A Shot Across Nato's Bows - Russian tanks enter Georgia - Georgians enter South Ossetia - all out war?

The deception/trick lasted from 1917 until last summer when Putin ran Shultz Kissinger and the rest off with their tail between their legs. It may have been the most important event for 50 years and the only Western mediaoutlet that reported it was the Guardian who have sinne scrubbed it

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18036.htm

The western bankers/power elite nurtured communism with credit and grain and they controled them, or so they thought. Western generals Patton and McArthur could have destroyed communism at 2 different times but were prevented. The Russians took and took and binded their time

I wouldn't call it communism youngdan, but whatever it was, I've heard a few commentators grumbling about how destabilising the fall of the USSR has been and maybe a big mistake. Russia has never been in a position of control in this, just pretty wily survival tactics.

Relations with Russia at crossroads, say EU leaders

Emergency summit pledges strong support for Georgia and freezes talks with Moscow until ceasefire terms are satisfied

Quote :

European leaders launched a "crucial" mission to mediate with the Kremlin over the Caucasus crisis today, saying relations between the EU and Russia were at a crossroads.

An emergency summit in Brussels of 27 EU government chiefs delivered a strong signal of support for Georgia, freezing talks on a new strategic pact with Russia until Moscow observed the terms of a ceasefire agreed three weeks ago.

The leaders demanded that no country follow Russia in recognising the independence of Georgia's two breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
....

The summit statement called on Russia "not to isolate itself" and shelved negotiations scheduled for a fortnight's time on the new strategic partnership unless the Russians pulled back their forces in Georgia to positions before the conflict erupted on August 7.

"Relations between the EU and Russia have reached a crossroads," a summit statement said last night, announcing that "the various aspects of EU-Russia relations" would be subjected to "a careful in-depth examination" by a scheduled Europe-Russia summit in November in Nice, southern France.

Gordon Brown insisted on the suspension of the negotiations on the new accord with Moscow and ran into stiff resistance from EU governments who cautioned against "the situation spiralling out of control", according to a European diplomat.

But Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, the Scandinavians, and the central Europeans backed the British demand. Brown also successfully lobbied for the summit statement to pledge Europe to reducing its dependence on Russian energy supplies.

The meeting strongly condemned Russia's redrawing of Georgia's borders and affirmed that Georgia was entitled to resist Russian pressure and to freely determine its own foreign policy and which "alliances" to join.

"We cannot go back to the age of spheres of influence. Yalta is dead," said Sarkozy of the 1945 agreement between the victors of the second world war that launched the cold war and erected an "iron curtain", splitting Europe in two.

"Russia has shown its true face," said a European foreign minister. "The problem for us is how are we going to respond."
....

But the decision to freeze the negotiations due in two weeks' time invited an angry Russian response. "Any attempt to punish another country is counter-productive or illegal. We need to resolve our problems in a civilised way, through dialogue," said Andrei Nesterenko, Russia's foreign ministry spokesman.

The move could however be seen as counter-productive, since the EU is keener than Russia on the new pact. The negotiations had been frozen for almost two years on the European side until July, with first Poland and then Lithuania vetoing the talks with Russia.

Quote :

"The question is what does Russia want," Sarkozy said of the Kremlin's decision to invade and partition Georgia. "It takes two to tango. The meeting [in Moscow] on September 8 will be crucial for relations between Russia and the EU."

Yalta is dead ...

All the talk of sanctions so far has come to nothing and the meeting was nothing more than some kind of review of Sarkhozy's 6 point plan, that Russia has substantially complied with.

A split between Russia and the EU is patently against EU interests and in the interests of the US.

I notice that we (Ireland) are going to send Georgia a quarter of a miilion euros for "reconstruction". As most of what was damaged in Georgia was military installations, they may buy themselves a new missile launcher with it. Who is going to pay for the bombed out capital South Ossetia ? Or will it be a new limo for Saakshvili?

If this makes the EU invest seriously in renewables then that will be one good thing to come out of it.

France, less energy dependent because of bloody nuclear, is less hostile to Russia than the UK.

Sad to hear of a journalist/blogger shot by police in Ingushetia.

Patslatt had the right idea on p.ie - scare the bejaysus out of the Russians by telling them we're going to insulate our homes, cycle, use algae, windmills, apply carbon taxes etc. etc. etc.

http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=40443

I don't know what's Sarkozy's 6 point plan at all.

This is the best Georgia/S. Ossetia map I've seen so far.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26522492/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26522492/
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/09/03/official-20-civilians-killed-as-nato-forces-attack-south-waziristan-village/http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/080903/a_franzen_pakistan_080903.300w.jpg" border="0" alt=""/>

cactus flower wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26522492/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26522492/
http://news.antiwar.com/2008/09/03/official-20-civilians-killed-as-nato-forces-attack-south-waziristan-village/[img]


Would anyone like to explain to me why it is all right for NATO and the US to go into Pakistan and kill civilians, but it is not all right for Russia to go in to South Ossetia to stop civilians being killed ?

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Video/080903/a_franzen_pakistan_080903.300w.jpg[/img][/quote] It's the going into Georgia to kill and rob Georgians that most people have a problem with. There is a hypocrisy though, as you point out.

It is hypocritical of the West to recognise Kosovo but ignore Ossetia and Abkhazia, as ther Russians often point out. They scuppered their own argument by recognising Ossetia and Abkhazia while still ignoring Kosovo. There is little room, I think, in politics to talk about hypocrisy; it generates more heat than light.

Quote :

There is little room, I think, in politics to talk about hypocrisy; it generates more heat than light.

That it may - the rebukes from the international community aren't casting any light on this either perhaps. What would you suggest would cast light on this?

There is very little glorious about war. If you take some of the 'great' leaders of the past and examine their record, people like Julius Caesar simply depopulated Gaul. Ethnic cleansing has been going on for a very long time.

The de Squires have a long history of being up to no good going back to William the Bastard and probably beyond. I was considering a longer response on the 'ethics' of war but perhaps not the place and have reports to read. Page after page of them, tedium.

We look back at history and excuse what went on as being part of a brutal period of history, and a time when standards were more base. But have we really moved forward and become more humane or are we just bigger hypocrites? Certainly television can beam the actuality of war into our living rooms but do most people really care?

Squire wrote:

There is very little glorious about war. If you take some of the 'great' leaders of the past and examine their record, people like Julius Caesar simply depopulated Gaul. Ethnic cleansing has been going on for a very long time.

The de Squires have a long history of being up to no good going back to William the Bastard and probably beyond. I was considering a longer response on the 'ethics' of war but perhaps not the place and have reports to read. Page after page of them, tedium.

We look back at history and excuse what went on as being part of a brutal period of history, and a time when standards were more base. But have we really moved forward and become more humane or are we just bigger hypocrites? Certainly television can beam the actuality of war into our living rooms but do most people really care?

The capacity and threat of nuclear weapons to wipe out our species I think means we are bigger hypocrites, and potentially bigger bastards than at any previous stage of history. The deep inherent contradition is that there are also far more advanced international agreements and international law to "regulate" war than at any previous time. The failure of the US to buy into the International Court of Justice and its dominance over the UN Security Council reduces the functionality of international regulation. The first link makes interesting reading.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Human_Rights/USOpposesIntlCourt.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/international-court-of-justice

Propoganda is an important part of war. It is used against the enemy, by manipulating the perceptions of the home population. Outside of facist regimes, it is still difficult for democracies to wage war without first softening up public opinion with a barrage of disinformation and emotive tub thumping, demonisation of the "enemy" and calls to patriotic ferver. Beyond propoganda, governments use psyops including "false flag" terror attacks and provocations. These operations are essentially also a part of the propoganda war against their own populations, who might otherwise object to their governments engaging in war and torture for reasons of self-interest. There are arguments that the Vietnam was was lost by the US government essentially because they lost the propoganda war. The US learnt the lessons of that and are now adept and serious about use and manipulation of media in subtle (diplomacy, embedding, media and press disinformation) and crude (e.g shelling the Press headquarters in Bagdad during the Iraqi invasion)ways.

In the case of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran and now Russia massive propoganda efforts are going on though the Western media. One of the most blatant and exposable lies is that the Taliban are a drugs operation and that the "coalition of the willing" are putting a stop to poppy production. This is the exact opposite from the truth, but it is regularly repeated on RTE news. All I'm asking is that we try to stick to facts, where they can be ascertained, and if we want to apply an ethic, we do it across the board and not just target a state or states who we perceive for some reason as being "the enemy".

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

There is little room, I think, in politics to talk about hypocrisy; it generates more heat than light.

That it may - the rebukes from the international community aren't casting any light on this either perhaps. What would you suggest would cast light on this?

I think we have to look at these events through the cold light of politics. Russia's attitude towards Kosovo, Ossetia and Abkhazia is no more cynically political than out own opposite views to the same regions. But Politics can be very hazy indeed and focusing too hard on politics can obscure other factors such as simple greed or sincere feeling.

cactus flower wrote:

All I'm asking is that we try to stick to facts, where they can be ascertained, and if we want to apply an ethic, we do it across the board and not just target a state or states who we perceive for some reason as being "the enemy".

And yet you wouldn't accept any criticism of Iran earlier for her many sins.

905 wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

Quote :

There is little room, I think, in politics to talk about hypocrisy; it generates more heat than light.

That it may - the rebukes from the international community aren't casting any light on this either perhaps. What would you suggest would cast light on this?

I think we have to look at these events through the cold light of politics. Russia's attitude towards Kosovo, Ossetia and Abkhazia is no more cynically political than out own opposite views to the same regions. But Politics can be very hazy indeed and focusing too hard on politics can obscure other factors such as simple greed or sincere feeling.

cactus flower wrote:

All I'm asking is that we try to stick to facts, where they can be ascertained, and if we want to apply an ethic, we do it across the board and not just target a state or states who we perceive for some reason as being "the enemy".

And yet you wouldn't accept any criticism of Iran earlier for her many sins.

What I'm asking for is that we try and be aware of the role of propoganda and spot it when it rears its head. In relation to Iran, that would mean us forming our own views on Iran based on the most reliable and muti-faceted data we can find, rather than buying into a patent re-run of the disinformation/propoganda campaign used to justify the war against Iraq. You have started some excellent threads on international issues: a good look at Iran would be very interesting. I know a bit about its history up to about ten years ago, but have lost track since then.

I would consider comparing Iran to a rape victim quite propagandish.

905 wrote:

I would consider comparing Iran to a rape victim quite propagandish.

Do I have to search the whole site to find out what you are referring to ? Give us a clue, 905, please.

From the english forum on Pravda.ru
Photos of Russian fleet ships in Sevastopo taken by the moderator Uragan; looks nice for a holiday.

Quote :

"Pitlivyy", "Kerch", and "Ladnyy" plus 4 Landing Ships.

Quote :

"Smetlivyy" and "Moskva"

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=223829&page=2

And from Reuters today
Russia accuses West of warship provocation

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused the West on Saturday of acting provocatively in and around the Black Sea, where the United States is using warships to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia.

"I wonder how they would feel if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean, suffering from a hurricane, using our navy," Medvedev said, adding that a whole U.S. fleet had been dispatched to deliver the aid.

Everything seems be quite quiet there at the moment . Wikipedia says the U.S. Navy has 280 ships in service - how many of them are in the Black Sea/Gulf I wonder?

Those ships are so blue and pretty. I think I'll change my stance in this conflict, how could anyone with such a sense of style be evil?

http://morris108.wordpress.com/2008/08/29/ria-novosti-nato-black-sea-fleet-build-up-coordinated-in-advance-to-coincide-with-georgian-attack/

Well, the NATO/US naval build up in the Black Sea seems to have been planned a year in advance and was co-ordinated with the attack on South Ossetia.

One can make of that what one will.

Auditor #9 wrote:

From the english forum on Pravda.ru
Photos of Russian fleet ships in Sevastopo taken by the moderator Uragan; looks nice for a holiday.

Quote :

"Pitlivyy", "Kerch", and "Ladnyy" plus 4 Landing Ships.

Quote :

"Smetlivyy" and "Moskva"

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=223829&page=2

And from Reuters today
Russia accuses West of warship provocation

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev accused the West on Saturday of acting provocatively in and around the Black Sea, where the United States is using warships to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia.

"I wonder how they would feel if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean, suffering from a hurricane, using our navy," Medvedev said, adding that a whole U.S. fleet had been dispatched to deliver the aid.

Everything seems be quite quiet there at the moment . Wikipedia says the U.S. Navy has 280 ships in service - how many of them are in the Black Sea/Gulf I wonder?

They seem to have learned nothing from Pearl Harbour. They haven't been reading the Darwin thread. I said

S C A T T E R. . . . . . .

Riadach. That is the picture that inspired the name Chief Yellow Jacket. Technically it should be Chief Yellow Pants but nobody is perfect

I mean like you know, his jacket like, didn't even match his pants. Oh my gosh like, what a fashion faux pas!

If I remember correctly, there were calls for his resignation. And rightly so.

Speaking of phoney wars - Russia is about to move a few pieces ...

Russia says to send battleship to Caribbean Sea[sic]

Quote :

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia will send a nuclear-powered battleship to the Caribbean for a joint naval exercise with Venezuela, Russia's Foreign Ministry said on Monday.

The maneuvers later this year will be the first Russia has conducted in Washington's traditional sphere of influence since the end of the Cold War.

Russia has heavily criticized the United States for sending a sophisticated command ship and two other naval vessels to Georgia, on its southern border, to deliver aid and show support for President Mikheil Saakashvili after Moscow sent troops into Georgia.

Kremlin leader Dmitry Medvedev asked on Saturday how Washington would feel "if we now dispatched humanitarian assistance to the Caribbean...using our navy".

Later that day, a Venezuelan naval official said four Russian warships would visit the Caribbean in November.

Reuters