Georgia, South Ossetia, Russia - Part 14

N.Beltov wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

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.

Here's an article that's the antidote for that:

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/11/23/a-terrible-time-for-nato-expa...

Cueball wrote:

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.

Cueball wrote:

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.

Cueball wrote:

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.

The importance of history is that it answers the questions "Why is this happening?" and "How did we get here?".