the maelstrom following 9/11 US military power seemed unchallenged. Well, two wars later we know the reality of that. Nor is it undifferentiated in terms of the government. There are competing groups within the administration particularly on foreign affairs, the more hawkish one grouped around Cheney, the other one around Rice (and even arguably Bush at this stage) and the State Department. These aren't just differences of tone but of substance.

For a good read on just how constrained the US the current issue of the US international relations journal Foreign Affairs has a piece by C. Rice which is very very different in tone to previous ones. If some US politicians got caught up in the idea of a pax Americana in 2002 to say 2005 they've been rapidly disabused of it. But here's the thing, I simply don't see the US in such manichaean terms. There's much that's wrong, and Iraq is clearly high up on the list there, but given the US or an authoritarian China I think I know which one I'd count the less problematic - not least because it is ultimately, as with climate change more open to public opinion.

[quote="WorldbyStorm"]A casual viewer would have assumed that Russia had invaded Georgia out of the blue, and would have had no notion that Georgia had bombed a town without warning and killed peace keepers who they had a Treaty with. We were shown the same damaged building in Gori over and over again, and nothing of the demolished streets in Tskhinvali.

WorldbyStorm, maybe you don't watch satellite tv, or much television of any description. What took place on the screens and on front pages of newspapers was a blatant on-message lie of a scale that I can't remember seeing before in my adult life. The only equivalent that I can think of is the repeated lie by US leaders that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for 9/11. Unequivocally the war was started by Saakashvili heavily shelling Tskhinvalli South Ossetia, and the vast majority of headlines read "Russia bombs/invades Georgia".

FCOL, CNN actually broadcast footage of Tskhinvali at length claiming it was Gori.

When we see a blatant lie of this proportion blasted across the media this in my view is a very dangerous thing. It is not designed to foster a situation in which any reasonable agreement can be reached. In my observation it is an indication of a shift from the norms of journalism (with all its everyday agendas and distortions) to a war mode of self-censorship and disinformation in which the objective is ultimately destruction of the intended enemy.

I am astonished that you appear to find it acceptable that Saakashvili went on television and "declared peace" on the night of 6th August and then proceeded to launch an all out attack with bombs, Grad rockets and shells on a small town full of civilians.

He also withdrew the Georgian peace keepers before the attack and then went in and attacked and killed Russian peace keeping troops.

The 1992 agreement brought a nasty civil war to an end and was accepted by the UN and Georgia. The Treaty allowed Russia to move into Georgia around the perimeter of South Ossetia for defensive purposes. South Ossetia has been either autonomous or semi autonomous for most of the time since the beginning of the 20th century. It was Saakashvili's declared intention that the Georgian military assault would end that autonomy and incorporate South Ossetia by force into Georgia. Given that 70% of South Ossetians are Russian citizens, given the killing of Russian peacekeepers and that Russia has warned that they would be defended it attacked, how was this not a provocation?

This is a very good time line of the Ossetian-Georgian interactions:

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-of-conflict-between-georgia.html

Can't resist this comparison between Russia-S.Ossetia and US-Panama invasions.

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-of-conflict-between-georgia.html


The suggestion that the only opposition to Saakashvili is from the right is incorrect. The basis of much of the opposition to Saakashvili has been "anti globalisation" and anti corruption. When you look at the poverty of the average citizen of Georgia and look at the amount it must have cost to kit out those riot police, you would surely have to draw some conclusions. After initially being elected by 93% of voters, in the last elections Saakshvili shaved home in a process that was criticised by observers.

It also would not be correct to assume that all Georgians in South Ossetia supported Saakashvili. After the South Ossetian markets were closed by the Georgian government on grounds of drug smuggling there was a lot of loss of legitimate livelihoods lost and Georgians were badly affected.

I have strong suspicions that Saakshvili was keen to engage in the current adventure to override opposition with a cause for patriotic unity. He declared martial law across Georgia on the first full day of the operation against Tskhinvali.

Both Riadach and you have made the reasonable and correct point that the Russians have presented the events in South Ossetia as a genocide for reasons of bolstering its case in international law. Again, one man's ethnic cleansing is another man's genocide. Both Georgia and Russia have brought complaints to the International Court and both sides will have their say. Russia will be under pressure to account for disproportionate actions. Will we ever see the US similarly brought to account?

This very short Los Angeles Times summary of events and motivations is in my view pretty accurate:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-qna14-2008aug14,0,7198764.story

Your view is that the 1992 Treaty was unequal. A number of unequal Treaties were made at that time. This is Robert Gates talking about this from the US perspective:

Quote :

GATES: My view is that, that the Russians -- and I would say, principally, Prime Minister Putin -- is interested in re-asserting Russia's -- not only Russia's great power or superpower status, but in re-asserting Russia's traditional spheres of influence.

I think that there is an effort to try and redress what they regard as many of the concessions they feel were forced upon them in the 1990s, in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In his talks with Secretary Rice and myself, he refers to the CFE treaty as the "colonial treaty."

Saakashvili clearly felt he had the backing of the US and had spoken to Condoleeza Rice days before he started the attack on South Ossetia. The US have backed, armed and trained Saakashvili's armed forces, knowing his agenda. The Georgian move is part of a very much bigger game being played by the US. There is ethnic instability in the former satellite/client states of and beside the USSR, cemented over by brute Stalinist force up to the 1980s. Into that volatile mix we now have the US (and also Israel) intervening, with a track record of fuelling inter-ethnic and other territorial conflicts in order to weaken Russia. The US and Russia are no more equal powers than are Russia and Georgia, or Georgia and South Ossetia. Which of the Americans was it described Russia last week as "Saudi Arabia with trees".

Truth is still the first victim of war, and the success of the US in selling its line on Russia and Georgia is an indication of its war-readiness. No matter how much the US economy is declining and China and India's at present growing, the US still has an economic and military dominance and ambitions that are in my view, beside climate change, the biggests threat to the safety and stability of the world.

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armoured personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their armour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.


The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.

Those weaknesses, especially in missiles and air capability, leave Russia still lagging behind the image of a world-class military power it projects to the rest of the world.

"The victory over the Georgian army ... should become for Russia not a cause for euphoria and excessive joy, but serve to speed up military transformations in Russia," Ruslan Pukhov, director of Russia's Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technology, wrote in a report.

The performance of the armed forces will be examined closely by NATO planners, who have been prompted by Russia's newly assertive foreign policy to start viewing the Kremlin once again as a potential adversary.

It could also hold lessons for defence strategists in the Middle East: Russia supplies some of its hardware to countries such as Syria and Iran, while their foe Israel helps equip Georgia's security forces

Formidable fighting force my aunt nelly. The Georgians left in their noddy cars before the Russians arrived. The Russians were given a good poke, and came out for eveyone to take a look.

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armoured personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their armour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.


The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.

Those weaknesses, especially in missiles and air capability, leave Russia still lagging behind the image of a world-class military power it projects to the rest of the world.

"The victory over the Georgian army ... should become for Russia not a cause for euphoria and excessive joy, but serve to speed up military transformations in Russia," Ruslan Pukhov, director of Russia's Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technology, wrote in a report.

The performance of the armed forces will be examined closely by NATO planners, who have been prompted by Russia's newly assertive foreign policy to start viewing the Kremlin once again as a potential adversary.

It could also hold lessons for defence strategists in the Middle East: Russia supplies some of its hardware to countries such as Syria and Iran, while their foe Israel helps equip Georgia's security forces

Formidable fighting force my aunt nelly. The Georgians left in their noddy cars before the Russians arrived. The Russians were given a good poke, and came out for eveyone to take a look.

For the love of God you can`t judge a country`s military capabilities on the basis of one conflict against an immeasureably weaker country whose morale and long-term strategy we are ignorant of. It was like trying to judge the quality of a football team on the basis of a friendly match.

anmajornarthainig wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian soldiers rode into battle against Georgia perched on top of their armoured personnel carriers, not out of bravado but because a flaw in their armour can make it more dangerous to travel inside.


The conflict -- Russia's biggest combat operation outside its borders since the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan -- showed its armed forces have emerged from years of neglect as a formidable fighting force, but revealed important deficiencies.

Those weaknesses, especially in missiles and air capability, leave Russia still lagging behind the image of a world-class military power it projects to the rest of the world.

"The victory over the Georgian army ... should become for Russia not a cause for euphoria and excessive joy, but serve to speed up military transformations in Russia," Ruslan Pukhov, director of Russia's Centre for Analysis of Strategies and Technology, wrote in a report.

The performance of the armed forces will be examined closely by NATO planners, who have been prompted by Russia's newly assertive foreign policy to start viewing the Kremlin once again as a potential adversary.

It could also hold lessons for defence strategists in the Middle East: Russia supplies some of its hardware to countries such as Syria and Iran, while their foe Israel helps equip Georgia's security forces

Formidable fighting force my aunt nelly. The Georgians left in their noddy cars before the Russians arrived. The Russians were given a good poke, and came out for eveyone to take a look.

For the love of God you can`t judge a country`s military capabilities on the basis of one conflict against an immeasureably weaker country whose morale and long-term strategy we are ignorant of. It was like trying to judge the quality of a football team on the basis of a friendly match.

You have a point: precisely why the "formidable fighting force" remark was so absurd. But it was still a good opportunity for checking out the hardware.

Okay, sorry, this is a long response so it's in a couple of parts.

WorldbyStorm, maybe you don't watch satellite tv, or much television of any description. What took place on the screens and on front pages of newspapers was a blatant on-message lie of a scale that I can't remember seeing before in my adult life. The only equivalent that I can think of is the repeated lie by US leaders that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were responsible for 9/11. Unequivocally the war was started by Saakashvili heavily shelling Tskhinvalli South Ossetia, and the vast majority of headlines read "Russia bombs/invades Georgia".

FCOL, CNN actually broadcast footage of Tskhinvali at length claiming it was Gori.

When we see a blatant lie of this proportion blasted across the media this in my view is a very dangerous thing. It is not designed to foster a situation in which any reasonable agreement can be reached. In my observation it is an indication of a shift from the norms of journalism (with all its everyday agendas and distortions) to a war mode of self-censorship and disinformation in which the objective is ultimately destruction of the intended enemy.

I am astonished that you appear to find it acceptable that Saakashvili went on television and "declared peace" on the night of 6th August and then proceeded to launch an all out attack with bombs, Grad rockets and shells on a small town full of civilians.

I didn't say I found it acceptable. My read of that was indecision within the Georgian government as to what to do next, that or adventurism and a hope that they would catch the Russians on the hop. And yet, the latter line doesn't really make any sense in the context of the relationship between the two countries.

I don't think that the Georgian government was right to use force to retake its own territory - although it's an interesting point if we accept that 'provocation' is a reason in international affairs. Doesn't occupation of a territory by the Russians indicate a massive provocation, particularly when militias within that territory are given free rein? What I do think is that they had the right to do so. It's a subtle distinction, rather along the lines of suggesting that while free expression suggests publishing anti-Islamic cartoons may be a legitimate 'right' it is broadly speaking best not to exercise that right. What I don't understand is why it is unacceptable for the Georgians to exercise their rights but alright for the Russians to use massive disproportionate force against the Georgians far beyond the confines of the disputed territory. That can only be interpreted as being a very partisan view of the conflict.

As for media outlets 'lying', I think that's an overstatement of what we've seen and a misunderstanding of the situation. again it decontextualises the history from the Georgian point of view. I also think that the idea that the media approach somehow in and of itself could foster (or not) a situation in which 'a reasonable agreement' could be reached is highly unlikely. On the ground Russian power was the determining factor.

My point from the start has been that none of this happened in a vacuum. It has been clear since early 2008 that the Russians were taking a much more hardline approach to Georgia and to South Ossetia. During that period there were confirmed attacks by South Ossetian forces on Georgians (see http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2373294). So it's simply wrong to say that this war was 'started by Saakashvili shelling Tskhinvalli', that was merely the latest phase. Incidentally, I'm curious as to why Russia is allowed to trample on sovereignty by recourse to massive use of power (including cluster bombs) in another country - and you will defend that - whereas Georgia is not within its own country.

He also withdrew the Georgian peace keepers before the attack and then went in and attacked and killed Russian peace keeping troops.

The 1992 agreement brought a nasty civil war to an end and was accepted by the UN and Georgia. The Treaty allowed Russia to move into Georgia around the perimeter of South Ossetia for defensive purposes. South Ossetia has been either autonomous or semi autonomous for most of the time since the beginning of the 20th century. It was Saakashvili's declared intention that the Georgian military assault would end that autonomy and incorporate South Ossetia by force into Georgia. Given that 70% of South Ossetians are Russian citizens, given the killing of Russian peacekeepers and that Russia has warned that they would be defended it attacked, how was this not a provocation?

All entirely irrelevant as regards the absolute right under international law for Georgia to exercise sovereignty within that region. And it entirely ignores the actually existing power relationship between Russia and Georgia which led to the 1992 agreement. The history of the region is also entirely irrelevant under international law. South Ossetia is accepted internationally as part of the territory of Georgia. End of story.

More to the point, you might note that whether South Ossetians - given Russian citizenship in a profoundly provocative act by the Russians, an act they didn't have to do (since any country can determine who can or cannot be a citizen) and one that was guaranteed to inflame Georgian opinion - have Russian passports is equally irrelevant to the integrity of Georgia. But again there are other provocations by Russia throughout this period which completely undermine its bona fides as a neutral peacemaker.


This is a very good time line of the Ossetian-Georgian interactions:

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-of-conflict-between-georgia.html

Can't resist this comparison between Russia-S.Ossetia and US-Panama invasions.

http://jotman.blogspot.com/2008/08/timeline-of-conflict-between-georgia.html


The suggestion that the only opposition to Saakashvili is from the right is incorrect. The basis of much of the opposition to Saakashvili has been "anti globalisation" and anti corruption. When you look at the poverty of the average citizen of Georgia and look at the amount it must have cost to kit out those riot police, you would surely have to draw some conclusions. After initially being elected by 93% of voters, in the last elections Saakshvili shaved home in a process that was criticised by observers.

I have never suggested anywhere that Saakashvili only gets opposition from the right, so I'm unsure as to your point. The idea that riot gear can be taken as a indice of a nations wealth doesn't strike me as hugely useful or as reason to damn a regime. As well give out about the Gardai getting armoured plating and arguing that due to the fact there is a housing crisis in Ireland we can 'draw conclusions'. As for critics of the last elections, true, but he did demonstrably win them and this was broadly accepted by most international observers including the OCSE.

It also would not be correct to assume that all Georgians in South Ossetia supported Saakashvili. After the South Ossetian markets were closed by the Georgian government on grounds of drug smuggling there was a lot of loss of legitimate livelihoods lost and Georgians were badly affected.

I've not assumed or suggested such thing. But once more its irrelevant - a sub-issue at best.

I have strong suspicions that Saakshvili was keen to engage in the current adventure to override opposition with a cause for patriotic unity. He declared martial law across Georgia on the first full day of the operation against Tskhinvali.

Both Riadach and you have made the reasonable and correct point that the Russians have presented the events in South Ossetia as a genocide for reasons of bolstering its case in international law. Again, one man's ethnic cleansing is another man's genocide. Both Georgia and Russia have brought complaints to the International Court and both sides will have their say. Russia will be under pressure to account for disproportionate actions. Will we ever see the US similarly brought to account?

Two points about that. Firstly facts on the ground, just as the IDF in Palestine reshapes the reality by being in situ, so Russian forces on Georgian territory reshape the reality. I see no evidence that Russia has bowed to international pressure in the last two weeks when such pressure would be extremely great to withdraw (indeed only this evening we learn that they're not even making any effort to withdraw despite international agreements). What I have seen is a fairly deliberate attempt by the Russian state to destabilise an elected government. Considering the appalling situation in Chechnya I have no illusions that the Russians will lose a moments sleep over the last weeks actions, or will in any sense be brought to account. And as for the US. Why bring them into this? What relevance do their misdeeds have to it?

And if this was Saakashvilis 'attempt to override opposition', i.e. a local political dynamic generating the war then how can you later suggest this was somehow a 'US move'?

This very short Los Angeles Times summary of events and motivations is in my view pretty accurate:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-qna14-2008aug14,0,7198764.story

Your view is that the 1992 Treaty was unequal. A number of unequal Treaties were made at that time. This is Robert Gates talking about this from the US perspective:

GATES: My view is that, that the Russians -- and I would say, principally, Prime Minister Putin -- is interested in re-asserting Russia's -- not only Russia's great power or superpower status, but in re-asserting Russia's traditional spheres of influence.

I think that there is an effort to try and redress what they regard as many of the concessions they feel were forced upon them in the 1990s, in the early 1990s after the collapse of the Soviet Union. In his talks with Secretary Rice and myself, he refers to the CFE treaty as the "colonial treaty."

Let me get this straight, the agreement between Georgia and Russia, one which you seem to accept was made under duress is in some sense a retribution for some unequal Treaties made in 1992? Which ones? Where precisely did Russia lose out and what concessions were made? But more importantly, is this how it should work, that smaller nations should continually pay for some sort of geopolitical hurt the Russians feel? Where does that end, and why shouldn't a state such as Georgia, or the Ukraine not have some sort of entitlement for their feeling of hurt about being politically and culturally occupied by Russia for most of the 20th century? Perhaps a better way of looking at this is that we have already international law and processes which if held to by states will mitigate such issues in a more reasonable fashion. Otherwise we're into an area where supposed emotional responses by states (something I tend to doubt exist) take precedence over an appropriate rational discourse.

Incidentally, worth noting that the US, for all its faults put massive investment and aid into Russia in the post-Soviet era (and actually during the Soviet era in the final two years).



Saakashvili clearly felt he had the backing of the US and had spoken to Condoleeza Rice days before he started the attack on South Ossetia. The US have backed, armed and trained Saakashvili's armed forces, knowing his agenda. The Georgian move is part of a very much bigger game being played by the US. There is ethnic instability in the former satellite/client states of and beside the USSR, cemented over by brute Stalinist force up to the 1980s. Into that volatile mix we now have the US (and also Israel) intervening, with a track record of fuelling inter-ethnic and other territorial conflicts in order to weaken Russia. The US and Russia are no more equal powers than are Russia and Georgia, or Georgia and South Ossetia. Which of the Americans was it described Russia last week as "Saudi Arabia with trees".

Whether Saakashvili felt he had US backing (and this is a man who put up an EU flag behind him so his grasp of geopolitical reality may be a bit shaky), the fact that he spoke to CR proves nothing either way. The US would be quite mad if they thought that 150 trainers or thereabouts and a marginal beefing up of Georgia's military capability would in any way shape or form constitute a sufficient process to take on the Russian army, which leaves one with only one logical conclusion. They didn't think that, Saakashvili most likely thought that world opinion would be on his side and the Russians would not intervene. As regards Israelis and US intervention... The Israelis sold the Georgians weaponry. So did the Serbs. Would you make the claim that Serbia was intervening? No you wouldn't. For obvious reasons. The US was asked by the Georgian government for assistance, security pacts, etc for the very understandable reason that they felt threatened by their larger neighbour. Peoples do have agency and autonomy of their own in these matters. And the US and Russia may well not be equal powers, not least economically, but Russia is still a great power (with a strategic nuclear deterrent - largest in the world - that makes an unanswerable projection of power when it needs it), just as China is. Incidentally, why do you accept the validity of that phrase, used let us note by a non-serving former US diplomat, and yet dismiss the US if it says it didn't advise the Georgians.




Truth is still the first victim of war, and the success of the US in selling its line on Russia and Georgia is an indication of its war-readiness. No matter how much the US economy is declining and China and India's at present growing, the US still has an economic and military dominance and ambitions that are in my view, beside climate change, the biggests threat to the safety and stability of the world.



I don't see how the US media presence (and I think its incorrect to say it sold a line - I think Georgia was much more pivotal)
indicates a 'war-readiness'. The single most clear message coming through from Washington has been that it will not engage military assets over Georgia. How does that indicate war-readiness. Surely it indicates the opposite. Nor has the US made any bellicose moves in relation to Georgia in the past two weeks. They have even delayed sending in aid.

Look I'm a leftist,was a member of the Workers' Party and then DL. So I'm far from pro-Washington. I loathe the 'decent left' people like Hitchens/Euston Manifesto etc who cheerleaded the Iraq War, but I also am very suspicious of attempts to generate 'equivalency' which usually just wind up seeing people align with other, even less savoury, powers. This is so clearly not a situation of a victimised Russia. It's a case of a victorious renascent Russia eager to flex its muscles in front of the world and completely indifferent to either international law or the reaction of the international community. I mean, doesn't the response from the international community say something about all this? Nation states, entirely unmoved by US media in their dealings, have called for Russian restraint or characterised this as disproportionate.

And the central problem, is that big nations have big power. It's always been that way, it always will. Only a framework of international law mitigates that. Frankly I think when we consider the alternatives, and look at China and Russia as examples of autocratic capitalist states, we're actually quite fortunate that dismal as many of its actions are we have the US as the dominant big power.


One last small point, you talk about Georgia and Georgians in a way I find a bit hard to understand from reading your other pieces on here and particularly if your view is that we should try to find peace in international relations. An example, the Georgians are characterised as having 'noddy cars'... it just seems a bit dismissive, or even disdainful, of a nation and people, who, whatever the mistakes of their government, have been given the equivalent of GBH by the Russians and in a disgracefully disproportionate fashion.

And the other problem with all that is that you appear to be close to a partisan view of all this. It's impossible to believe that this is some vast media conspiracy, that the Russians are victims, that the Russian response was a reasonable one to provocation etc unless one believes that the Russians acted legitimately - not in so far as they secured South Ossetia's borders (which as I note is of questionable legitimacy) - but beyond that when they went into Georgia and remained there. And yet if one believes that then one does not and cannot believe in the supremacy of international law. And if one then tries to explain away the Russian actions by pointing to some sort of US original sin one is on a loser, because any hint of neutrality is gone and worse again it leads to a viewpoint which is in effect identical to that of - say - the US neo-conservatives, that might is right, that my nation (or chosen nation) is correct despite any contrary evidence. I know from your other posts here that that isn't a line you take at all, that you would be appalled by that attitude, so it's just odd to see it so evident on this one topic.

You may well be right that the US is the biggest threat. And yet surely that doesn't mean that we become cheerleaders for other powers who destroy a fragile international order and tear up international law when it suits them. The point is that we don't have to take sides in this or choose between the larger protagonists. All we have to do is to consistently adhere to international law. Otherwise we have no arguments or authority left.

I would contend that so one-sided is the general presentation to what has happened in Georgia/South Ossetia, that an attempt at an objective (not a neutral) view will inevitably look skewed.

You are making a case for respect for International Law - why not apply it with respect to the 1992 Treaty, accepted as legitimate by the UN ? Do you get to pick and choose which bits of International Law have to be followed.

I am bemused by your suggestion that I support cluster bombing by the Russians - I would expect that to be backed up by both evidence that they were used, and evidence that I support it.

I think the Georgians would be unlikely to disagree with my description of some of their vehicles (have you seen what they were going about in?). They clearly didn't think for one moment the US and NATO would leave them to deal with the Russian army on their own and were wise to retreat. They would have been even wiser not to go in in the first place. If you look at my posts, you'll see that there are a lot of Georgians that I'm very well disposed to.

I would contend that so one-sided is the general presentation to what has happened in Georgia/South Ossetia, that an attempt at an objective (not a neutral) view will inevitably look skewed.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that. The Russian case was that this was a genocide which it went in to stop. That's prima facie wrong. The Georgian case is that they went in to assert their sovereignty after considerable provocation. Weighing it up I think the evidence if one cares to look at the record of conflict on the border over the past number of years - supports the latter more than the former view, despite the stupidity of the Georgian government in trying to retake Sth. Ossetia by force.

Moreover, and here is where the Russian case fails entirely, the Russian forces used massively disproportionate force to push back Georgian forces into Georgia proper and then compounded that by occupying Georgian towns/cities and attacking Georgian infrastructure. I genuinely can't see how one can accept that as reasonable.

In any case, why not neutral? We're not forced to support either side, and our support is going to be entirely rhetorical at this remove. I'm not saying I don't have sympathy for all involved, Georgians, South Ossetians and Russians, but what I do see are massively different power relationships (indeed for an insight into those relationships from 1992 onwards read here for a fascinating interview with Shevardnadze, http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1066081.html It's on Radio Free Europe, not one of my favourites, but nonetheless the detail is interesting).

You are making a case for respect for International Law - why not apply it with respect to the 1992 Treaty, accepted as legitimate by the UN ? Do you get to pick and choose which bits of International Law have to be followed.

The Sochi Agreement nowhere allows for punitive actions on Georgian territory by the Russians should it be broken. What it does permit is the following:

The Protocol gave the military command the
right "to use all measures to localise military clashes
and destroy armed formations in districts and villages
of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast that
were not included in the security zone or corridor".36
However, it is specifically in the zone of conflict (on
South Ossetian territory) that the JPKF has the right to
deploy and to establish checkpoints.

That's the breach of international law I'm most concerned about.

I'm not picking and choosing, hence I decry the Georgian actions, but I also place them in a context of armed actions by South Ossetian militias prior to the August (incidentally, talking about all Georgians w/in Sth. Ossetia not agreeing with Georgia proper, how about the parallel "President" of Sth. Ossetia, Dmitry Sanakoyev, who was willing to work, with a large number of Sth. Ossetians over the past number of years shaping some sort of federative structure?). My main gripe, as I've noted all along is not so much that the Georgians were repulsed from South Ossetia but that the Russians then went into Georgia.

I am bemused by your suggestion that I support cluster bombing by the Russians - I would expect that to be backed up by both evidence that they were used, and evidence that I support it.


God no, I'm not accusing you of any such thing, although I can see why you made that assumption and my apologies, I wrote what I wrote unclearly. My point was that you support Russian actions, not that you support cluster bombs. I put the words cluster bombs in brackets (including cluster bombs) to point up the nature of some of those Russian actions. For evidence of the use of cluster bombs in Georgia by the Russians read http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm from Human Rights Watch. I'm suggesting that the problematic aspect of supporting the Russian actions is that the Russians have carried out actions which are clearly in breach of international law, and not just on sovereignty, but also in terms of warfare (and I don't deny that the Georgians may well have done similar except on the sovereignty issue), particularly those beyond the borders of South Ossetia.


I think the Georgians would be unlikely to disagree with my description of some of their vehicles (have you seen what they were going about in?). They clearly didn't think for one moment the US and NATO would leave them to deal with the Russian army on their own and were wise to retreat. They would have been even wiser not to go in in the first place. If you look at my posts, you'll see that there are a lot of Georgians that I'm very well disposed to.

I don't doubt it at all. The point remains that your approach this conflict is seemingly at variance with that of your extremely measured views on other conflicts and I can't for the life of me see why. A small army that has had two of its five brigades effectively destroyed in the conflict is going to flee in whatever they can get. It doesn't reflect well or badly on them.

I completely accept that from your perspective a massive wrong has been done (and I do accept as well that you are correct that a Russian response was justified to the initial Georgian incursions, just that that response became adventurist and opportunist and has remained so since), just I think that if one looks at the detail it is difficult to pin this into a Russia good (and horribly victimised), everyone else wrong framework, anymore than I'd argue that it is the supposed contrary case of Georgia good, everyone else wrong framework.

WorldbyStorm wrote:

I would contend that so one-sided is the general presentation to what has happened in Georgia/South Ossetia, that an attempt at an objective (not a neutral) view will inevitably look skewed.

Hmmm... I'm not so sure about that. The Russian case was that this was a genocide which it went in to stop. That's prima facie wrong. The Georgian case is that they went in to assert their sovereignty after considerable provocation. Weighing it up I think the evidence if one cares to look at the record of conflict on the border over the past number of years - supports the latter more than the former view, despite the stupidity of the Georgian government in trying to retake Sth. Ossetia by force.

Moreover, and here is where the Russian case fails entirely, the Russian forces used massively disproportionate force to push back Georgian forces into Georgia proper and then compounded that by occupying Georgian towns/cities and attacking Georgian infrastructure. I genuinely can't see how one can accept that as reasonable.

In any case, why not neutral? We're not forced to support either side, and our support is going to be entirely rhetorical at this remove. I'm not saying I don't have sympathy for all involved, Georgians, South Ossetians and Russians, but what I do see are massively different power relationships (indeed for an insight into those relationships from 1992 onwards read here for a fascinating interview with Shevardnadze, http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1066081.html It's on Radio Free Europe, not one of my favourites, but nonetheless the detail is interesting).

You are making a case for respect for International Law - why not apply it with respect to the 1992 Treaty, accepted as legitimate by the UN ? Do you get to pick and choose which bits of International Law have to be followed.

The Sochi Agreement nowhere allows for punitive actions on Georgian territory by the Russians should it be broken. What it does permit is the following:

The Protocol gave the military command the
right "to use all measures to localise military clashes
and destroy armed formations in districts and villages
of the former South Ossetian Autonomous Oblast that
were not included in the security zone or corridor".36
However, it is specifically in the zone of conflict (on
South Ossetian territory) that the JPKF has the right to
deploy and to establish checkpoints.

That's the breach of international law I'm most concerned about.

I'm not picking and choosing, hence I decry the Georgian actions, but I also place them in a context of armed actions by South Ossetian militias prior to the August (incidentally, talking about all Georgians w/in Sth. Ossetia not agreeing with Georgia proper, how about the parallel "President" of Sth. Ossetia, Dmitry Sanakoyev, who was willing to work, with a large number of Sth. Ossetians over the past number of years shaping some sort of federative structure?). My main gripe, as I've noted all along is not so much that the Georgians were repulsed from South Ossetia but that the Russians then went into Georgia.

I am bemused by your suggestion that I support cluster bombing by the Russians - I would expect that to be backed up by both evidence that they were used, and evidence that I support it.


God no, I'm not accusing you of any such thing, although I can see why you made that assumption and my apologies, I wrote what I wrote unclearly. My point was that you support Russian actions, not that you support cluster bombs. I put the words cluster bombs in brackets (including cluster bombs) to point up the nature of some of those Russian actions. For evidence of the use of cluster bombs in Georgia by the Russians read http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/14/georgi19625.htm from Human Rights Watch. I'm suggesting that the problematic aspect of supporting the Russian actions is that the Russians have carried out actions which are clearly in breach of international law, and not just on sovereignty, but also in terms of warfare (and I don't deny that the Georgians may well have done similar except on the sovereignty issue), particularly those beyond the borders of South Ossetia.


I think the Georgians would be unlikely to disagree with my description of some of their vehicles (have you seen what they were going about in?). They clearly didn't think for one moment the US and NATO would leave them to deal with the Russian army on their own and were wise to retreat. They would have been even wiser not to go in in the first place. If you look at my posts, you'll see that there are a lot of Georgians that I'm very well disposed to.

I don't doubt it at all. The point remains that your approach this conflict is seemingly at variance with that of your extremely measured views on other conflicts and I can't for the life of me see why. A small army that has had two of its five brigades effectively destroyed in the conflict is going to flee in whatever they can get. It doesn't reflect well or badly on them.

I completely accept that from your perspective a massive wrong has been done (and I do accept as well that you are correct that a Russian response was justified to the initial Georgian incursions, just that that response became adventurist and opportunist and has remained so since), just I think that if one looks at the detail it is difficult to pin this into a Russia good (and horribly victimised), everyone else wrong framework, anymore than I'd argue that it is the supposed contrary case of Georgia good, everyone else wrong framework.

I would like to reply to your post in full later. I'm just making this short 'holding' post to put a (hopefully helpful) marker down on what we are not disgreeing on. One other point: my framework is not "Russia good and everyone else wrong": Imo Russia's political leadership from the 1920s, in the interests of a bureaucratic elite and its supposed short term national interests, has overriden the national self-determination of surrounding countries and has abandoned internationalism in favour of nationalism. Ultimately, the USSR was not able to stand alone under US military pressure, and imploded. In spite of the efforts of the Russian oligarchs and the Ganleys, a lot of the nationalised resources still intact from the Russian Revolution have been held on to, and Putin has pulled back to some extent from privatisation. The US and the big EU interests would love to crack that nut open and if Iraq is anything to go by, wouldn't give a damn what misery they inflict on the way. I hope I am consistent in that I think that these resources, whether in Iraq, Iran, Chad, Ireland, Texas, China or Russia, should not be in the hands of a tiny number of totally irresponsible hands.

-All the pieces in bold, I agree with.

Perhaps you are taking the "noddy car" remark out of context - it was in response to Reuters suggestion that the encounter between Russia and the Georgians had demonstrated that the Russian army was a "formidable fighting force".
The Georgians were very poorly equipped: my inference was that for that reason, nothing had been proved about the Russians.

I think you're right, we agree on a lot. And fair enough, I take your point re the noddy car...

But where we do diverge is that I don't think we can play out the politics of nationalism and geopolitics through proxies who are very tainted. I don't see much progressive potential in Russia - but up until this in recent years it was a small satisfaction that it acted more rationally than the US.

In relation to the rest, that's most interesting. My only observation would be that although Putin rolled back some elements of the privatisation process through the expanions of the 'strategic sectors' of the economy, much of that wasn't a straight nationalisation but a hybrid with private enterprise (indigenous). The dangers of that in a state which has strong links to oligarchs (and really, Putin only rid himself of those who wouldn't play ball. Those willing to align with the Kremlin have been largely untouched) are obvious. A tainted economic structure is the same whether in the US or Russia - and arguably the much weaker corporate and commercial governance in Russia make it even more open to further negative impacts than the US. So the ownership of the hands that are in control are pretty irresponsible in either instance and entirely limited to elite groups which in the Russian instance are - I'd suggest - going to be much more difficult to shift than in the US.

I've heard the argument re how Russia went in the 20th century under the Soviets, usually from the SWP and likeminded groups. It's fair enough, but I think - and this is in no sense an apologia for Stalinism, which is loathsome - that it ignores the realities of attempting to consolidate state power and underestimates the difficulty of exporting revolution. The obvious counter argument is that even when two major countries went communist, Russia and later China there was simply no critical mass for further communist countries to develop and those that did were almost overwhelmingly at the instigation of the Red Army, as with Eastern Europe, or rather faux-communist essentially nationalist revolutions as with Cuba and to a lesser extent many of the African states and Asian states which took on elements of Marxist ideology as a sort of sheen. Indeed I've never seen a clear analysis as to how many revolutions would have to occur internationally to consolidate that model. My guess is that it would require too many...

I've never bought into the idea that there was something uniquely bureaucratic about the Soviets, or rather that there was a 'better' Platonic form feasible for a Marxist-Leninist state since time and again we see more or less the same structures evolve in various supposedly M-L states (and more tellingly in self-described M-L parties - look at the actual structure of the WP and the SP which in organisational terms are near identical with democratic centralist cores, yet loathe each other for their ideological deviations).

But I guess that's a different discussion...

A good one though.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008824132649187692.html

Just posting this as an update- there appears to be a substantial NATO/US military /naval build up in the Black Sea.

It is striking how much better the US seem to have got at delivering aid since the fiasco at New Orleans ( large parts of which are still in ruins).

The Russian spokesperson should have checked his facts. Firstly it's a bit rich of him to accuse the US of a military build up when we consider the Navy units used by the Russians in the last two weeks, a Cruiser, a Destroyer, 4 landing ships, 4 corvettes, a missile boat, a surveillance ship, 2 minesweepers and last but not least a tug. Not only, but also, they were used to destroy elements of the Georgian navy or as wiki has it 'they dismantled much of Georgia's naval assets' when they occupied Poti.

But moreover, he also knows that access by the US Navy, and in this instance one destroyer, the McFaul, is governed by the Montreux convention of 1936 which restricts access to the Black Sea - specifically to the benefit of Russia (and formerly the USSR).

And crucially:

While the United States is not a signatory to the Convention, it has historically always complied with its provision.

Any military vessel entering the Black Sea must notify the Turkish government, and no vessel over 10,000 tons can go in. 10,000 tons is defined as the limit of a 'light surface vessel' - now granted a contemporary destroyer is a lot more souped up than back in 1936, but the convention hasn't been changed (something that - ironically - caused problems for the Soviets as they wanted to have a greater military presence in the Med in the 1960s onwards) The McFaul is comfortably below that limit at just under 9,000 tons.

The idea that one destroyer is the equivalent of a 'substantial' buildup though is over-egging the pudding and yet again, remarkably hypocritical of the Russians in the context of their actions.

cactus flower wrote:

A good one though.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008824132649187692.html

Just posting this as an update- there appears to be a substantial NATO/US military /naval build up in the Black Sea.

It is striking how much better the US seem to have got at delivering aid since the fiasco at New Orleans ( large parts of which are still in ruins).

That looks like scary stuff. I wish George W and his famed "freedom agenda" were out of the White House already.

I hope he stays in the WH for another 4 years because McCain is in fact mentally unhinged and Obama will have Brezinsky making the moves. Obama can not string 2 words together and is a simpleton. He will attack Pakistan as sure as Hillary Clinton has a pair of balls.

youngdan wrote:

I hope he stays in the WH for another 4 years because McCain is in fact mentally unhinged and Obama will have Brezinsky making the moves. Obama can not string 2 words together and is a simpleton. He will attack Pakistan as sure as Hillary Clinton has a pair of balls.

If Clinton and Carter are anything to go by, the Democrats favour bombing people from a great height over hand to hand combat. Otherwise...

youngdan wrote:

I hope he stays in the WH for another 4 years because McCain is in fact mentally unhinged and Obama will have Brezinsky making the moves. Obama can not string 2 words together and is a simpleton. He will attack Pakistan as sure as Hillary Clinton has a pair of balls.

I think, youngdan, that whichever way you look at this, we are stuck with a variation of the Cheney administration we have had for the last 7 1/2 years.