Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia - Part 14
Comments
US funded "Radio Liberty" to start Abkhazian and Ossetian services.
to launch daily broadcasts to the breakaway Georgian regions of South
Ossetia and Abkhazia beginning in November.
The 60-minute daily program will be produced by journalists in RFE/
RL's Prague headquarters and correspondents in Georgia (including
South Ossetia and Abkhazia) and Russia.
The new broadcasts will be in Russian and will be available on
shortwave radio frequencies every day in the evening. Broadcasts may
also be available on FM frequencies.
The broadcasts will include news and features and will be interactive
with listeners. A website known as "Caucasus Echo" will debut
simultaneously with the first broadcasts in November. The web presence
will be optimized for dial-up connections, which predominate in the
region.
The new program's major objective is reconciliation among people in
the regions and the bridging of different viewpoints expressed by the
parties to the processes in the region.
(Source : RFE/RL)
Here's a critical remark or two ...
To decrease anti-Georgian sentiments in South Ossetia and Abkhazia;
To monitor events linked to the Georgian-Ossetian and Georgian-Abkhaz
conflicts;
To create an information space capable of diminishing the influence of
Russian propaganda in the conflict zones.
The objective of the project is to submit objective and weighed
information on events and processes linked to the Georgian-Ossetian
and Georgian-Abkhaz conflicts to residents of Georgia's separatist
republics (South Ossetia and Abkhazia); to objectively inform the
Ossetians and Abkhaz on the Georgian side's peace initiatives; and to
democratize Ossetian and Abkhaz societies by way of advocating
democratic values.
The project has received support for 12 months. If successfully
implemented, it will be prolonged for one more year.
(Source: Caucasus Times website, Prague, in Russian 02 Oct 09 via BBC
Monitoring)
Ha ha. What a pile of fracking Yanqui crap. First they fund a meglomaniac to the tune of a billion a year in military "aid". Their madman attacks South Ossetia, and threatens Abkhazia, and tries to wipe Tskinvali off the face of the Earth. He fails. In fact, the Russians are ready for him and his military flees, with their tails between their legs, back to Tbilisi. The Russians leave after having smashed up plenty of Georgian miltary equipment.
Now the Americans want to convince the Ossetians that they're REALLY the good guys. What a steaming pile of animal droppings.
The original Russian version of the report: http://www.caucasustimes.com/article.asp?id=20119
Looks like the propaganda apparatus is moving into the neighborhood for sure.
Russia says fascist nations still arming Georgia for another round of aggression
Georgia Vs Russia: Fanning the Flames of Another War in the Caucasus
http://www.counterpunch.org/walberg03052010.html
"Will there be another war in the Caucasus?"
Eric Redburn, who posted upthread and raised what seemed to me at the time to be rather thinly veiled attempts at thread derailment, may, along with other babblers, be interested in following up (from the article in Counterpunch) the following quote:
The author notes that peace has been upset in the region, because, well, because of you-know-who ...
I would add, right away, that the planned Winter Olympics in Sochi in 2014 might be an "ideal" target for US-sponsored terrorism, or, less violently, a simple Yanqui-led boycott. Oh yea.
Anyway, thanks for the article. It's a good read and fills in some blanks for me.
Yeah, I think the left should have pushed harder for a boycott of the recent Olympics and pointing to western world hypocrisy concerning the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in 1980. The vicious empire didn't miss a beat with that boycott then. A native Canadian athlete from a reserve near my hometown missed going to the Olympics that year because of the bullshit.
Eric Redburn, who posted upthread and raised what seemed to me at the time to be rather thinly veiled attempts at thread derailment, may, along with other babblers, be interested in following up (from the article in Counterpunch) the following quote:
I'll kindly ask you once to not ascribe motives to me that I don't have, or reopen arguments that have long since passed. It aint my fault if some still feel the need to assign all the world's evils on one imperialistic power.
Does the US play a significant role in Chechnya terrorism or not? That's the question that I've highlighted and that has been raised by the author of the article.
Aren't you interested in Chechnya in relation to this thread anymore? Fine. But you brought it up, initially. Remember?
Yes I remember Beltov, and I can always relive the highlights by reading back, I'm just wondering why you're resurrecting all this again.
US, NATO Intensifying War Games Around Russia's Perimeter
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/u-s-nato-intensify-war-games-...
"Along with plans to base anti-ballistic missile facilities in Poland near Russia's border (a 35 mile distance) and in Bulgaria and Romania across the Black Sea from Russia, Washington and the self-styled global military bloc it leads, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization have arranged a series of military exercises on and near Russia's borders this year..
That trajectory - from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, the Caucasus and Central Asia places US and NATO military presence along a substantial portion of the land borders of European Russia..."
US Black Sea Military Buildup Could Trigger Missile War
http://canada.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/72184
"...it is evident that the main focus of US and NATO interceptor missile deployments will be in the Black Sea region. The announcement that Romania will host American missiles was made in February 4, the news that Bulgaria would follow suit was disclosed on Feb. 12..
In the words of a Moldovan political analyst, 'the United States is turning the Black Sea into an American Lake.."
Saakashvili militarist regime causes panic by brodcasting hoax of Russian invasion ...
Saakashvili militarist regime causes panic by brodcasting hoax of Russian invasion ...
What the hell's the matter with that guy?
The story:
What is "Imedi"?:
. . . so why exactly is N. Beltov blaming Saakashvili or is government for the actions of a private broadcaster? I mean, I have a pretty good idea why, but I'm curious to see what excuse N.Beltov would like to put forward.
A CBC radio story tonight said it was state (or gov't) station that broadcast it. Interviews with Georgians on the street suggested their gov't would pay the price of such ignorance.
Sounds like a low budget false flag op. Dr Strangelove said once, "Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy the fear to attack!" Or perhaps the art of producing in the minds of the people the fear of an attack? Who knows what lurks in the dark and rotten depths of the fascist mind?
The CBC appears to be the only one saying that.
Perhaps the Georgians in street interviews got it wrong, or it was just "gov't inspired." Can't imagine another group out to frighten folks.
1. Georgian TV in bitter ownership row.
Seems that A_J's claims regarding the "private" nature of the broadcaster don't stand up to scrutiny. But don't just go by the RT story. They quote Georgian opposition leaders as well ...
2.
"As far as we came to know, Saakashvili knew about the preparation of the report, which means he does not care about the Georgian people," added another opposition leader, Zurab Abashidze.
qed.
Here's a little more from a New Zealand website ... "state manipulation of media remains a serious concern for Georgia's Western backers."
The opposition said the government was behind the report on Imedi, which is run by a close ally of Saakashvili.
The president's spokeswoman said the accusation was absurd.
But state manipulation of media remains a serious concern for Georgia's Western backers....
And the meglomaniacal President?
He could easily be a member of the Harper Cabinet here in Canada. Maybe there's a vacancy? I understand Vic Toews has been blasting away, mercilessly, ... at his own foot ... over the "liberal" media (aka, the right-of-centre Winnipeg Free Press) ...
West condemns Georgia war spoof
and from the C Science Monitor ...
Nino Burdzhanadze (Georgian opposition leader) told the Monitor she believes that Saakashvili ordered the Russian invasion hoax to sow anti-Russia panic and tar Georgia's opposition, which has been calling for his resignation for more than a year.
That's a very long article from which you've quoted. Rozoff seems to expect the Russians to jettison the Ossetians and Abkhazians at the first opportunity.
I'm not buying it. There's a little too much wishful thinking by the author.
This recent news item is interesting. It seems that the French President, Sarcozy, got upset with the Georgian delegation at the NATO Summit for bringing in dozens and dozens of prostitutes to party with.
This is more reflective of the views of the NATO members and the prospective membership of Georgia. What the delegates did with the prostitutes is a better guide of their intentions towards their neighboring countries. And the Russians know it, I think.
The Russian presence at NATO is as likely to blow that organization apart. Or create a two-tiered set-up which would effectively kill it. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
That's a very long article from which you've quoted. Rozoff seems to expect the Russians to jettison the Ossetians and Abkhazians at the first opportunity.
I'm not buying it. There's a little too much wishful thinking by the author.
Really? Wishful thinking?
Maybe you should have read at least the first few paragraphs of the "very long article". It's clear to me that the last thing Rozoff "wishes" is for Ossetia and Abkhazia to be under Georgia/NATO control. The blog is, after all, called "Stop NATO".
The day before the NATO-Russia Council meeting, where Russia was outnumbered 28-1, U.S. President Obama met privately with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, Russia's Public Enemy No. 1 as military analyst Alexander Golts described him on the occasion.
Saakashvili, who was educated in the U.S. on a State Department fellowship and came to power through a U.S.-sponsored coup in 2003 which its perpetrators termed the Rose Revolution, ordered sniper and mortar attacks on South Ossetia on August 1, 2008, killing six people including a Russian peacekeeper. The day after the Immediate Response 2008 NATO war games led by 1,000 U.S. troops had ended and with American soldiers and military equipment still in Georgia.
Six days later, as the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games was underway in Beijing, Georgia launched an all-out assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali.
By the time Russian reinforcements beat back the Georgian offensive and the war ended five days after it had begun, 64 Russian service members had been killed and 323 wounded. The U.S. provided military transport planes to bring 2,000 Georgian troops back from Iraq for the fighting.
Shortly afterward the U.S. rewarded Georgia with the signing of the United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership and NATO formed the NATO-Georgia Commission, out of which an individually tailored Annual National Program(me) was created to further Georgia's integration into the North Atlantic Alliance.
Yea, there's bugger all there of serious analysis of Russian plans and intentions. That's why I remarked "wishful thinking".
Ossetians now have Russian passports, as do Abkhazians i think. The unreconstructed NATO view of encirclement (of Russia) is not lost on the Russians. There's plenty about Georgia and that sociopath Saakashvili but the author seems to be of the view that the Russians are incapable of determining and protecting their own interests. Does that really need a lengthy reply?
I was speaking to a friend of mine who sings in a Georgian choir (unbelievably good music) that while Georgians are not real happy with Sakashvili's adventuring all of the Russians in that part of the world are occupying populations from the era of Soviet imperialism.
They don't cry a lot over them getting attacked.
Ossetians are not Russians ... and they're the ones that Saakashvili tried to slaughter. The Russians were the ones that came to their rescue and administered a richly deserved thumping to the Georgian military.
Try to get your prejudices straight. lol.
And your source for this claim is?
A priori you have less credibility with me on the subject than my friend.
I was speaking to a friend of mine who sings in a Georgian choir (unbelievably good music) that while Georgians are not real happy with Sakashvili's adventuring all of the Russians in that part of the world are occupying populations from the era of Soviet imperialism.
They don't cry a lot over them getting attacked.
You would be more accurate in saying "Russian Imperialism", as opposed to "Soviet Imperialism", since of course all the Soviet Union did was reinforce and continue the policies of military domination and colonial settler expansion. The borders of the Soviet Union were very much the same as those of the Russian empire. To say "Soviet Imperialism" is to imply that the colonial and imperial project was ideologically linked to the Soviet Union, when it is pretty clear that the Soviet Union basically co-opted the boundaries of the empire that preceded it.
But I am glad that you recognize the grand Russian colonial project is still occupation, regardless of whatever administrative apparatus , just as when Canada came into existence as a dominion, free of the British Empire, it did not change the fact that the European population were still occupiers.
You would be more accurate in saying "Russian Imperialism", as opposed to "Soviet Imperialism", since of course all the Soviet Union did was reinforce and continue the policies of military domination and colonial settler expansion. The borders of the Soviet Union were very much the same as those of the Russian empire. To say "Soviet Imperialism" is to imply that the colonial and imperial project was ideologically linked to the Soviet Union, when it is pretty clear that the Soviet Union basically co-opted the boundaries of the empire that preceded it.
That's pretty contorted reasoning.
A distinction needs to be made between the Russian Empire, Stalinist Russia and the Soviet Union that existed before and after the Stalinist period.
Under the Russian Empire, Finland was a semiautonomous Grand Duchy, eastern Poland was part of the Russian Empire as was Moldavia (or "Moldovo".)
In 1939, in accordance with the Nazi-Sovet Pact, Stalin invaded Poland. In 1940, Russia attacked Finland in the "Winter War" and in the same year, Russia attacked/invaded/occupied Moldavia, then a province of Rumania.
It's completely factual actually. You seem to be someone with a servicable understanding of the second world war, but not really much about the history of the USSR;
USSR:
Empire of Russia:
As can easily be seen, the USSR bsically considered its direct territorial claims to be those of the Russian Empire. Even in the case of Finland, at the armistice of the 1940 Winter War, the USSR agreed to accept the same territorial limits as the empire of the Czar.
This is also true of Stalin's ambitions in Poland, where the failed 1920 invasion, and the eventual outcome of the Molotov-Ribentrop pact conformed to the claim over Poland that was consistent with that of the Russian Empire.
Indeed, allowing for an quasi-independent Polish puppet state at the end of WWII was fundamentally a concession.
But this is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about the Russian colonial project in Asia, and this process of colonization began way before anyone even concieved of the existance of the Soviet Union. It is Russian colonialism, at its heart, not "soviet" colonialism.
The only unique case in the Inter War Period is Poland where it can be said that non-Stalinist Soviet Russia attempted to carry on the imperialist policy of Imperial Russia. However, the Russo-Polish war decided that.
The only thing that has been determined here is that Stalinist Russia successfully continued Imperialist Russia's colonial policy: the borders of Finland, Poland, Rumania, displacing people from the Don Basin, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldavia for anti-Soviet activities and forced migration of Russians to these areas as well as to Kazakhstan (in the desire to start new collectivized farms there.)
If (and I don't know for sure whether or not this was done) these policies were carried out in the Soviet Union prior to and after the Stalinist era, then it can be said that Soviet communism not only passively allowed Imperial Russian colonialism, it actively participated in it or had a colonial policy of their own that was like Imperial Russia's.
What are Georgia's claims to Abkhazia and Ossetia?
Ask Abkhazians and Ossetians what they prefer, they would rather be "protected" by Russia than Georgia.
Given the geography of the area, it is easier for food, fuel and other resources to be supplied to the area from Russia.
Mountains make travel and communications from Georgia more difficult.
It was definitely an objective of the CPSU to unify all of the areas of the Czarist Russian empire into the USSR. A large part of the Civil War was devoted to bringing under control various areas that had been liberated by local nationalist movements that had allied themselves with the White Russian armies. This included an invasion of Poland in 1920 that was intended to overturn the results of the peace agreement that ended Russia's war with Germany during the First World War.
Be that as it may, the point I am making is that Russian settlement of Asia and the Caucuses continued unabaited from the Czarist period right through until the end of the USSR in 1990's, leaving large pockets of Slavic Russian persons living throughout many of the former Soviet Republics that did not join the CIS.
These issues are complex, and I think it is a mistake to look at regional disputes through the lens of non-Russian and Russian rivalries, when there are often examples of local nationalities that see their interests best served by being allied with Russia. Ossetia is a good example of this, since the Ossetians are a minority within the Georgian national framework.
Complex, yes. But the Ossetians will never look at themselves as a "minority within the Georgian national framework". Not when the Georgian regime bombed people in the very territory they claimed was their own. As I wrote on September 1, 2008, "But this is precisely what the Saakashvili militarist regime in Tbilisi did; they bombed people in territory that they claimed was their own country. It was ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. And, as a result, Georgia has forever lost any moral right to to talk about "territorial integrity" in these areas when what it means for the butcher of Tbilisi is the killing of their own."
As an aside, at the time, Saakashvili had been caught chewing his tie on national television.
Be that as it may, the point I am making is that Russian settlement of Asia and the Caucuses continued unabaited from the Czarist period right through until the end of the USSR in 1990's, leaving large pockets of Slavic Russian persons living throughout many of the former Soviet Republics that did not join the CIS.
I thought communism generally and Soviet communism specifically was anti-imperialism/anticolonialism.
I guess I was wrong.
What right does the U.S.A. and NATO have to get involved in this matter?
Georgia as a prospective member of NATO is an "ally" of the USA. And that ally got a billion in military "aid", for example, prior to the bombing campaign in South Ossetia. It's pretty clear that geopolitical or geostrategic (Brezhinski, Z) views prevail among US military planners and their political "masters".
Thing is, NATO has criteria that consider an attack on any one member as an attack on them all. So, while the US encouraged the Saakashvili regime to jab a stick at the Russian bear, there's no way that the Americans would get into a direct conflict with the Russians over South Ossetia. And that, by itself, is a kind of "bl*wing up" of NATO into a kind of 2-tiered organization; there's those who are fully protected, and those who are "sort of" protected. The militarist regime in Tbilisi right now would fall into the latter category.
This is why I say that NATO may just collapse over these issues - and the presence of Russia at NATO meetings. I don't at all agree with the claims by the author that M.Spector provided upthread on this.
Be that as it may, the point I am making is that Russian settlement of Asia and the Caucuses continued unabaited from the Czarist period right through until the end of the USSR in 1990's, leaving large pockets of Slavic Russian persons living throughout many of the former Soviet Republics that did not join the CIS.
I thought communism generally and Soviet communism specifically was anti-imperialism/anticolonialism.
I guess I was wrong.
The evolution of this particular relationship between the USSR and the Czarist Empire has a consistent logic. For one thing, not capturing all of the territory of the old empire offered a legitimate base for anti-Soviet activity. It's not as if the White Russians were not trying to wipe them out. On the other hand, legitimate movements seeking to liberate themselves from Russian hegemony were ruthlessly crushed.
Its hard to know exactly how one would reasonably proceed under such circumstances.
I don't buy that argument.
After 1924 - the end the civil war, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia(?), Moldavia, Georgia, the Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmen, Kazakh, Uzbek, Tajik, Kyrgyz, etc., were defeated. There was no longer any threat that these "countries"/Soviet Socialist Republics were bases of anti-soviet or Turkish imperial activity.
Those were the excuses that Stalin used, along with "nationalist kulaks" to justify/excuse his repression.
In the Interwar Period, the people living in Finland, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and the Rumanian part of Moldavia were quite happy where they were.
As far as I know, there weren't any credible, and certainly not successful, attempts to undermine communism in the Soviet Union either by these peoples or by foreign intelligence operations launched from these countries. Any such accounts are Stalinist GPU propaganda or the stuff of Western pre Bondian Reily "Ace of Spies" fiction.
What goes on in the former Soviet Union/CIS is their business.
Not that of the U.S., the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Department, George Soros or NATO, etc.
Georgia as a prospective member of NATO is an "ally" of the USA. And that ally got a billion in military "aid", for example, prior to the bombing campaign in South Ossetia. It's pretty clear that geopolitical or geostrategic (Brezhinski, Z) views prevail among US military planners and their political "masters".
Thing is, NATO has criteria that consider an attack on any one member as an attack on them all. So, while the US encouraged the Saakashvili regime to jab a stick at the Russian bear, there's no way that the Americans would get into a direct conflict with the Russians over South Ossetia. And that, by itself, is a kind of "bl*wing up" of NATO into a kind of 2-tiered organization; there's those who are fully protected, and those who are "sort of" protected. The militarist regime in Tbilisi right now would fall into the latter category.
This is why I say that NATO may just collapse over these issues - and the presence of Russia at NATO meetings. I don't at all agree with the claims by the author that M.Spector provided upthread on this.
Here's an article that's the antidote for that:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/11/23/a-terrible-time-for-nato-expa...
I didn't pose an argument. I made an observation, and the expressed the conclusion as a dilemma.
See, in the above paragraph I am talking about the Civil War. See how I am talking about the "White Russians". The White Russians ceased to exist after 1924. Hence I am talking about the period prior to 1924.
It is this period in which the Soviet Union solidified it control of 90% of the territories of the former Russian empire. In particular the territories of Asia and the Caucuses. Lithuania, Latvia and the rest of that list all come after this point. That is Stalin doing house cleaning so to speak.
The dilemma is how the USSR is to survive the critical stage of its creation, when large portions of former Russian territory are being used as staging areas for Czarist forces who claim sovereignty by having control of these territories that are parts of the Russian Empire's administrative zone, and also respecting the right of self determination of those peoples who are seeking freedom from Russian hegemony.
The WWII dilemma is a different kettle of fish. But I might observe that had the Russian border not been 200 miles further west in 1941, we can easily calculate that Moscow would have been overun by November 1941, had the Germans been able to hold to the same schedule of advance as they did historically.
The dilemma is how the USSR is to survive the critical stage of its creation, when large portions of former Russian territory are being used as staging areas for Czarist forces who claim sovereignty by having control of these territories that are parts of the Russian Empire's administrative zone, and also respecting the right of self determination of those peoples who are seeking freedom from Russian hegemony.
The relevance of this is that between 1989-1992 and to the present day, former Soviet Socialist Republics and parts of these former Republics have become/are becoming independent, either for the first time or once again.
That is their business. They have historic and ethnic claims to these territories. The U.S.A., NATO and George Soros have no legal, historic or moral claims to meddle in these territories.
That logic would then lead us to the conclusion that the dominant culture and its people in North America are not legitimate stakeholders either. It is a fact that large number of ethnically Russian people now live throughout Asia, and in the Caucuses, and were born there, due to the colonization process between 1800 and 1992, which is the point that I am making. Furthermore, not all persons who are not Russian reject out of hand Russian support for their interests.
Edvard Shevardnadze, Mikhail Gorbacheov's foreigner minister and the first president of independent Georgia was ethnically Georgian, as was Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, who became the General Secretary of the CPSU in 1922.
It's nice to say with a sweep of ones hand that ALL, non-ethnic Russians reject categorically co-operative relationships with Russia. Not everyone are ethnic chauvanists first and foremost. For example, many of Canada's French Canadian minority do not out of hand reject being part of the Canadian federation, simply on ethnic grounds.
Tito, a Croat, believed that the best way to quell Serbian ethnic nationalism was to submerge it in pan-slavic Yugoslav state.
That logic would then lead us to the conclusion that the dominant culture and its people in North America are not legitimate stakeholders either. It is a fact that large number of ethnically Russian people now live throughout Asia, and in the Caucuses, and were born there, due to the colonization process between 1800 and 1992, which is the point that I am making. Furthermore, not all persons who are not Russian reject out of hand Russian support for their interests.
Edvard Shevardnadze, Mikhail Gorbacheov's foreigner minister and the first president of independent Georgia was ethnically Georgian, as was Vasily Iosifovich Dzhugashvili, who became the General Secretary of the CPSU in 1922.
It's nice to say with a sweep of ones hand that ALL, non-ethnic Russians reject categorically co-operative relationships with Russia. Not everyone are ethnic chauvanists first and foremost. For example, many of Canada's French Canadian minority do not out of hand reject being part of the Canadian federation, simply on ethnic grounds.
And that's perfectly fine for them. That's their business, not ours.
It's none of our business to pick sides and arm them against others and cause trouble, disturbance and wars over there (like Abkhazia, Ossetia and Kyrgystan.)
Just as it wouldn't be any of their business to pick sides among our Native Indian peoples, and arm them against the dominant white settler culture and cause trouble, disturbance and wars over here. That's our business, not theirs.
That is an interesting view.
That's what happened over there.
Those "colored revolutions" in Georgia, the Ukraine and in the 'stans were Pentagon meddling and George Soros' economic meddling so that governments friendly to the U.S. could come to power. Yanqui economic imperialism could get a toehold in these countries. Azerbaijan is an oil rich country. Turkmenistan, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan are in the Caspian Sea Basin area and are very oil rich countries. The war in Afghanistan offers Unocal the prospect of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-(India) TAP(I) pipline. Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan offer airbases for the U.S. to bring in supplies to Afghanistan.
The Pentagon's tool, NATO has/has been trying to isolate Russia by encouraging these countries to join. Georgia has joined and has sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan and is also involved in training Afghan ANA and ANP. The Ukraine has rejected membership, for the time being and is currently seeking friendly relations with Russia.
In NATO's desperate bid to survive the Afghan war, they have won Russian support for allowing the shipment of nonlethal supplies and equipment through Russia to Afghanistan.
Sure. Anyway. Just thought I would fill in with some history.
The importance of history is that it answers the questions "Why is this happening?" and "How did we get here?".
Good question. Please continue in a new thread if you like.
Closing for length.
The Opposition to the militarist regime in Tbilisi have met with the authoritarian President, Mikhail Saakashvili. The latter is still refusing to step down, despite his impending political oblivion.
Media concentration into the hands of friends of Saakashvili, actions of this media hound, mutiny in the Georgian military, and related topics are covered in Peter Lavalle's most recent blog entry.
"... where the military is NOT united in respecting civilian control." An Opposition Leader, not too long ago, noted that the real threat to Georgia is from the Saakashvili militarist regime itself. The danger of further military attacks on Georgia's neighbours, not to mention this dangerous division in the Georgian military, make the regime a threat to its own citizens.
Mind you, Western regimes, trapped in archaic Cold War thinking in antideluvian organizations like NATO, could give a shit about the well-being of Georgians, South Ossetians, Abkhazians, or any of the other nationalities in the region. And the current military exercises in Georgia, in which Canada is involved up to its neck, is proof of that.
Where did Saakashvili come from, anyway?
Then again, it's difficult to wean the Western countries from supporting a Caucasian thug, isn't it?
Georgia steps forward as launch customer for Turkish Ejder 6x6 AWVs
Georgia is the launch customer for the new Turkish Nurol Makina Ve Sanayi Ejder (6x6) armoured wheeled vehicle (AWV), it has been revealed.
Georgia has ordered 70 of the vehicles in armoured personnel carrier (APC) configuration; the first was delivered last year and final deliveries are due late in 2009.
I guess Humvees didnt pass field tests for them. You know what they say - if it's no Scottish, it's crrap!
Inside Russia - Military Reforms
Drive into the sprawling base of the Russian Army's 76th Airborne Division in the north-western town of Pskov, and you are greeted by a large mural with the unit's motto "Honour, Glory, Professionalism".
The first two words reflect age-old concepts in the armed forces; the third, a very new one.
That is why I have come, because the elite 76th Airborne (which first fought in Germany, and later in Armenia, Chechnya and most recently last year in Georgia) is the template for radical plans to streamline the world's fourth largest army and turn it into a leaner, meaner fighting force.
Pentagon Preparing For War With The Enemy: Russia
"The new President of the United States did not bring about any crucial changes in relation to Georgia, but having a dominant role in NATO he still insists on Georgia's soonest joining of
the Alliance. If it happens, the world would face a more serious threat than the crises of the Cold War.
"Under the new realities, Georgia's war against South Ossetia may easily turn into NATO's war against Russia. This would be a third world war." (Irina Kadzhaev, South Ossetia political scientist, South Ossetia Information Agency, April 2009
On May 12 James Mattis, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Transformation [ACT] and commander of the U.S. Joint Forces Command, spoke at a three-day symposium called Joint Warfighting 09 in Norfolk, Virginia, where NATO's Allied Command Transformation is based, and stated: "I come with a sense of urgency. The enemy is meeting like this as well." [1]
A local newspaper summarized his speech:
"Mattis outlined a future in which wars will not have clearly defined beginnings and ends. What is needed, he said, is a grand strategy, a political framework that can guide military planning."
War of annhilation against Russian capitalism?
The mental condition of the Georgian President has been described as "severe" by the leader of the Opposition. Faced with a growing tide of calls for his immediate resignation, Saakashvili decided to go to Rome to watch a soccer game.
The leader of the Georgian opposition Eka Beselia insists that Saakashvili's trip once again demonstrated the president's irresponsibility and inadequacy.
"His mental condition is even more severe than we had anticipated," said Eka Beselia. "This means the country lacks a president simply because Saakashvili is only thinking about his personal wellbeing," she added.
This week, we had the following:
"This current phase we marked with blocking a railroad. If the authorities do not react accordingly we will proceed to the airports. If the new measures do not bring satisfactory results, the situation has all the chances to become uncontrollable," warned Beselia.
On Tuesday, approximately 50,000 people turned up at Tbilisi's Dinamo stadium for a "civil protest parade".
Patriarch Ilia II of Georgia has called on Georgian authorities to conduct special elections and hold talks with the opposition.
Saakashvili's condition is "severe".
Tens of thousands gather for the final push.
Well the final push is taking longer than expected. However, the following should be of interest ...
More exactly, we have:
See Der Spiegel
Mind you, some of the remarks were laughable ...
Inadvertently? ahahahahahahahaha ha! Yes, one billion "inadvertent" dollars per year in military spending and a truckload of American and Israeli military "advisors" later MAY have "somehow" promoted Saakashvili's attempt to incinerate Tskinvali. And all the military exercises JUST BEFORE THE BOMBING OF SOUTH OSSETIA might have had an "inadvertent" effect on the Georgian President. OTOH, in good liberal fashion, perhaps, just perhaps, there's no connection whatsoever and one mustn't JUMP to conclusions about that great friend of liberty and peace, the USA.
USA! USA! How many kids did you kill today??!
I wonder what back page this story will appear on in Canadian and USian papers? Now, where's that broom ...
South Ossetia, one year later, we have the American left liberal view of Stephen Cohen ...
Stephen Cohen: it was like a Cuban missile crisis of 2008. A proxy war between US and Russia. Anti-Russian views remain dominant in Washington, the new President notwithstanding.
Cohen: Biden is simply a man who has difficulty controlling his mouth.
Ha. Nothing like an American to show American idiocy. Heh.
Here's a Russian View.
Interestingly, Georgia has said it is willing to provide "aid" to South Ossetia in the amount of $4 billion. The catch? All Russian troops must leave, making the tiny state virtually defenceless. The Georgian militarist Saakashvili has failed in his Anschluss; then, and now.
Biden's a Liberal Democrat warhawk. He has to prove his rabid anticommunist-ness to the rightwing whacko warhawks. It's all about political capital and credibility in Warshington.
Christ, is this really only "Part 14" of the initial thread about Georgia and South Ossetia?
I would have imagined that, by now, we'd have talled up at least a triple-digit number of threads!
_______________________________________
Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!
How about digging up a cartoon from last year?
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/07/georgian-president-vows-to-defeat-rus...
"The Georgian government issued its official report, which blamed Russia for starting the war with a massive invasion, a case of dramatic historical revisionism considering the clash was only 12 months ago."
One Year After August War, Russia and Georgia Prepare for Another Conflict
http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/20857/South_Ossetia_Ready_For_Inv...
Georgian Solidier Claims Saakashvili Preparing for Another War
http://www.guerrillanews.com/headlines/20858/Deserted_Georgian_Soldier_S...
"A Soldier who deserted the Georgian army and has now fled to Russia says US instructors are now training Georgian soldiers for a war - just as they did before Georgia's assault last year on South Ossetia
One of the well known Georgian opposition leaders claimed that as long as Saakashvili was in power in Tbilisi there would be a danger of further war and resulting humiliation for Georgia. The opposition leaders have no love for the Russians but they recognize the harm that the current President is still capable of. That's why Saakashvili must go. He's a threat to his own country.
Russia Parries US Thrust in Central Asia
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KH08Ag01.html
"the Russian move to strengthen its military presence in Kyrgyzstan is intended to counter the renewed US thrust into Central Asia. The alliance (NATO) is indeed lurching toward Central Asia and Moscow is worried.."
http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=21958
"Reports from the Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe's (OSCE) observers on the ground, independent journalists and, most importantly, a number of senior Georgian officials who later broke with the Saakashvili regime, all confirm that it was the Georgian president who personally ordered a tank assault on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali and, specifically, on the Russian peacekeeping unit located there. This conclusion is widely shared by CIA and Pentagon intelligence analysts."
Gosh, I just can't seem to find the OSCE's conclusions (about Saakashvili's responsibility for starting the war) in the main stream media. Given the breathless and extensive coverage at the time, loudly blaming the evil Rooskies, I would have thought the MSM would have a keen interest in setting the record straight. They just report the truth, right?
Is there no end to American perfidy on this issue?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/world/europe/14military.html?_r=1&part...
It looks like the new party line for Yanqui imperialism is that the American (and Israeli) military "advisors" and trainers in Georgia prior to the bombing of South Ossetia were there to train for the NATO Afghan occupation. So the Russians have nothing to worry about this time around, eh?
What a crock of shit. At the time of last August's horrific atrocities against the civilians of Tskinvali, Georgia brought back from Iraq - or was it Afghanistan? - troops to participate in the bloodbath.
It seems the troops are as interchangeable as the Yaquis say they AREN'T. Try another lie, Uncle Sam. One's as good as another.
Caucasus: The War That Was, The World War That Might Have Been
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14779
"Russian political leadership has been reserved if not outright compliant over the past decade when the US and NATO attacked Yugoslavia, invaded Afghanistan and set up bases throughout Central and South Asia, invaded Iraq in 2003, assisted in deposing governments in Yugoslavia, Georgia, Adjaria, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan, to Russia's disadvantage and brazenly boasted of plans to drive Russia out of the European energy market. But intensifying the destabilization of its southern republics and turning them into new Kosovos is more than Moscow can allow.."
Phillip Crawley Makes Special Statement on US Instructors Arriving in Georgia
http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=17859
"Representative of the US State Department Philip Crowley made a statement on US instructors being sent to Georgia. US Marines will arrive in Georgia Aug. 15 and training will take part on Sept 1st. The second and third brigades of the Georgian army will be trained in Georgia and France. 170 Georgian soldiers will be sent to Afghanistan in November.."
What qualifies as a "bloodbath"? I know this time last year the Russians were crowing about the thousands and thousands of civilians killed in Tshinvali and South Ossetia generally, but it appears that the numbers Russia itself has settled on are much, much lower:
South Ossetian Civilians - 162
Russian and Separatist Soldiers - 215
Georgian Civilians - 228
Georgian Soldiers/Police - 199
Looks like you, and a lot of other people, fell for Russia's babies-in-incubators story.
When you get around to providing a source for your numbers, then I'll get around to blowing your numbers out of the water. Wikipedia? uh-huh.
Yes A-J, Russia was only responding to the dire threat of posed by neighbouring Georgia. Putin and Medvedev just couldn't humanly stand by while their Caucasian brothers were being victimized by others. Putin and Medvedv are only fighting to defend democracy around the world.
Is that what Saakashvili is fighting for?
I thought the rule here is that the greater power in a conflict is the one to watch for, no?
The greater power was the US and Israeli-trained Georgian military. The other side was the civilian population of Tskinvali and Russian peacekeepers ... until the Russian military came to the latter's rescue.
Maybe some babblers would prefer that Saakashvili's storm troopers slaughtered more of the Ossetians, like the wild "success" the Israelis had in Gaza recently, and then the Ossetians, and their Russian benefactors, would somehow merit more sympathy from these "wise" and "just" babblers.
So should we then get directly involved to save Tibetans from China, Kordofanians from Chinese backed Sudan, or Burmese from their own? Never mind, since I generally appreciate your posts on subjects other than Russia I'll just drop out of this one now.
So should we then get directly involved to save Tibetans from China, Kordofanians from Chinese backed Sudan, or Burmese from their own? Never mind, since I generally appreciate your posts on subjects other than Russia I'll just drop out of this one now.
how about getting directly involved to save the sovereign indigenous nations invaded, occupied, despoiled and genocided by Canada?
thread drift over - returning to regular programming now..
Actually I have been involved, and I've supported Native land claims from the beginning, thanks for asking. I've had Zionists ask the same. So before I retreat again, do we have to live in perfect nations before we're allowed to criticise violence inflicted on others? And does this rule apply in other lands?
An obvious question to be put to a Canadian even by Zionists apparently. It is the settlers who "claim" not their rightful owners. Native land claims are a process for legitimizing their theft by Canada via "extinguishment by consent" and in answer to your question I say definitely not and rules are only made by those with the power to enforce them. bye ER
You just avoided my point regarding a certain double standard enjoyed here, and youre avoiding the reality of land claims today.
Of course they shouldn't *have* to be made by their rightful owners (or caretaker/tenants/inhabitants more accurately) but the situation now is that "we" Do "own" all the land, de facto and de jure (under our system of course), that hasn't been already "settled" by previous treaties (most of which were forced on them too, but not something they can give up either), therefore FN's rights had to be recognised in our courts before places like beautiful BC could be forced to start recognising their "claims" at all. Maybe Re-claiming would be a bit better term but I don't know if it would fly in court.
And rules are always set by the more powerful party, with some possibly easing under better conditions, but it doesn't make it right in either case. So "natural rights" too sometimes have to be backed up by force or popular opinion or compromises made, but the common moral values remain above it. Goodnight.
An obvious question to be put to a Canadian even by Zionists apparently.
And since I was again button holed, that's not the point the Zionist was making, but rather that "we" have no right to criticise "them" as long as "we" occupy someone elses land too. He saw it as a common justification, I didn't. But my personal support for giving land back to their rightful owners (some) and his personal opposition to it (any) apparently made no difference in him. There was no you or I to him, there was only us and/or them. I don't think the left should get caught anywhere within that same field.
this discussion should occur in some other thread perhaps?
So should we then get directly involved to save Tibetans from China, Kordofanians from Chinese backed Sudan, or Burmese from their own? Never mind, since I generally appreciate your posts on subjects other than Russia I'll just drop out of this one now.
Without specifically addressing any one of your particular examples, solidarity or internationalism is a fundamental principle of the left. If it isn't important to someone then, in my view, they're not really on the left.
I have a personal interest in foreign policy and, since a good case can be made characterizing Canada as an imperialist country in its own right, without reference to the juggernaut to the south of us, I also consider it a duty of Canadians to at least KNOW what their government is doing in their name. Americans express the most comical stupidity when it comes to comprehending why their country is held in such contempt and disdain around the world and I would hate to mimic that political reflex myself.
Good article and historical review over here, more relating to Abkhazia than to South Ossetia, but very relevant to this thread methinks.
I was having a discussion on this just last night. Stragely the three of us were in agreement that the russian were in the right for protecting the people in that region. I also have a problem with NAto putting warheads on georgie, can you say provocative. The americans almost lew up the world because of the cuban missle crisis, meanwhile they go and repeat history to a nation that is as compliant as canada(which is saying a lot).
They responded to the threat posed by NATO. That is pretty clear to any thinking person.
And some of us think this is a real war against terrorism. It's not. Great game and economic warfare is what it's about. NATO thinks its job now is to continue encircling Russia and China. Destabilization, the "noble lie", and false pretexts for war is their treacherous game.
In the sci-fi movie, Independence Day, it suddenly dawns on Jeff Goldblum's character what the enemy is doing with setting up shop in countries around the world and near major world cities. His eureka moment in the movie is that the enemy is working toward checkmate against mankind. Full spectrum control and domination of the world
Georgia just can't seem to let it go:
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/21/georgia-seizes-cargo-ships-presses-na...
They responded to the threat posed by NATO. That is pretty clear to any thinking person.
So America was justified in trying to invade Cuba then? Curious. Maybe you "thinking people" should think these things through a bit more thoroughly yourselves.
For the ill-informed, I have agreed before that Russia has very legimitate concerns Re NATO, its a needless provacation and an obvious power play, but to ignore their own history of meddling in the region, or to pretend that any of the great powers are allies of any progressive cause only makes more sophisticated analysis impossible.
Good article and historical review over here, more relating to Abkhazia than to South Ossetia, but very relevant to this thread methinks.
Any "good" ones relating to recent history in Chechnya?
Maybe a roundup of every conflict zone, past and present, from, say, October 1917 to the present, involving the Russian state is in order? Snicker, snicker.
Amusing dodge Beltov, but I specifically asked about the most recent era, say since the breakdown of the old Soviet empire under Yeltsin and the attempts by Putin to reclaim some of it's former glories. We'll put aside all the "great game" nonsense that first got rolling when Disraeli decided to block the Russians from the region by supporting the Ottomans and invading the Crimea. Most political alliances of convenience tend to change beyond recognition over too many generations.
So should we then get directly involved to save Tibetans from China, Kordofanians from Chinese backed Sudan, or Burmese from their own? Never mind, since I generally appreciate your posts on subjects other than Russia I'll just drop out of this one now.
Without specifically addressing any one of your particular examples, solidarity or internationalism is a fundamental principle of the left. If it isn't important to someone then, in my view, they're not really on the left.
This as another example of what I'm referring to here. Solidarity or "internationalism" has long been a matter of dispute on the left itself, as there has long been a question of who or what exactly we are being asked to show solidarity to, and there has always been disputes among those who consider themselves "left" on just what that word means. Especially in regards to the messy Real Politik of international affairs. So far I'm unaware of anyone who has successfully claimed the exclusive right to define everyones membership in it, although lord knows some have tried.
It's working class internationalism as opposed to bourgeois cosmopolitanism. It's a class thing. This isn't rocket science, ffs.
Sorry if I don't see ex-KGB heads and leaders of once-great powers, like Vladimir Putin, as representing the working class Beltov.
And BTW I grew up working class and lived the life myself (if that term can still be used in our post-industrial society) and the only easy escape I've found has been among the ranks of the truly lumpenized.
Erik, If you're unwilling to "take sides" on the responsibility of the Georgian regime for starting last year's war, when even allies (of Georgia) from the OSCE put the blame squarely on Saakashvili, then why participate in debate? You seem to have made up your mind, in advance, and would rather beat the dead horse of the Soviet regime, or change the subject to Kordofanians, or Cardassians, or the Klingon, about which you've obviously got plenty to say.
The Russians distinguished themselves in the conflict, albeit slow at first, punished the aggressor and took a number of steps to prevent a repetition of the bombing of Tskinvali, withdrew their troops from Georgia in a quick and orderly manner, provided assistance to the population of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and so on. These facts are easily verifiable by any unprejudiced observer. Get your head around it. There's no necessity, OTOH, to agree with any OTHER foreign or domestic policy of the current Medvedev/Putin regime in Russia simply because one forms the conclusion that, in this case, they did the right thing.
I haven't made up my mind either way, but commenting on the slightly one sided coverage here. This is hardly the only example of it here, hence my other examples. Be that as it may (or not), it's not at all clear to me that the Russian forces did pull out in a timely fashion or that their designs are/were anymore noble than others or even merely strategic in this case. I did add that I didn't want to divert this thread further, myself, so could you provide instead any other estimates of total casualties (and source) to counter/balance what A_T offered before. I too would like to see that.
A_J failed to provide a source for his numbers. Maybe you can help.
I haven't made up my mind either way, but commenting on the slightly one sided coverage here. This is hardly the only example of it here, hence my other examples. Be that as it may (or not), it's not at all clear to me that the Russian forces did pull out in a timely fashion or that their designs are/were anymore noble than others or even merely strategic in this case.
Did you take in how American and Canadian media were reporting the war: It was all Saakashvili was innocent and a saint and was the victim of an unprovoked attack and Russia was evil and wanted to expand its empire and it was Russia that bombarded Tskinvali and occupied Abkhazia and South Ossetia and attacked Georgia and was responsible for bringing back the Cold War and no mention was made of the fact that Georgia was supplied with training by the U.S. and arms by the U.S. and Israel, blah, blah, blah?
Are you also aware of all that anti Russian, pro NATO (our defence of the Arctic is part of a greater NATO defense strategy), pro Cold War bullshit Harper blabbed on and on about when he was in Nunavut and that was (once again) faithfully not reported by Canada's "free" corporate owned media?
Have you taken in the fact that I have never advocated what the media does? My opposition to one form of imperialism however does not mean I feel I have to support or dismiss another, see the difference?
Beltov, A-J quoted some figures:
" August 16, 2009 - 7:58am
#21 (permalink)N.Beltov wrote: At the time of last August's horrific atrocities against the civilians of Tskinvali, Georgia brought back from Iraq - or was it Afghanistan? - troops to participate in the bloodbath.
What qualifies as a "bloodbath"? I know this time last year the Russians were crowing about the thousands and thousands of civilians killed in Tshinvali and South Ossetia generally, but it appears that the numbers Russia itself has settled on are much, much lower:
South Ossetian Civilians - 162
Russian and Separatist Soldiers - 215
Georgian Civilians - 228
Georgian Soldiers/Police - 199
Looks like you, and a lot of other people, fell for Russia's babies-in-incubators story."
And you replied:
" N.Beltov
Be seeing you!
rabble-rouser-machine
Member: 5140
Joined: May 25 2003
-->
August 16, 2009 - 6:08pm
#22 (permalink)
When you get around to providing a source for your numbers, then I'll get around to blowing your numbers out of the water. Wikipedia? uh-huh."
So I assumed you had a better source for this. There's a reason I asked, but if you can't find another on-hand that's ok too, I already said we can all drop this anytime.
"babies in incubators" is not the same as casualties in the Georgian attack on South Ossetia. Where are the numbers?
I'm asking you this, where are the more accurate numbers you claimed you had? If you just keep avoiding the substance of my posts then I'll just have to assume you don't really know the score over there either.
And here's your Wiki piece. I haven't had time to read it through let alone double-check any of it, against others, so feel free to pick it apart if you can. At a glance though it does seem relatively balanced and has more links than most.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war
Geez, that's embarassing. That's exactly where I got my numbers for my post from a week or more ago, but I must have forgotten to include the link. Thanks!
I know Beltov won't want to hear what the BBC has to say, but the rest of the sources are in Russian . . .
BBC: Russia scales down Georgia toll
Um, Kordofanians are people from Sudan and comparing them in with science fiction aliens because you think they have a funny name comes across as a little racist.
Racist. You mean like being indifferent to the slaughter of Ossetians by the Georgian miliitarist regime, and blaming the victims of Saakashvili's atrocities for the violence?
Erik was, in any case, engaging in thread derailment and wasn't interested, at that time, in further discussion of the war. He said so himself.
Thats not quite what I said Beltov, its not like it was a beside-the point observation or an occasional misunderstanding on this particular forum, I was just offering you an out.
And look again, Russia is hardly a small poorly armed nation at the mercy of others, or doing this only to protect neighbours its shown such contempt for itself; the casualties hardly compare to the 10% killed in Darfur or the 70% displaced, mostly from one particular "side" in the "conflict". If you want to complain about the other guy not being "interested in discussing" an issue then you should at least make some attempt to offer them more than accusations yourself.
I'm very little interested in a debate about how many were killed by the Georgians, as though those that were killed weren't enough, or something like that, as it's clear that the initial numbers were too high (for whatever reason).
Nothing about the number of casualties changes the responsibility of Saakashvili's regime for the war, however, and I've yet to see any good criticism of the role of the Russians in this conflict other than some claims of illegal weapons, which were refuted, or too slow a reply, which was somewhat understandable in the circumstances, or the tiresome Russophobic Western media biases in which the Russians should, presumably, let a slaughter take place rather than prevent its continuation.
I'm not disagreeing with you entirely either Nik. To show that I'm able to see both sides of a conflict, the EU itself now tends to agree with the Russian's version of events...at least up to a point.
http://www.upi.com/Emerging_Threats/2009/06/19/Georgia-Russia-war-EU-bla...
(Like how the UI wire titled it though)
South Ossetia and Abkhazia celebrate Independence Day:
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/25/south-ossetia-abkhazia-to-celebrate-i...
"Another reminder of the lingering tensions from last year's brief Russo-Georgian War, the republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, separatist enclaves whose claims of independence were finally recognized by Russia on August 26, 2008, celebrate the one year anniversary of this recognition as an independence day.
The permanency of their de facto independence is still very much in doubt, as the US has promised to use its position as a permanent member of the UN Security Council to ensure that the international community never recognizes the move."
The U.S. and a majority of countries recognize the independence of Kosovo but not South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
The issue of Kosovo will continue to bite the USA on the ass. They'll just make up any lie to deal with it.
South Ossetia and Abkhazia are different matters. Whatever any American regime thinks, the Abkhazians and Ossetians will never trust the NATO attack dog in Georgia. And that's likely true no matter how soon the Georgians jettison Saakashvili. In time, South Ossetia will join North Ossetia (the latter in Russia itself) and form a little state of its own. The Abkhazians have a very nice bit of territory along the Black Sea, unlike landlocked Ossetia, and I expect they will do well. The NATO/US plans for a reliable base from which to launch an attack on Iran is out the window; so too are various other schemes.
But, like the lidless eye of Sauron, the Russophobes will never sleep, determined to find a new way to enrage the sleeping bear, and will act surprised when, once again, their proxies and client states get mauled. For now, the forest is quiet, but the little creatures will not forget who it was that disturbed their peace.
The Abkhazians have a very nice bit of territory along the Black Sea, unlike landlocked Ossetia, and I expect they will do well.
Georgia is currently even spitefully trying to interfere with that:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article...