Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia - Part 15
November 26, 2010 - 5:08pm
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.
From the previous thread: Here
The importance of history is understanding different narrative perspectives, in order to better be able to play a helpful role in conflict resolution, or at least not cause more harm because one is operating on bad information.
The importance of history is understanding different narrative perspectives, in order to better be able to play a helpful role in conflict resolution, or at least not cause more harm because one is operating on bad information.
Indeed.
At one level there was intervention in the Russo-Georgia War and at another level there wasn't.
At the ideal level if there had been intervention by the U.N. (and this could only have occurred at the request of at least one of the parties involved - all according to the U.N. Charter), then the U.N. would have acted according to your high standard of "history."
However, this did not happen.
What happened was that the U.S., considering itself the world's only Superpower and being a lawmaking entity unto itself, being exempt from all international laws, acted out of greed and a desire to politically manipulate other states for its (the U.S.A.'s) own world hegemonic power.
The U.S.A., through George Soros' The Soros Foundation sponsored people like Saakashvili with an American education, then sent these people back to their countries (in this case, Georgia) to agitate and bring about so-called "democratic" revolutions.
When these people came to power, George Soros and others called in their political "debts." This meant wresting from these countries' leaders "agreements" to allow American companies to "invest" in these countries where for pittance wages to local workers, the companies syphoned enormous profits out of these coutries and sent the money into their own pockets - banks in the U.S. and elsewhere.
The Pentagon and the State Department wants the oil, natural gas and minerals that are either in the area or are in Russia or over which Russia controls. There are oil and gas pipelines that run west from Russia and north from Azerbaijan. The U.S. wants to wrest some of the control and influence over this from Russia and extend the pipelines to Western Europe so that they and the U.S. can have cheap oil, natural gas and other resources and where the U.S. can also make a profit in the deal.
Another way to woo Georgia away from Russian influence and to isolate Russia, is to entice Georgia to join NATO. Cynically, the EU, probably under U.S. pressure, has dropped hints at Eastern European countries that if they join NATO, their application to join the EU will be processed faster.
Georgia did join NATO. Like the Republic of South Vietnam and Afghanistan, the CIA sent military advisors, trainers and U.S. arms to Georgia. It seems the little puppet Saakashvili has a Napoleon Bonapart complex and thought that if he waged a war of aggression against Russia over Abkhazia and Ossetia, being a member of NATO, both the U.S. and NATO would back him.
As it turned out this didn't happen.
Since the end of WW2, many such tragic and avoidable wars occurred. These wars like Korea and Vietnam and the current (Afghan) and Soviet-Afghan and Iraq and Pakistan and Somalia and Yemen and possible Iran wars were and are the result of American interventionism. If it hadn't been for the U.S. causing the Korean War and the presence of American military bases in South Korea, then there wouldn't be this current "crisis" between North and South Korea, and the U.S. would have no particular interest in what goes on over there.
In all these wars, the Russo-Georgian war included, the U.S. didn't/doesn't give a fuck about the issues involved and the interests of the ethnic groups and the nationalities affected.
The U.S. only cares about what it perceives to be its own economic interests (greed) and its political powerplay to become the world's dominant and dominating power.
If the U.S. after WW2, after financially assisting the countries whose economies had been destroyed by the war (along with other countries who could afford to help) to get back on their feet, then allowed these countries to freely determine their own future, with the U.S. doing the same (concerning itself with its own affairs) having only peaceful trade and commerce with other countries - not malignantly meddling and causing wars, then there wouldn't be over 700 U.S. permanent military bases spread all over the world, there wouldn't have been all these post WW2 wars, there wouldn't have been 9/11, there wouldn't have been the current Afghan and Iraq wars, etc.
The cause of this is imperialism.
A subject, I believe, you are interested in.
Warning to Russia: The U.S. and NATO are not your friends. Never forget this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11933089
Lol. I really don't think Vladimir Putin is under any illusion on that score. For example, when asked about the possibility of Russian being incorporated into NATO as an observer with a "veto". He replied "we don't need a veto, we have the bomb."
It sounds like the Poles are the ones with the real greivance, here we have this:
But rather than getting operational systems with their full crews, the Poles received only launchers minus their missiles and a token number of US troops.
One senior Polish official is quoted in a cable from February 2009 as telling the Americans that his country expected to get operational missiles and not what he called "potted plants".