Diatribune - Russia - Comments

Are they 'fixing the facts

epppie — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 03:48:06 -0600

Are they 'fixing the facts around the policy' again?

Isn't it strange how Iran's

Jacob Freeze — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 19:56:14 -0600

Isn't it strange how Iran's race to go nuclear is turning into a fact.

I read it in the London Times! It must be true!

This article is a

epppie — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:42:24 -0600

This article is a doozy:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4821234.e...

What's interesting about it isn't any news in it. There's nothing really new in it. Did anybody on the planet think that Russia was going to go along with any further sanctions against Iran? But check out this first paragraph, which definitely gives the flavor of the article as a whole:

"Russia pulled out of talks on tighter sanctions against Iran despite warnings yesterday that Tehran was racing towards producing a nuclear bomb."

Yeah. Takes several readings to be sure one is reading correctly, doesn't it? I'm still in such a state of shock, I don't quite know how to verbalize. OMG, TEHRAN IS RACING TOWARDS A BOMB!!!!!!!!

Oh, wait, I've heard this one before. Yes, I seem to recall something about how the world was going to come to an end if Wall Street didn't get a trillion dollar payoff. And then there was something about how the world was going to end if Congress didn't scuttle Fisa. Oh, and wasn't there something about how the world was gonna end if we didn't invade Iraq?

And get this:

"The apparent failure of the diplomatic initiative leaves the West without a strategy to contain Iran's nuclear ambitions."

Does that mean what it sounds like it means? 'Cause it sounds like someone is saying that all options are now off the table EXCEPT the (illegal and immoral and EXTREMELY unwise) 'military option'...

" More Americans think

epppie — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 07:00:08 -0600

" More Americans think Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama would do a better job handling an economic crisis than his Republican opponent John McCain, according to a CNN public opinion poll released on Monday."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080922/ts_nm/usa_politics_poll_dc

I say, if it's true that the economy is a winner for Obama, expect more US/Russia drama soon.

---------------------

Rumors of war: various joint US/Nato/Israel/Turkey maneuvres:

http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2008/09/23/the-signs-of-war-are-grow...

--------------------------

http://www.russiablog.org/2008/09/the_economist_hosts_oxfordstyl.php

As tense as the Black Sea

epppie — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 22:02:54 -0600

As tense as the Black Sea situation was a few weeks ago, it could have been a lot worse if not for Turkey:

"In the post-Cold War scenario, Washington has been mounting pressure on Turkey to renegotiate the Montreux Convention so as to progressively convert the Black Sea into a preserve of NATO. Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria are NATO countries; the US has military bases in Romania; the US is hoping to induct Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. Therefore, Turkish resistance to the US entreaties regarding renegotiating the Montreux Convention assumes great importance for Moscow. (During the current conflict in the Caucasus, Washington sought to dispatch two massive warships weighing 140,000 tons to the Black Sea ostensibly to provide "aid" to Georgia, but Ankara refused permission on the grounds that such passage through the Bosphorus violated provisions of the Montreux Convention.) "
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/JI12Ag01.html

But this story isn't over. It sounds like the US is pursuing an ongoing policy of trying to open up the Black Sea. If it does that, then I guess the arms race between the US and Russia would REALLY be off and running. Both nations have already been increasing their military spending (though Russia apparently spends one tenth as much as the US or less on defense).

So the military industrial complex must be VERY eager to pry the Black Sea open.

This is the kind of vision

epppie — Sat, 20 Sep 2008 22:19:48 -0600

This is the kind of vision I'd like to see from Obama:

Russia's President Medvedev:

"“What [conflicts] has NATO resolved, what [security] has it ensured? It just provoked the [Georgia] conflict, no more than that,” he said.

Mr. Medvedev reiterated his call for a new pan-European security pact. “The urgency to sign a major European treaty is increasingly growing in the aftermath of the events in the Caucasus,” he said."
http://www.hindu.com/2008/09/21/stories/2008092155441200.htm

I agree with Medvedev on this. If Nato is not an Anti-Russia alliance, Russia MUST be included in it. Or else, Nato should be set aside and a pan-europe security council should be established, as Medvedev suggests. Conflicts like Kosovo and South Ossetia MUST be settle around a table, NOT around a battlefield.

I've written and spoken to my rep about this, and to rep. Berman. It's not too late for the Dems to show a sense of vision about security that will make the GOP look like the warmongering amateurs they are.

Venezuela and Russia

epppie — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:58:32 -0600

Venezuela and Russia deepening ties:

" Venezuela and Russia are strengthening their strategic alliance with new plans to cooperate on oil production, weapons and even wireless technology, the governments said as two visiting Russian Tu-160 bombers left for home on Thursday.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, traveling to Moscow next week at the invitation of Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, is planning new oil projects with Russian companies and joint military exercises with Russian warplanes and ships in the Caribbean by December.
Venezuela also is in talks to buy Russian air defense systems and armored vehicles, and has expressed interest in the new Su-35 fighter, due off assembly lines in 2010, said Sergei Chemezov, general director of the Russian state holding company Rostekhnologii, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.
The allies have sealed more than US$4 billion in defense deals since 2005. Venezuela has bought Sukhoi fighter planes, Mi-17 helicopters, and 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles, most of which have already been delivered....
And Sechin announced that five of Russia's biggest oil companies are looking to form a consortium to increase Latin American operations. State-controlled Rosneft, Lukoil, Gazprom Neft, Surgutneftegaz and TNK-BP hope to build a US$6.5 billion refinery to process Venezuela's tar-like heavy crude, Russia's RIA Novosti news agency reported.
Such an investment could help Venezuela, the world's ninth-biggest oil producer, wean itself off the U.S. refineries it now depends on to process much of its crude. Already, Chavez has moved to reduce the involvement of private companies including Exxon Mobil, Chevron and ConocoPhillips while striking new oil development agreements with state oil companies from Iran and China."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j7DAfgieUqDDczqO5ENknwwjAqSQD939FLLO0

I think the most important part of this is the developement of non-US associated refineries. That is a challenge I suspect the US financial elite takes much more seriously than a few weapons deals and exercises.

Condi has jumped to the fore

epppie — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 20:51:32 -0600

Condi has jumped to the fore of the anit-Russia screamers again. She must have felt threatened by this advice from former secretaries of state:

"At a CNN panel discussion Tuesday, former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell and James Baker warned the Bush administration against rupturing its relationship with Russia over the Georgia conflict, saying that the United States needed Moscow's cooperation on major national security issues. "
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/rice.russia/index.html?eref=rss_l...
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=70488

Isn't that stunning? I mean, there are no Ghandi's in that group!!! And still they are calling for a little less hysteria over Russia (they might not have used those words).

Did the current Secretary of State listen? Only enough to decide she wasn't screaming loud enough, it seems:

"Rice's aides have heavily promoted her speech, inviting Russia experts and journalists to the State Department on Wednesday to preview the remarks.

On Wednesday, Rice called Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov to let him know she was planning to deliver the speech, her spokesman Sean McCormack said.

The speech also was to be translated into Russian, French and German, McCormack said."
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/rice.russia/index.html?eref=rss_l...

So what pearls of wisdom did Condi have for us? Here's the full text of her speech:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/09/109954.htm

Condi's highly publicized speech is primarily a flat denial that the US or Georgia or Nato bear any blame for the Georgia/Russia war, buttressed with various distortions and hypocrisies, most of which have been pounded at over and over during the past month or so. Just to take the opening bit from the 'it's all Russia's fault' phase of her speech...

"Most of us are familiar with the events of the past month. The causes of the conflict – particularly the dispute between Georgia and its breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia – are complex. They go back to the fall of the Soviet Union. And the United States and our allies have tried many times to help the parties resolve the dispute diplomatically. Indeed, it was, in part, for just that reason that I traveled to Georgia just a month before the conflict, as did German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, among others. "
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/09/109954.htm

But, of course, if you look at Rice's speaking itinerary for that trip that she took, about a month before the war...

"--07/10/08 Interview With David Kikalishvili of Rustavi 2 TV; Tbilisi, Georgia
--07/10/08 Remarks With Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili; Tbilisi, Georgia
--07/10/08 Remarks at Roundtable With Civil Society Representatives; Tbilisi, Georgia
--07/09/08 Remarks on the Attack on the U.S. Consulate, Istanbul; En Route to Tbilisi, Georgia
--07/09/08 Remarks With Bulgarian Foreign Minister Ivailo Kalfin; Sofia, Bulgaria
--07/09/08 Remarks at Stara Planina Awards Ceremony ; Presidency; Sofia, Bulgaria
--07/08/08 Interview With Martin Reznicek, Czech TV ; Prague, Czech Republic
--07/08/08 Interview With Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s Radio Farda Correspondents Golnaz Esfandiari and Mosaddegh Katouzian; Prague, Czech Republic
--07/08/08 Remarks En Route Prague, Czech Republic; En Route Prague, Czech Republic
--07/08/08 Remarks With Czech Foreign Minister Karel Schwarzenberg at Ballistic Missile Defense Agreement Signing Ceremony; Prague, Czech Republic
--07/08/08 Remarks at Town Hall Meeting With Staff of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty; Prague, Czech Republic
--07/08/08 Remarks with Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek; Prague, Czech Republic"

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/

...it seems quite evident, since she didn't visit Russia, that she didn't do anything to resolve the tenstion over South Ossetia. In fact, her remarks during her July Georgia visit, like her remarks today, simply blamed Russia for everything:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/07/106912.htm

Thus, her remarks did nothing to ease or resolve the situation. And, of course, she didn't mention, in today's speech, the enormous arms buildup that the US and Nato had been assisting in Georgia, or the US' joint military exercises with Georgia, or Israel's role in Georgia (and we all know what Israel's military is good at doing and that it's the exact opposite of peaceful handling of disputed territories), nor did she mention Georgia's increasing military pressure on South Ossetia.

Also, in the paragraph from today's speech that I quoted above, Condi reiterates the distortion that Soutth Ossetia and Abkhazia were/are "breakaway regions". But that can't be true, obviously, since they declared independence from Georgia BEFORE Georgia declared independence from the USSR! In fact, the opposite is true, in that to the extent that they were ever part of Georgia, it was because Georgia attacked THEM in the early nineties.

Thus, Condi's opening paragraph into the main body of today's speech launched a fun ride through distortionate history. For example, notice here that Georgia's attack is a "military operation", but Russia's counterattack is a 'violation' and a "full scale invasion":

"On August 7th, following repeated violations of the ceasefire in South Ossetia, including the shelling of Georgian villages, the Georgian government launched a major military operation into Tskhinvali and other areas of the separatist region. Regrettably, several Russian peacekeepers were killed in the fighting.
These events were troubling. But the situation deteriorated further when Russia’s leaders violated Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity – and launched a full scale invasion across an internationally-recognized border."
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/09/109954.htm

Condi considers the killing of Russian peacekeepers merely 'regrettable'. Putin put it this way, more succinctly and to the point, I think:

""In this situation were we supposed to just wipe away bloody snot and hang our heads?" he asked a group of Western foreign policy experts during a meeting in Sochi on Russia's Black Sea coast. ...
"When tanks, multiple rocket launchers and heavy artillery are used against us, are we supposed to fire with sling shots?" Putin asked his Western visitors. "What is an adequate use of force""
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/11/russia.georgia.putin.ap/index...

As this article from Council on World Affairs of Canada iindicates, the trend has been for peacekeepers to play an aggressive role and to have backup available:

http://www.vaxxine.com/cowac/acowacnewsletter.html

As Rwanda and other situations have demonstrated, a peacekeeping force whose only option is to die or stand aside when a "military operation" (as Condi so gently put it) ocurrs, is not going to be keeping any peace.

And, as Jeffrey Michaels of King's College points out, the aggressor was unquestionably Georgia:

"Despite attempts by Georgia to portray the current conflict as Russian aggression, its origins should be traced back to Tbilisi. While both sides share responsibility for the small-scale violence that preceded the full outbreak of hostilities, it was Georgia rather than Russia that escalated the violence. The Georgian military assault on South Ossetia was deliberately timed to coincide with the Olympic Games. Indeed, Georgia's military strategy seems to have relied upon a delayed Russian military response, due to Putin's absence from Moscow, and likely predicated on the belief that President Medvedev would not take any action without Putin being present.

Georgian President Saakashvili was most likely counting on his military forces to deliver a knockout blow to the separatist forces, thereby allowing a relatively quick seizure of South Ossetia. For the last several years, the Georgian military has increasingly become beholden to an offensive military doctrine, and has developed capabilities intended to retake South Ossetia and Abkhazia. ...

The Georgian military assault likely consisted of two infantry brigades with tank, heavy artillery, helicopter and air support. The build-up of these forces was almost certainly observed by the Russians, thereby denying Georgia strategic surprise. Moreover, this large build-up was not consistent with Georgian claims that Tbilisi only intended to suppress South Ossetian mortar fire on Georgia. Likewise, the full-scale military assault on Tshkinvali could not be interpreted as anything other than an attempt to retake the region."
http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=S433ACCE7CB828&ref=C48A072E180F06

Here is the 1994 peacekeeping agreement for Abkhazia (which I assume is similar to the one for South Ossetia):

http://smr.gov.ge/en/abkhazia/jpkf/mandate

"decided:
To deploy in Georgian-Abkhaz conflict zone the Collective Force composed of military contingents of interested states - members of the CIS of 2-3 thousand of people, as well as military observers in order to maintain the peace … Russian military contingent, already deployed to the conflict zone shall be used as the basis for collective force for maintaining the peace. ... The representative form Russian Contingent shall be appointed as the Commander of collective peacekeeping force.
...
Within the term of effect of this Decision, the Collective Force shall carry out the following tasks:
a) to ensure the protection of cease-fire regime, establish peace and prevent from resumption of military operations in the conflict zone through separation of military formations of the conflicting sides;
...
e) to ensure the protection of international norms of humanitarian and human rights;"
http://smr.gov.ge/en/abkhazia/jpkf/mandate

Plainly, that agreement calls for a Russian-led peacekeeping mission, with a very robust mandate.

Another thing Condi doesn't mention in her speech: the recent war wasn't Saakashvilli's first assault on South Ossetia:

"Relations between Russia and the government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili have gradually deteriorated since Tbilisi sent troops to South Ossetia in the summer of 2004, triggering a series of deadly armed clashes. Despite Saakashvili's claims to the contrary, Moscow suspects the Georgian leader is considering forcibly reasserting his control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/02/mil-060215-r...

As for Saakashvilli's military judgement, check out this braggadocio from 2006:

"Saakashvili also sent Moscow a veiled warning, saying anyone who threatens Georgia with force risks "getting a punch in the face.""
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2006/02/mil-060215-r...

Hear that, Moscow? Big, bad Saakashvilli has a knuckle sandwich waiting for you ANY TIME YOUSE WANTS IT!!

The rest of Condi's speech, the part after the bizarre faux history of the Russia-Georgia war, is an equally bizarre faux history of Russia's various woes and the US' supposedly endlessly tolerant efforts to help Russia, and Russia's supposedly bad attitude. There are also the usual reiterations of Condi's childish carrot-and-stick theory about how to deal with Russia in the future. There are endless and monstrously hypocritical accusations that Russia is doing all the things that the US has been doing: invading other countries, bullying other countries, threateing other countries, undermining international norms (such as the UN, Geneva, etc.) In one stunningly shameless statement, Condi accuses Russia of doing the very things Putin has decried, correctly, in the US' behavior under Bush:

"There cannot be one set of rules for Russia, Inc. – and another for everyone else. ... the United States and Europe, as well as our many friends and allies worldwide, will not allow Russia’s leaders to have it both ways – drawing benefits from international norms, and markets, and institutions, while challenging their very foundation. "
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/09/109954.htm

Substitute the words "United States" for the word "Russia" in that statement and you'd have probably one of the most cogent statements on foreign policy ever uttered by anyone in this administration. Instead, the paragraph will probably be long remembered as one of the crassest hypocrisies in the long train of hypocrisies created by this administration. Condi is quite the unrepentant sinner, isn't she? And why not? According to Nancy Pelosi, this administration has done no wrong.

Perhaps the most disturbing moment of the speech is this one:

"Russia’s attack on Georgia merely proved what we had already known – that Russia could use its overwhelming military advantage to punish a small neighbor. But Georgia has survived. Its democracy will endure. Its economy will be rebuilt. Its independence will be reinforced. Its military will, in time, be reconstituted. And we look forward to the day when Georgia’s territorial integrity will be peacefully restored."
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2008/09/109954.htm

Again, and for the umpteenth time, Condi, both Abkhazia and South Ossetia have had, at the closest, disputed relationships with Georgia, and that only because Georgia attacked them, in the early 1990s. As for the fact that Georgia survived the Russian counterattack: that was never in doubt. Russia never intended to take over Georgia. That would be a crazy move for Russia, since it has to maintain good relations with its many former republics as much as possible, and it's unlikely that ANY of Russia's former republics would have looked kindly upon a Russian takeover of Georgia. But, anyway, if Russia HAD intended to take over Georgia, there's nothing Georgia or the US could have done about it, short of attacking Russia itself.

But the really important thing to notice here is Condi's promise that Georgia's military, Georgia's grossly outsized military (remember, Georgia has a population about the same as Massachusettes), will be reconstituted. This - like the insertion of a first strike enabling missile system into Poland - is virtually a direct threat to Russia. Consider, fellow US citizens: W and Condi are planning to leave us right on the verge of a state of war with Russia. Is that acceptable? I don't think it is. I think Congress should make it very clear that the administration's hostile policy towards Russia is not US policy. Oh, but wait, who's running Congress' policy on Russia? Why it's Rep. Berman's rabidly anti-Russian House Committee on Foreign Affairs!!

Oh boy...

So THAT, former Secretaries of State Powell, Baker and Kissinger, is your answer from Condoleezza Rice. That's her finger in the faces of Russia, of you and of the American People, I'd say.

Ok. I've seen it. And it's

epppie — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 09:37:03 -0600

Ok. I've seen it. And it's stomach turning. H.R. 6911 “Stability and Democracy for Georgia (STAND for Georgia Act) of 2008” is basically a way of rewarding Georgia for attacking Russia. Funds are to be diverted from other foreign aid objectives (I wonder who is going to end up getting screwed in this re-arrangement of funds) to help Georgia rebuild whatever Russia tore up. That is, assuming Saakashvilli doesn't just spend it all on other things he might deem more important, such as weapons.

Ok, now remember, South Ossetia declared its independence BEFORE GEORGIA DECLARED ITS INDEPENDENCE!!!!!

"The Georgian Supreme Council adopted a law barring regional parties in summer 1990. This was interpreted by Ossetians as a move against Ademon Nykhas and led to Ossetians proclaiming South Ossetia a Soviet Democratic Republic,[41] fully sovereign within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia

Nevertheless, according to the ranking minority member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a statement made today in favor of HR 6911, South Ossetia has always been simply part of Georgia and Russia's presence there has only been intended to destroy Georgia's sovereignty (never mind that Russia JUST RECENTLY demonstrated that it can eat Georgia for lunch any time it so chooses, so apparently destroying Georgia's sovereignty is NOT its goal - in fact, it would be absurd in the extreme for Russia to pursue such a goal, considering that it would surely like to maintain good relations with its MANY OTHER former republics).

http://foreignaffairs.republicans.house.gov/list/speech/foreignaffairs_r...

Ranking member Ros-Letinen also made this claim today:

"Georgia’s future --- and the future of the entire region of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe --- depends, to a great degree, on how the United States and the leading states of the European Union react in the coming weeks to the Russian invasion of Georgia."

Isn't that something? The future of the world depends on us defending Georgia next time it decides to attack Russia again (and what else do you call it when Georgia attacks Russian peacekeepers). This reminds me of how we were told over and over again that we would never be safe from terror unless we achieved "victory" in Iraq. Well, with over a million dead and 5 million displaced and the country laid waste, can we declare victory and get the hell out of Iraq where we never should have been yet? And can we, while we are at it, declare victory in Georgia too and get the hell out of there - what are we going to say if Russia decides to help Cuba rebuild and maybe even to help Cuba reclaim Gitmo?

Oh wait, I know. We'll invoke the usual outrageous double standards.

-------------------

Just to be clear, I don't object to humanitarian aid to Georgia, of course (though I think we ought to at least be asking what South Ossetia's needs are too, even if we are pretty sure Russia is handling those). I do object to taking that aid from other countries that presumably need it. I do object to using that aid to 'show support' to Georgia, to reward Geogia, and to spank Russia. I do object to providing what seem to amount to blank checks to Saakashvilli. I do object to the continuing, misleading Russia-bashing.

And then there's the sheer, monstrous, hypocrisy...

---------------------

...re. the hypocrisy: if Rep. Berman and his committee are so concerned about 'breakaway provinces' and so opposed to any outside meddling in such provinces, why isn't the House Committee on Foreign relations looking into apparent US meddling in support of rebel provinces in Bolivia (as far as I can tell, anyway)?

"
Newsweek: How serious is the fallout between the United States and Bolivia?
Weisbrot: I think it's serious. I think that this thing was coming for a long time. There had been a number of incidents. There was the incident with the Peace Corps and the Fulbright scholar [asked to spy by the U.S. Embassy]. And then there are the meetings between the ambassador and the opposition. Obviously he's the ambassador: he should meet with everybody. But the way he did and the timing of it was considered unfriendly. I think you have a bigger structural problem, which is that you have USAID funding groups in Bolivia but they won't disclose who they are. They are doing this now in Venezuela too. These are polarized countries. So on that basis both of these governments [Bolivia and Venezuela] just assume that Washington is doing what it has always done, which is to fund the people that they are sympathetic to."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/158825/page/1

In fact, Berman's committee seems most concerned right now with pummelling the deadest of deadest political horses, Cuba. That MIGHT just be because recently Cuba and Russia have shown signs of getting re-aquainted and Berman's committee seems to be VERY, VERY, VERY interested right now in Russia bashing.

The Bill being marked up

epppie — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:49:08 -0600

The Bill being marked up today (wednesday, 9/17/8), in the House Foreign Relations Committee now has a number:

H.R. 6911, the Stability and Democracy for Georgia Act of 2008.

However, I still can't find out any information about it. I can't believe that it's likely to be a very constructive initiative, though, considering how stacked (with anti-Russian witnesses) the Sept. 9 hearing seems to have been.

-----------------------------

I did have a good laugh today. I saw several headlines that seemed to be crowing about the stock market problems going on in Russia. Isn't that almost as ironic, coming from the country (the US) that seems determined to torpedo the world economy, as the criticism we've been hearing about Russia invading another country, coming from a country (the US) that really DID invade another country - quite brazenly - five years ago AND IS STILL THERE!!

Another good laugh today: Georgia now claims that Russia started the war, on the basis of some audio tapes, which seem to indicate that some Russian tanks may have moved through the Roki tunnel before Georgian forces actually attacked the South Ossetian capital.

Now, let's apply a little logic to the case Georgia seems to be making; if Georgia was acting in self-defense when it attacked South Ossetia, in response to the Russians' tank movements, it would have attacked those tanks AND made closing the Roki tunnel it's absolute military priority, right? Instead, it attacked the South Ossetian capitial, which was surely a militarily irrelevant objective if Russian tanks coming through the Roki tunnel was the issue!!!

I can't wait to see what tomorrow's propaganda will be!

Thanks Jacob. I only wish I

epppie — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 22:33:44 -0600

Thanks Jacob. I only wish I had the smarts you were talking about in your other post, to have a shot at making sense of it!!

And, you know, I really hate being put in the position of defending Russia and Putin, but that's where I think the outrageous one-sidedness of the New World Order (which I think is a good phrase for the apparent lockstep of the Nato-Plus political establishment and the related media) pushes one to, if one wants to cling to some notion of fairness and good sense.

Dandelion Salad seems to cover Russian/Georgia pretty dedicatedly.

Thanks for keeping an eye on

Jacob Freeze — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:01:43 -0600

Thanks for keeping an eye on this situation for the rest of us.

Thanks to epppie, as far as I can tell by surfing around the net, Diatribune has more coverage of the crisis in the Black Sea and the related escalation of threats about missiles in Poland than any other venue in the English language.

You probably won't get a Pulitzer for all this work, epppie, but Pulitzers have been awarded for much less useful writing.

Neocon Fred Kagan's words to

epppie — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 20:55:22 -0600

Neocon Fred Kagan's words to Congress (from a hearing in the House Committee on Foreign Affairs):

"Without hyperbole, it is fair to say that we have reached a watershed moment in world history. The Russian military assault on Georgia, in violation of international law and Russia’s own agreements, for the purpose of expanding Russia’s influence in the region and, ultimately, I believe, Russia’s territory, marks a fundamental inflection point in international relations almost as significant in its own way as Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990. "
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/09/frederick_kagan_test...

Chilling comparison, no? And please don't expect any relief from the New World Order/Global War future Kagan seems to be envisioning from Obama, who is advised by noted Bilderbergers and Russia-haters, Brzezinski and Holbrooke.

Perhaps most chilling, in view of the seemingly acceptable carnage in Iraq that Kagan sanctions (its my understanding), Kagan ridicules the number reportedly killed in the Georgian attack on South Ossetia: 2000. Consider - 2000 killed, out of a population of 70,000, in less than a day. I believe a proportionate number would be ten million American citizens killed in one day of war - which is what we might get if we keep moving towards the climax Kagan seems to envision (remember his Gulf War comparison). It seems possible to extrapolate that Kagan would consider 10 million Americans dead a reasonable war cost for resolving a confrontation with Russia militarily.

------------------------------------

Here are DEMOCRAT committee chairman Berman's opening remarks at the hearing:

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/press_display.asp?id=552

It is very notable to me that he recounts provocations by Russia, but not provocations by Georgia, Israel and the US; that he calls for re-armament of Georgia (something even the Bush administration has not publically committed itself in recent statements); he acknowledges two high level representatives at the session from Georgia and none from Russia; he states that it was Nancy Pelosi who sent him on a solidarity mission to Tsibli, thus making it OFFICIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY POLICY to ignore the attack on South Ossetia (or else the solidarity mission would have been to South Ossetia as well, if not primarily); and so on.

Berman:

"Two weeks after the conflict started, our colleague George Miller and I went to Tbilisi at the request of Speaker Pelosi to demonstrate solidarity with the Georgian people and to deliver humanitarian aid. We met the president and other top officials, and we affirmed that the sovereignty of Georgia should be respected, and the integrity of its borders should be restored.

Indeed, I am pleased to see in the audience today the ambassador of Georgia to the United States, as well as David Bakradze, the chairman of the Georgian Parliament and several of his colleagues. We very much appreciate your diplomatic efforts on behalf of your country.

...

While historians and military analysts will long debate who fired the first shot in the August skirmish, there are two key questions before the committee today. First, how can we rebuild Georgia most quickly and effectively? Second, how should we reassess US-Russian relations in the aftermath of Russia’s use of disproportionate force against its sovereign neighbor?"

Note that reassessing US-Georgia relations is not on the table, according to Berman. Only reassessing US-Russian relations.

---------------------------------

So who gave testimony at this hearing?

"The Honorable Daniel Fried
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
U.S. Department of State

Panel II

*** Michael H. McFaul, Ph.D.
Professor
Department of Political Science
Stanford University

*** Frederick W. Kagan, Ph.D.
Resident Fellow
American Enterprise Institute"

http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/hearing_notice.asp?id=1028

Quite the stacked deck!!! Here's McFaul's 'unbiased' view:

"Russia’s invasion of Georgia last month seriously undermined peace and security in
Europe for the first time in years. Russia’s military actions and subsequent decision to
recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states also represent a fundamental
challenge to the norms and rules that help to promote order in the international system.

...

Russia’s military actions last month and
continued illegal occupation of Georgian territory today were not a mere defensive
reaction to Georgian military actions in South Ossetia. On the contrary, the Kremlin’s
moves represent the latest and boldest moves in a long-term strategy to undermine
Georgian sovereignty, cripple the Georgian economy, and ultimately overthrow the
democratically-elected government of Georgia. Moreover, Russia’s government actions
in Georgia constitute just one front of a comprehensive campaign to reassert Russian
dominance in the region through both coercive and cooperative instruments"
http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/110/mcf090908.pdf

McFaul goes on to make a few good points, but mainly continues to administer a distorted verbal spanking to Russia, and calls for a unified Nato reaction to Russia (ie, for the EU to heel) and ignores Russia's call for a multipolar world (in fact, McFaul continues to play the theme of Russia's isolation, when in fact Russia has recieved support from the Shanghai association, from the association of number of former Soviet states in the Caspian area, from Latin America, and even from the Ukrainian public, contrary to US media and McFaul's propaganda).

-------------------------------

On Wednesday, Sept. 17 2008, the committee will have this session:

"MARKUP OF:
H.R. ____, the Stability and Democracy for Georgia Act of 2008."

I can't find any information about the contents of this act. My guess, just from looking at the wholly biased lineup at the hearing about Russia/Georgia is that it will be some form of escalation.
Both Democrats and Republicans seem determined to treat Russia as a bump in the road to the New World Order. McFaul speaks of opportunity lost with Russia. Well, opportunity is being lost right now. Instead of talking down to Russia, threatening Russia, sneering at Russia, etc., this conflict over South Ossetia COULD be a step towards moving away from the Unilateral and Bullying policies of Bush. But McFaul recommends MORE encircling of Russia by the US and by Nato, while Kagan seems to be hinting at far worse.

Berman, McFaul and Kagan all ignore the simple, undeniable fact that South Ossetia and Abkhazia have had disputed status since the Soviet Union broke up, not to mention the facts that Saakashvilli has apparently long intended to claim both regions undisputedly, and that by acting militarily, he effectively decided the status of both regions.

And why does the United States continue to pretend to call the shots in regions so far from our shores? In one of McFaul's most disturbing comments, he urges that Nato ought to be expanded to Russia's borders, while also noting the mutual defense obligations of Nato. Shades of World Wars one and two.

Russia seems to be wasting

epppie — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 23:48:57 -0600

Russia seems to be wasting no time expanding it's challenge to Washington's imagined hegemony:

"THE Russian Federation declared its willingness to hold naval military exercise and other low-key, joint operations with the Philippines to strengthen the ties of the two countries.

According to Russian Ambassador Vitaly Y. Vorobieb, they would be glad to take part in any joint exercise with the Armed Forces, similar to what the country is doing with the United States under the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA).

“Yes, well be happy to share experience and knowledge,” Vorobieb told Filipino journalists at a news forum in Quezon City over the weekend. "
http://www.journal.com.ph/index.php?issue=2008-09-15&sec=4&aid=72864

Please, please, PLEASE,

epppie — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 10:54:15 -0600

Please, please, PLEASE, don't think either major party candidate has any plans that don't involve steering us into major wars:

"But in the course of his discussion with Woodruff and Stengel, McCain repeatedly connected the imperative of “national service” with the outbreak of international crises in which an American military role would be posed. Citing the Russian intervention in Georgia and the deteriorating position of the US-backed regime in Afghanistan, he said the American people could “see a whole lot of things happening in the world that’s going to require us to serve.”
...
Obama’s comments were even more directly related to building up the US military. He spoke at some length to offer effusive praise for the armed forces. Woodruff asked him about the record number of Army officers leaving the military because of repeated, lengthy overseas deployments.

The candidate responded, “Well, first of all, as commander-in-chief, my job is to keep America safe. And that means insuring that we’ve got the best military on Earth. And that means having the best persons in uniform on Earth. We have that right now, but as a consequence of these wars, they have been strained incredibly. I think it’s important for us to increase the size of our Army and our Marines so we can reduce the pace of tours that our young men and women are on.”

...

Obama went on to make his most direct statement of the campaign about expanding military service, declaring: “But it’s also important that a president speaks to military service as an obligation not just of some, but of many. You know, I traveled, obviously, a lot over the last 19 months. And if you go to small towns, throughout the Midwest or the Southwest or the South, every town has tons of young people who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. That’s not always the case in other parts of the country, in more urban centers. And I think it’s important for the president to say, this is an important obligation. If we are going into war, then all of us go, not just some.”

Taken in the context of a forum on national service, these comments have an unmistakable and ominous implication. Military service in the volunteer army is undertaken disproportionately by small-town and rural youth, for both economic and cultural reasons. It is far less common for middle class and working class youth in large cities, and especially their suburbs, to enlist in the military.

Obama holds out the prospect that, at least initially, his demand for wider participation in military service would consist of encouraging more enlistments in the volunteer army. When that failed, as it undoubtedly would, to produce sufficient cannon fodder for the next round of imperialist wars, the logical next step would be reactivation of the Selective Service System, which still exists, albeit in mothballed form.

In political terms, Obama’s appearance at Columbia was aimed at demonstrating to the American political establishment that he is prepared to reject any pressure from antiwar college students, who are a major component of his campaign’s personnel and volunteers. To that end, Obama not only called for expanded military service, he directly attacked the exclusion of the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) from many college campuses.

...
In response to a further question from Woodruff, Obama elaborated on his efforts to recruit young people to become participants in, and potential victims of, military violence. “Inspiring young people to serve is something that the president is uniquely positioned to do,” he said, adding that this could be for civilian positions that are adjuncts to US military operations overseas, such as the State Department, USAID or civil engineering.

Obama returned to the subject of widening participation in military service in words that were cautiously phrased but deeply reactionary. “I think there are special obligations during wartime,” he said. “We always have potential conflicts around the world, and our military has to remain strong and ready. And so I want to encourage military service, as well as other ways of serving, regardless of whether there’s war or not. But I do think that over the last several years, the fact that the burden has been shouldered by such a narrow group is a problem.”

In a closely balanced election, with the outcome still very much in doubt, Obama hopes to win the support of the real decision-makers—the topmost levels of the financial, political and military elite. Only a Democrat, he is suggesting, with the smokescreen of “equal sacrifice” and “fairness,” can provide the millions of recruits for the US military machine that will be required for wars against countries such as Iran, Russia and China."
http://wsws.org/articles/2008/sep2008/obam-s13.shtml

Both these candidates have Global War in mind.