News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[meopemuk]

AFAIK, the Kosovars voted democratically to become independent. When the Serbia military attack the Kosovars, Serbia forfeited any claim to Kosovo.

AFAIK, the South Ossetians voted democratically (twice) to become independent. When the Georgian military attack the South Ossetians, Georgia forfeited any claim to South Ossetia.

 

[quadraphonics]

Well, apparently there are some Mexican-Americans who feel that parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California should return to Mexico.

From what I understand, that sentiment only enjoys non-trivial support amongst actual Mexicans, not Mexican-Americans.

 

[baywax]

Those parts of the world are quite different from the US, where immigrants are quickly assimilated and families often lose their native language in the 2nd or 3rd generation.

When people say they are Georgians or Russians they usually mean their ethnicity (primarily, their mother's tongue) rather than their passports. I've been in Georgia twice (and once in Abkhazia) in 1980's. This is a colorful place. I was in a mountain village occupied by ethnic Greeks who spoke Greek language and probably lived there since "Illiada" times. There were Georgian, Ossetian, and Azerbaijani villages nearby. Different ethnic groups lived side-by side for centuries, mostly peacefully. It is sad to see how this delicate fabric of relationships gets torn apart now.

This is very interesting. Imagine the direct link to ancient times through the language and oral traditions of these Greek "ethnics" in Abkhazia.

So I guess the Quebecker are ethnic French because they've hung on to a form of french as their language. Something like the Acadians in Louisiana.


Please preserve the relationships between cultures and please preserve the cultures. Its not difficult... just leave them alone.

Oil (cash/power/etc) is not a good reason to kill all of these people... the oil will soon be gone and the people will become the best resource for new ideas and innovations in energy use and sourcing, if they survive the tug'o'war between the greedy national "leaders".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Well, apparently there are some Mexican-Americans who feel that parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California should return to Mexico. I recently came across an article that indicated that European-Americans will become a minority by ~2040, and Hispanics will be the majority. So perhaps it's a matter of time.

Yikes. Perhaps you are referring to this story:
http://http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afLRFXgzpFoY&refer=home"
They estimate that in 2042, non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority. However, Hispanics will not thereby become the majority. The estimate is 30%. As for European-Americans, I don't know how to separate Hispanic-Americans from European-Americans if it can be done at all since Spain is in Europe. Finally, I don't think there are that many Hispanic-Americans who want to give any of the aforementioned inches of land to Mexico.

 

[meopemuk]

Washington's talk about "disproportionate response" is simply ridiculous.

Let's see. About 3000 civilians were killed in the attack of 9/11. This was used as a justification to occupy 2 (two) sovereign countries by US military. About 1500 civilians were killed in the Georgian attack on Tshinvali (a conservative estimate). A simple calculation according to the law of proportionality should tell us that Russia now has a permission to occupy 1 (one) sovereign country of her choosing. How do you like that?

Or perhaps the math law of proportion is now different on different sides of the Atlantic (or Pacific) Ocean?

 

[quadraphonics]

About 1500 civilians were killed in the Georgian attack on Tshinvali (a conservative estimate).

Conservative according to who? The Russians have thrown around a lot of big numbers about the numbers killed by Georgians, but they've also sealed off the area and prevented anyone from finding out what happened. The only independent counts available put the civilian death toll in the Georgian assault in the dozens, not thousands. Maybe a lot more people died, or maybe they didn't; nobody has any way of knowing for sure at this point, and there is every reason to doubt the Russian numbers.

A simple calculation according to the law of proportionality should tell us that Russia now has a permission to occupy 1 (one) sovereign country of her choosing.

You misunderstand the concept of proportional response. The response is supposed to be such that the costs of the action are in proportion to the goals of the action. Previous casualty counts only enter into it in providing evidence that the goals in question are truly required. Preventing mass-casualty attacks on the United States (the stated reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq) is proportional to quite a large cost. Preventing Georgia from establishing a monopoly on force inside its internationally-recognized borders, on the other hand, doesn't justify much of anything. Of course, the actual Russian goals were much larger, and include altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia, but that is not a legitimate reason for invading Georgia.

Apart from that, Russia does not have standing to respond to deaths of Georgian citizens in the same way that the United States has standing to respond to the killings of American citizens. To the extent that Russian citizens died in the attacks, it was because Russia has pursued a deliberate policy of granting Russian citizenship to people in Georgia in order to create a pretext for military intervention, and to provoke Georgia into a shooting war.

 

[ray b]

Yikes. Perhaps you are referring to this story:
http://http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afLRFXgzpFoY&refer=home"
They estimate that in 2042, non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority. However, Hispanics will not thereby become the majority. The estimate is 30%. As for European-Americans, I don't know how to separate Hispanic-Americans from European-Americans if it can be done at all since Spain is in Europe. Finally, I don't think there are that many Hispanic-Americans who want to give any of the aforementioned inches of land to Mexico.

many Hispanic people who are in America are of mix race in fact few are pure European-Americans as Spain sent few females to the new world esp early to the islands and central America
most central american Hispanic's have indian blood
some island Hispanic's have more black blood as the indians died off early and were replaced by blacks
not to say that there are no pure European-Americans from Spain just far fewer then english
speaking people who are more likely to be a far higher % European-Americans
also as the European-Americans from Spain are more likely to be "upper class" or "RICHER"
they are far less inclined to move to the USA
except for the cubans and others who have moved for political reasons

 

[meopemuk]

Conservative according to who? The Russians have thrown around a lot of big numbers about the numbers killed by Georgians, but they've also sealed off the area and prevented anyone from finding out what happened. The only independent counts available put the civilian death toll in the Georgian assault in the dozens, not thousands. Maybe a lot more people died, or maybe they didn't; nobody has any way of knowing for sure at this point, and there is every reason to doubt the Russian numbers.

Poor Ossetians were misfortunate to be killed in the middle of the night rather than in broad daylight in front of video cameras. The latest body count in South Ossetia (according to Ossetian sources, I admit) is 2100. Looking at the pictures of destruction in Tshinvali (readily available on the Internet) it is difficult to believe that only "dozens" were killed there. Moreover, there are numerous eyewitness accounts. I don't think that Russians hide these testimonies from Western media. I rather think that CNN (whose credibility is now badly damaged in my eyes) doesn't want to hear them. Perhaps they think that these were paid KGB agents instructed to tell lies?

You misunderstand the concept of proportional response. The response is supposed to be such that the costs of the action are in proportion to the goals of the action. Previous casualty counts only enter into it in providing evidence that the goals in question are truly required. Preventing mass-casualty attacks on the United States (the stated reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq) is proportional to quite a large cost. Preventing Georgia from establishing a monopoly on force inside its internationally-recognized borders, on the other hand, doesn't justify much of anything. Of course, the actual Russian goals were much larger, and include altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia, but that is not a legitimate reason for invading Georgia.

What makes you think that the goal of US was "preventing mass-casualty attacks" and the goal of Russia was "altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia"? Why not the other way around?

Apart from that, Russia does not have standing to respond to deaths of Georgian citizens in the same way that the United States has standing to respond to the killings of American citizens. To the extent that Russian citizens died in the attacks, it was because Russia has pursued a deliberate policy of granting Russian citizenship to people in Georgia in order to create a pretext for military intervention, and to provoke Georgia into a shooting war.

Does it mean that the value of person's life depends on the color of the passport that he or she holds?

 

[baywax]

many Hispanic people who are in America are of mix race in fact few are pure European-Americans as Spain sent few females to the new world esp early to the islands and central America
most central american Hispanic's have indian blood
some island Hispanic's have more black blood as the indians died off early and were replaced by blacks
not to say that there are no pure European-Americans from Spain just far fewer then english
speaking people who are more likely to be a far higher % European-Americans
also as the European-Americans from Spain are more likely to be "upper class" or "RICHER"
they are far less inclined to move to the USA
except for the cubans and others who have moved for political reasons

If America ever has a chance of attaining its dream, the majority of the population will be of a golden skin colour as a result of the "melting pot" theory.

This idea was touched on in H.G. Wells' "Men Like Gods" from the thirties. Its a good read about a tour bus in england that slips through a worm-hole and winds up in a Utopian society of... "golden skinned people".

 

[ray b]

should everyone who wants to be independent from whoever be allowed to set up they own country?

the USA didNOT allow the south to do so in our civil war
but the USA has been on both sides of this question recently
supporting independence in the Balkan's and the break up of the USSR
not supporting the Kurds , Baesk ,Tamli ,chesnic or many other peoples

I think people should be free, and tooo often power politic's gets in the way

 

[quadraphonics]

Poor Ossetians were misfortunate to be killed in the middle of the night rather than in broad daylight in front of video cameras. The latest body count in South Ossetia (according to Ossetian sources, I admit) is 2100. Looking at the pictures of destruction in Tshinvali (readily available on the Internet) it is difficult to believe that only "dozens" were killed there. Moreover, there are numerous eyewitness accounts. I don't think that Russians hide these testimonies from Western media. I rather think that CNN (whose credibility is now badly damaged in my eyes) doesn't want to hear them. Perhaps they think that these were paid KGB agents instructed to tell lies?

Okay. I've never committed myself to any particular casualty count; we just don't know. And, yes, the Russian government is orchestrating the information that is released from South Ossettia. Although obvious not the KGB, as they no longer exist.

What makes you think that the goal of US was "preventing mass-casualty attacks" and the goal of Russia was "altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia"? Why not the other way around?

You're comparing a stated goal with my estimation of the Russian goal. I never mentioned what I thought America's real goal in Iraq was, although it would certainly have included altering the security balance in the Middle East (to the extent that the word "balance" is applicable there). Anyway, the point is that Russia's stated goals in the intervention are not proportional to their actions, while America's were. That the countries in question had ulterior, unstated goals does not affect this. If you don't want your actions to be called disproportionate, you need to provide reasons that would justify them.

Does it mean that the value of person's life depends on the color of the passport that he or she holds?

No, it means what I said: that Russia has no standing to act as the defender of the lives of people in other countries. That they've taken cynical measures designed to create such a pretext actually hurts their case here, as the ongoing Russian efforts to destabilize Georgia and other border countries and so ignite violent conflict is what is placing the lives in question at risk in the first place.

Anyway, what's the point? That Washington is hypocritical? So what? Exactly what government in human history wasn't? And what does it have to do with anything? It's Russia and Georgia that are shooting at each other; how does Washington's credibility make any difference one way or the other? Morality is not some zero-sum game where if you show one side is hypocritical, the other side must necessarily be trustworthy and honest. This is all just a distraction to lessen the (justified) criticism of Russian bullying and imperialism.

 

[meopemuk]

I've never committed myself to any particular casualty count; we just don't know.

And if you are not sure about the actual casualty count, then why are you (and West in general) so quick in putting all blame on Russia?

No, it means what I said: that Russia has no standing to act as the defender of the lives of people in other countries. That they've taken cynical measures designed to create such a pretext actually hurts their case here, as the ongoing Russian efforts to destabilize Georgia and other border countries and so ignite violent conflict is what is placing the lives in question at risk in the first place.

By the way, protecting civilian lives in South Ossetia was direct responsibility of Russian peacekeepers there according to a UN-recognized treaty between all three sides of the conflict: Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia. Georgia violated this treaty. Russia stuck to the "letter and spirit" of it. Russia did have legal "standing to act as the defender of the lives of people" in South Ossetia.

 

[quadraphonics]

And if you are not sure about the actual casualty count, then why are you (and West in general) so quick in putting all blame on Russia?

I don't put all of the blame on Russia, just the lion's share of it. With great power comes great responsibility, and Russia has most of the power in the region (not to mention that Russian policy over the past centuries has played a decisive role in creating these conflicts to begin with). And, anyway, the exact casualty count is not the only, or even the primary, factor that affects apportioning of blame here. As I mentioned in my previous post, the casualties are a direct result of Russia's provokative, imperialistic approach to Georgia, and so a higher casualty count actually means *more* criticism for Russia.

By the way, protecting civilian lives in South Ossetia was direct responsibility of Russian peacekeepers there according to a UN-recognized treaty between all three sides of the conflict: Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia.

A situation that conflicts directly with the Russian policy of destabilizing the area and so placing countless of those lives at risk.

Georgia violated this treaty.

Or so Russia says. Likewise, South Ossettia had been violating the treaty routinely for years, and yet where is your defense of the retaliatory action taken by Georgia? On the contrary, you view said retaliation as the root cause of the conflict. Never mind that Russia is arming and financing extremist Ossettian groups that routinely and openly violate the existing treaties.

Russia stuck to the "letter and spirit" of it.

Says who?

Russia did have legal "standing to act as the defender of the lives of people" in South Ossetia.

Who said anything about "legal" standing? The years of working to destabilize and intimidate Georgia have nullified any meaningful standing, and so the legalistic maneuverings (granting Russian citizenship to Ossettians, inserting "peacekeeping" troops) are nothing more than cynical exercises in creating cover for the planned eventual invasion of Georgia.

It's bizarre that anyone is even willing to entertain the idea that Russia is not an aggressive, imperialistic power bent on violent subjugation of their neighbors. Russia has consistently pursued exactly such a policy, unapologetically, for centuries. Throughout that time, they have employed and discarded countless flimsy pretexts for military intervention in their neighbor's countries; why would anyone fall for it this time around?

For example, how did their invasion of Abkhazia square with the rationale of protecting South Ossettian civilians?

 

[meopemuk]

...the casualties are a direct result of Russia's provokative, imperialistic approach to Georgia,...

I thought that casualties were a direct result of exploding missiles and tank shells... "Provokative and imperialistic approaches" do not kill people. It is not a secret that Russia-Georgia relations were bad in recent years. Both sides resorted to provocations and bad behaviors of various kinds. But I hope you can distinguish between "bad behavior" and wholesale massacre of civilians?

 

[quadraphonics]

I thought that casualties were a direct result of exploding missiles and tank shells...

Those are the proximate causes. The underlying cause leading to the application of Georgian weapons to South Ossettia is the political relationship between Russia and Georgia, and Russia, as the (by far) more powerful player has had both the responsibility, opportunity and power to drive the relationship towards a different outcome. But they did not. The fact is that Russia was clearly looking for an opportunity to violently reassert itself with respect to its neighbors, and needed a pretext to do so. So, Georgia was pushed and provoked into providing one. South Ossettia is a pawn in Russia's power plays, and the various civilians who died in the conflict count as blood Russia spilt in order to expand her brutal dominion. If Russia's uppermost concern was the welfare of South Ossettian civilians, they would have been working to de-escalate the conflict and find some sustainable solution. Instead they've worked to escalate the conflict and destabilize all of Georgia.

"Provokative and imperialistic approches" do not kill people.

Sure they do. Killing people is exactly how imperialism works. Do we even have a count of how many millions of people have been killed by Russian imperialism over the centuries? And yet we're supposed to believe that Russia is now some benign peacekeeper who only wants to protect human rights?

It is not a secret that Russia-Georgia relations were bad in recent years. Both sides resorted to provocations and bad behaviors of various kinds. But I hope you can distinguish between "bad behavior" and wholesale massacre of civilians?

There are as yet no trustworthy accounts of "wholesale massacres," and I hope you can distinguish between a small country intimidated into reckless overreaction, and an imperialist power bent on the violent subjugation of its neighbors. Because, I assure you, the various nations of Eastern Europe, not to mention NATO, sure can.

 

[baywax]

For all we know Russia, Georgia and the US of A are all play-acting in order to secure more land and hide something else in the region that, if made public, will blow the lid off a scheme they have going amongst them. Remember, these types of decoy wars are for the benefit of only around 100 families. The civilians, troops and everyone else are pawns to their end of greed and power mongering.

 

[meopemuk]

If Russia's uppermost concern was the welfare of South Ossettian civilians, they would have been working to de-escalate the conflict and find some sustainable solution. Instead they've worked to escalate the conflict and destabilize all of Georgia.

Russia's military response came 12 hours after Georgian troops started to shell Tshinvali. Russia's UN ambassador tried to convene UN Security Council to adopt a resolution stopping Georgia's advance. After this attempt failed, it became impossible for Russians just wait and see how innocent people died. The only way to de-escalate the conflict was to enter South Ossetia with military force.

Saakhashvili himself admitted that he didn't expect such a swift reaction from Russia. Putin was in Beijing, Medveded was on a Volga trip... So, probably, Saakhashvili thought that it will take Russia a few days to hesitate about "severed relationships with the West" and to pull enough troops to its Southern border. He probably calculated that these few days would be enough for him to crush Ossetian irregulars and one batallion of Russian peacekeepers, reach Roksky tunnel (which is the only land road going from Russia to South Ossetia under the mountains) and block it. Then it would be very difficult for Russian army to enter South Ossetia, Saakhashvili would have an advantage in future negotiations, and this would be a very different ballgame. Luckily, he miscalculated.

Do we even have a count of how many millions of people have been killed by Russian imperialism over the centuries? And yet we're supposed to believe that Russia is now some benign peacekeeper who only wants to protect human rights?

Shall we now recall American slavery, Nazi Germany, Mao's China? Countries, just as people, learn their lessons and change their behavior. I can assure you that Russia today is not the same as USSR 30 years ago.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know how to separate Hispanic-Americans from European-Americans if it can be done at all since Spain is in Europe.

many Hispanic people who are in America are of mix race in fact few are pure European-Americans as Spain sent few females to the new world esp early to the islands and central America
most central american Hispanic's have indian blood
some island Hispanic's have more black blood as the indians died off early and were replaced by blacks
not to say that there are no pure European-Americans from Spain just far fewer then english
speaking people who are more likely to be a far higher % European-Americans
also as the European-Americans from Spain are more likely to be "upper class" or "RICHER"
they are far less inclined to move to the USA
except for the cubans and others who have moved for political reasons

Sounds like we agree then.

 

[quadraphonics]

Russia's military response came 12 hours after Georgian troops started to shell Tshinvali. Russia's UN ambassador tried to convene UN Security Council to adopt a resolution stopping Georgia's advance. After this attempt failed, it became impossible for Russians just wait and see how innocent people died. The only way to de-escalate the conflict was to enter South Ossetia with military force.

Don't be daft; the entire conflict occurred in response to *years* of Russian escalation of the conflict. To say "well, their hands were tied once Georgia acted" is ridiculous: such a situation is *exactly* what Russian policy was intended to create. To pretend that the whole thing started earlier this month is just absurd. Russia has had every opportunity to bring about a peaceful result, but instead consistently worked to increase tensions and provoke Georgia into overreaction. It follows that Russia desired conflict in Georgia.

Saakhashvili himself admitted that he didn't expect such a swift reaction from Russia. Putin was in Beijing, Medveded was on a Volga trip... So, probably, Saakhashvili thought that it will take Russia a few days to hesitate about "severed relationships with the West" and to pull enough troops to its Southern border.

The fact that Russia had already massed troops on the border tell us, then, that Russia had already planned to invade Georgia once a pretext arose.

Shall we now recall American slavery, Nazi Germany, Mao's China? Countries, just as people, learn their lessons and change their behavior.

Russia has not changed their behavior. America and Germany both endured brutal wars and saw the eradication of the entire political classes involved in slavery and Nazism. In Russia, meanwhile, we have a bunch of ex-KGB spooks running the show to this very day. Hell, they've even been reconstituting some aspects of the command economy in recent years...

I can assure you that Russia today is not the same as Russia 30 years ago.

Indeed: today's Russia does not have a slew of neighbors held in an iron fist, and is on the verge of losing its MAD status with respect to the United States. Russia should think twice about such aggressive policies, as their costs will become clear over the coming years (pushing eastern Europe into the arms of NATO, renewing European distaste for dependence on Russian energy, tanking the Russian stock market, driving investment capital out of the country, and leaving Russia's geopolitical position at the mercy of China are but the most immediate, obvious consequences).

 

[meopemuk]

Hey, quadraphonics,

have you been to Russia lately? Have you spoken to people who live there? Or your "knowledge" is based on CNN propaganda?

 

[quadraphonics]

Hey, quadraphonics,

have you been to Russia lately? Have you spoken to people who live there? Or your "knowledge" is based on CNN propaganda?

Ah, so now we've reached the point where you're just going to search for pretenses to ignore me.

A couple of things: the behavior in question relates to foreign policy; i.e., the behavior of Russia in countries other than Russia. So visiting Russia wouldn't necessarily help a whole lot with this. I have, however, been to former Warsaw pact countries and seen how excited they were to be out from under the yoke of Russian oppression. Doubly so now that their fears of Russian revanchism are being vindicated. Yes, I have spoken to actual Russians, which has mostly served to convince me that Russians are extremely nationalistic and unapologetic about their nation's geopolitical ambitions. It actually surprises me that you guys seem to need to pretend that your intervention in Georgia was about anything other than your own power. Not what I expected from Russians at all. Finally, I do not watch CNN or any other TV. My knowledge is drawn from a wide variety of sources, including news sources in various countries, history books, foreign policy publications and the input of analysts and pundits.

For my part, I would suggest that you rely a bit less heavily on the official Russian story. Every country's news media tends to go into flag-waving mode whenever shooting starts, and you often find out years later that much of the official line was propaganda. Note that I haven't given any credence to any of the unbacked accusations coming out of Georgia, either. Staking your case on the word of controlled news media is a dicey game, especially when it requires you to dismiss the (much less controlled) media of third parties as propaganda.

 

[meopemuk]

... I have, however, been to former Warsaw pact countries and seen how excited they were to be out from under the yoke of Russian oppression. Doubly so now that their fears of Russian revanchism are being vindicated. Yes, I have spoken to actual Russians, which has mostly served to convince me that Russians are extremely nationalistic and unapologetic about their nation's geopolitical ambitions. It actually surprises me that you guys seem to need to pretend that your intervention in Georgia was about anything other than your own power. Not what I expected from Russians at all. Finally, I do not watch CNN or any other TV. My knowledge is drawn from a wide variety of sources, including news sources in various countries, history books, foreign policy publications and the input of analysts and pundits.

I am sorry to hear that all your studies lead you to believe that modern Russia is a monster. On my part, I lived 30 years of my life in Soviet Latvia under the "iron fist" of occupation and then 3 years in independent Republic of Latvia. So, I have a first-hand knowledge of Russia and its policies in the neighborhood. I know that USSR and modern Russia did quite a few stupid and even criminal things. But recent episode in South Ossetia is not one of them. That's just my personal opinion. I am sure you disagree.

 

[sketchtrack]

I think it is just another covert struggle between the U.S. and Russia over control of the oil pipeline. The U.S. seamed to be in control, and Russia is attempting to gain control. Just look at how Russia and the U.S. had battled over control of Afganistan. The country in control tries to maintain control through funding and military build up. The opposition usually engages in a black op supporting separatists. Why should I have any reason to believe that this situation is any different.

 

[sketchtrack]

I am sorry to hear that all your studies lead you to believe that modern Russia is a monster. On my part, I lived 30 years of my life in Soviet Latvia under the "iron fist" of occupation and then 3 years in independent Republic of Latvia. So, I have a first-hand knowledge of Russia and its policies in the neighborhood. I know that USSR and modern Russia did quite a few stupid and even criminal things. But recent episode in South Ossetia is not one of them. That's just my personal opinion. I am sure you disagree.

Maybe living in Russia isn't the best way to know the truth about Russian Foreign policy.

 

[meopemuk]

I think it is just another covert struggle between the U.S. and Russia over control of the oil pipeline. The U.S. seamed to be in control, and Russia is attempting to gain control. Just look at how Russia and the U.S. had battled over control of Afganistan. The country in control tries to maintain control through funding and military build up. The opposition usually engages in a black op supporting separatists. Why should I have any reason to believe that this situation is any different.

From what I see it doesn't look like Russians are interested in this pipeline. Currently, it seems that they can move inside Georgia at will. So, nobody can stop them from driving to the pipeline and do whatever they want to it. But they did ... nothing.

Don't try to make this matter more complicated than it really is. It is very simple: those who mass murder innocent civilians and peacekeepers should be brought to justice and punished. That's all there is to it. All this talk about pipelines, expansion of NATO, world domination,... is just ... talk.

 

[meopemuk]

Maybe living in Russia isn't the best way to know the truth about Russian Foreign policy.

I have the opportunity to see how this conflict is portrayed from both sides of the divide. I can assure you that in this particular case Russian media (even though it could be state-controlled) is much more balanced and objective than CNN, BBC, FOX, etc.

 

[sketchtrack]

I have the opportunity to see how this conflict is portrayed from both sides of the divide. I can assure you that in this particular case Russian media (even though it could be state-controlled) is much more balanced and objective than CNN, BBC, FOX, etc.

At least most Americans are aware of the bias of the 24 hour news channels. They are more of a political tool for different parties than a news channel, I imagine that Russian news is probably at least as bad.

 

[sketchtrack]

Just out of curiosity, since you have lived in Russia for so long, how did Russian media report on its' war with Afghanistan?

 

[sketchtrack]

"He worked in the Leningrad and Leningrad region Fifth Directorate of the KGB, which combated the political dissent in the Soviet Union. In 1976 he completed the KGB retraining course in Okhta, Leningrad. The available information about his first years at the KGB is somewhat contradictory; according to some sources,[16] he completed the other retraining course at the Dzerzhinsky KGB Higher School in Moscow and then in 1985—the Red Banner Yuri Andropov KGB Institute in Moscow (now the Academy of Foreign Intelligence), whereupon (or earlier) he joined the KGB First Chief Directorate
(Foreign intelligence branch)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

"Political dissent refers to any expression designed to convey dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a governing body. Such expression may take forms from vocal disagreement to civil disobedience to the use of violence. Historically, repressive governments have sought to punish political dissent. The protection of freedoms that facilitate peaceful dissent has become a hallmark of free and open societies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_dissent

Why should I trust Russian information?

 

[meopemuk]

Just out of curiosity, since you have lived in Russia for so long, how did Russian media report on the war in Afganistan?

State television mostly told us how Soviet troops planted trees and rebuilt schools in Afghanistan and how US supplied mujhaheddins with "Stingers". There was no foreign TV channels, or Internet, or even foreign newspapers (except for "Morning Star" of British Communist Party) at that time in USSR. Some people (whose friends or family members were sent to fight the war) knew better. But large portion of population was brainwashed.

Thanks God, we are in a different era now. But to tell you the truth, US media today reminds me the Soviet propaganda machine. I don't want to think that Vice President's office controls them, but they definitely have an agenda. And this agenda is not about objective information. I can see clearly how they withhold important pieces of information, how they quote out of context, so that the meaning of the statement gets distorted. It is hard to believe that this occurs due to innocent ignorance or shortage of airtime.

For example, CNN showed a destroyed building and told that it was a result of Russian bombardement in Gori (Georgia). Then an angry Russian cameraman was shown on Russian TV, who told that "he can swear in front of any tribunal" that this was his own footage and that he can show the place on the map of Tshinvali where this footage was taken. I am not cynical enough to suspect him in lying. Now each time I look at a picture of a destroyed building in Gori I ask myself: "is it really Gori or Tshinvali?"

Russian troops could have won a just war on the battlefield. But Western media definitely has an upper hand in the information war.

 

[meopemuk]

Why should I trust Russian information?

Let me tell this: I was brainwashed once in my life. And I know how it looks and how it feels. I am careful not to fall into the same trap for the second time.

Moreover I trust more local residents of Tshinvali (they say things that no script-writer can ever imagine) than politicians in their suits and ties and with their geopolitical agendas.

 

[WarPhalange]

Did you all completely ignore the video I posted of the girl who was from Ossetian who said the Georgians were the ones slaughtering people?

This was on Fox News. They had just come back from a commercial, and after she delivered that bomb they had to go to another one.

H8XI2Chc6uQ[/youtube]

 

[meopemuk]

Did you all completely ignore the video I posted of the girl who was from Ossetian who said the Georgians were the ones slaughtering people?

This was on Fox News. They had just come back from a commercial, and after she delivered that bomb they had to go to another one.

H8XI2Chc6uQ[/youtube][/QUOTE] Hi... partnership for winning the information war!

 

[russ_watters]

I have the opportunity to see how this conflict is portrayed from both sides of the divide. I can assure you that in this particular case Russian media (even though it could be state-controlled) is much more balanced and objective than CNN, BBC, FOX, etc.

That would be pretty surprising considering Russian media still operates at the whim of the state.

Working conditions for journalists in Russia "continued to worsen alarmingly in 2005, with violence the most serious threat to press freedom," says the annual report of the watchdog group Reporters Without Borders. "The lack of broadcasting diversity and closure of several independent newspapers crushed by huge fines is alarming. "

Last week The Guardian reported that the number of Russian radio stations carrying news programs from the U.S.-funded Voice of America and Radio Liberty fell from from 72 to nine since September. (Editor's note: The Guardian report followed an initial story on the regulations by The Post's Peter Finn.)

Observers say political control is most complete in country's national television channels: Channel One, NTV and RTR. "They are all either controlled by the Kremlin or run by editors who know what not to say," according to Allison Gill, director of the Human Rights Watch office in Moscow.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/07/putins_russia_case_study_in_me.html

Considering the direct harm done to the Russian media by the government in the past few years, assertions of Russian media's objectivity compared to the west's is pretty laughable. And assertions of Cheney's control over American media are tantamount to conspiracy theory.

 

[Art]

Don't be daft; the entire conflict occurred in response to *years* of Russian escalation of the conflict. To say "well, their hands were tied once Georgia acted" is ridiculous: such a situation is *exactly* what Russian policy was intended to create. To pretend that the whole thing started earlier this month is just absurd. Russia has had every opportunity to bring about a peaceful result, but instead consistently worked to increase tensions and provoke Georgia into overreaction. It follows that Russia desired conflict in Georgia.
The fact that Russia had already massed troops on the border tell us, then, that Russia had already planned to invade Georgia once a pretext arose.
Russia has not changed their behavior. America and Germany both endured brutal wars and saw the eradication of the entire political classes involved in slavery and Nazism. In Russia, meanwhile, we have a bunch of ex-KGB spooks running the show to this very day. Hell, they've even been reconstituting some aspects of the command economy in recent years...
Indeed: today's Russia does not have a slew of neighbors held in an iron fist, and is on the verge of losing its MAD status with respect to the United States. Russia should think twice about such aggressive policies, as their costs will become clear over the coming years (pushing eastern Europe into the arms of NATO, renewing European distaste for dependence on Russian energy, tanking the Russian stock market, driving investment capital out of the country, and leaving Russia's geopolitical position at the mercy of China are but the most immediate, obvious consequences).

Wow talk about torturing facts. In relation to this specific issue Russia tried very hard to defuse the situation in South Ossetia. Only recently Russia had asked Georgia to sign a non-aggression treaty committing all sides not to resort to force to resolve the issue. Georgia's president refused, ironically claiming he was insulted by the request as he would never use force against his own citizens. Trustworthy sort of guy

Yes Russia had troops ready to intervene if Georgia were mad enough to attack South Ossetia because they suspected Georgia couldn't be trusted and would have hoped a show of force would act as a deterrent. Unfortunately for Georgia their president, who btw still refuses to answer reporters who ask if his attack on S Ossetia was at America's instigation, thought Russia was bluffing.

Even after the Georgian onslaught started Russia tried to solve the situation diplomatically through the UNSC where a resolution they proposed calling on Georgia to ceasefire and withdraw to pre-conflict borders was blocked by the US and it's puppet state Britain (shades of Israel/Lebanon) which adds fuel to the suspicion that America was an instigator of the invasion and wanted to allow time for it's completion.

It really takes a huge leap of imagination to see Georgia as the victims of this situation. They are 100% the architects of their own current misfortunes as a direct result of their naked aggression on a civilian population and Russian peacekeepers. I'm surprised by the restraint Russia has shown; they didn't bomb TV broadcasters in the capital (as NATO did in Belgrade) and they didn't hit government administrative buildings in Tibilisi either (as NATO did in Belgrade). And they certainly didn''t reduce the country to rubble as America did in Iraq. According to Georgian figures they also killed a magnitude fewer civilians than NATO did in Serbia and a minuscule percentage of the civilians Americans killed in Iraq.

On the larger issue after the breakup of the USSR Russia tried very hard to integrate itself into Europe and so breakdown the tensions between east and west.

An important part of this was an agreement with NATO to stand down the armies facing off against each other. Russia kept it's side of the deal but not only did NATO renege on it's undertakings, under American prompting, it went the other way and began to expand NATO eastward as fast as they could.

Russia is now ringed by US military bases in what was it's former territory. One can only imagine America's reaction if Russia were to establish missile bases in Mexico, Canada and Cuba but I suspect it would not be one of apathetic indifference.

Your contention that the west has learned from it's previous mistakes and inhumane behaviour and is now a paragon of virtue with no imperial ambitions is naive to the point of incredulity. Perhaps if you were to pick up a newspaper today and read up on what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and Palestine to name but a few where hard western power is being exerted coupled with the dozens if not hundreds of countries where soft power is being exerted to prop up corrupt and dictatorial regimes such as the post-Communist dictatorships in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and most of the other former Soviet republics not to mention their support for the tyrannical and brutal governments of the ME, you would wake up from your rose tinted delusion.

 

[Art]

That would be pretty surprising considering Russian media still operates at the whim of the state.http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/07/putins_russia_case_study_in_me.html

Considering the direct harm done to the Russian media by the government in the past few years, assertions of Russian media's objectivity compared to the west's is pretty laughable. And assertions of Cheney's control over American media are tantamount to conspiracy theory.

Some parts of the Western press are freer than others.

Ireland for example is ranked no. 1 in Reporters Without Borders annual report whereas the US domestic press only makes no. 22 a long way behind former communist countries such as Latvia and Estonia whilst US press freedom in Iraq is ranked at 108th. Not the sort of positions the self appointed leader of the free world should be proud of and indicative that Americans should be suspicious of what they see and hear in their media.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

 

[WmLambert]

Much of the impetus comes from a few Russian and area locals who have posted their observations in other forums I frequent - however, their eyes on the ground posts are not sources - just more blah-blah, I guess.

The important point is that the viewpoint that Georgia, who is a U.S. ally, made a bone-headed attack on Russian citizens in South Ossetia for some unexplained reason, in face of all good sense and military logic, at such a scale to trigger Russian response, is all that we hear. Military analyst stated that Russia's military is huge, but ill-maintained and only a few parts are considered first rate. It was these elite troops who suddenly appeared in the tunnel going under the mountains into South Ossetia, within hours of the accusation of Georgian atricities against Russian citizens. The massive cyber attack was not reactionary either, but was coordinated with the inital claims of atrocities. These facts lead any prudent observer to hold back one's acceptance of Russian claims.

Delving deeper into the motivations, we see analysis as far back as '04 and '06 that the small newly democrat countries will be targets for Russia.

...Independence for Kosovo would establish a dangerous precedent. President Vladimir Putin of Russia has already warned that a decision to grant Kosovo independence could be applicable to post-soviet territory .He has particular interest in regions of the former Soviet Union that have aspirations for independence. The most volatile ones are the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; these two regions broke away from Georgia in 1992 and want independent status. Recognition of Kosovo independence would give them their precedent. And could result in bloodshed with serious implications for world security.

For a good article explaining the political timing behind the South Ossetia confrontation, one of the most cogent articles I've seen is this one by http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/huston/080812

 

[WmLambert]

Poor Ossetians were misfortunate to be killed in the middle of the night rather than in broad daylight in front of video cameras. The latest body count in South Ossetia (according to Ossetian sources, I admit) is 2100. Looking at the pictures of destruction in Tshinvali (readily available on the Internet) it is difficult to believe that only "dozens" were killed there. Moreover, there are numerous eyewitness accounts. I don't think that Russians hide these testimonies from Western media. I rather think that CNN (whose credibility is now badly damaged in my eyes) doesn't want to hear them. Perhaps they think that these were paid KGB agents instructed to tell lies?

According to "eyewitness accounts" by Georgians, driven out of their homes by Russian "Peacekeepers," it seems there was a separatist onslaught, which the Georgians tried to quell. The reports were, as mentioned above, only dozens.

The Russian attack was by first-line troops (which definitively shows premeditation), but even so, the incompetence of the attack may have led to the large body counts after the fact.

A close examination of video and photos of the Russian force also reveals top of the line equipment--late model T-80 and T-90 main battle tanks, and BMP-2 IFVs. Now, the Caucasus Military District is something of a backwater, home of Category II and Category III divisions, most of which are kept below strength and equipped with older systems, such as the T-72 MBT. On the other hand, the Category I divisions are kept close to Moscow and the western military districts, because that is where the main threat is perceived, and also because that's much better terrain for tank warfare. Obviously, the Russian army carefully transferred the forces for
this operation from central Russia all the way to the Caucasus--in secret--and also accompanied the move with a comprehensive maskirovka intended to put us at our ease (e.g., Putin did go to the Olympic opening ceremonies, after all).

From this we can infer what most experts already know--that the Russian army, though still numerically large, has relatively few competent, deployable formations--there are the airborne divisions and the air assault brigades, and a few tank and motor-rifle divisions, but not much else. Similarly, the Russian air force doesn't have very many fully operational aircraft or deep reserves of fuel, spare parts and munitions. This invasion has probably eaten deeply into Russian operations and maintenance funding, to say nothing of its war reserve stockpiles of ordnance and equipment. Russia must have bet on a short and fairly bloodless war, because it cannot afford--militarily or politically--a protracted slog. Not only doesn't it have the equipment to do so, but it doesn't have enough highly trained troops to sustain heavy casualties. The Russian military consists of a small, diamond-hard point on the end of a wooden stick. If the point shatters or wears down, you are left fighting the stick.

Ralph Peters' article summed up the body counts:

THE BEAR'S MILITARY MESS

RUSSIA's military is succeeding in its invasion of Georgia, but only because Moscow has applied overwhelming force.

This campaign was supposed to be the big debut for the Kremlin's revitalized armed forces (funded by the country's new petro-wealth). Well, the new Russian military looks a lot like the old Russian military: slovenly and not ready for prime time.

It can hammer tiny Georgia into submission - but this campaign unintentionally reveals plenty of enduring Russian weaknesses.

The most visible failings are those of the air force. Flying Moscow's latest ground-attack jets armed with the country's newest precision weapons, pilots are missing far more targets than they're hitting.

All those strikes on civilian apartment buildings and other non-military targets? Some may be intentional (the Russians aren't above terror-bombing), but most are just the result of ill-trained pilots flying scared.

They're missing pipelines, rail lines and oil-storage facilities - just dumping their bombs as quickly as they can and heading home.

Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday. Split the difference, and you have seven or more Russian aircraft knocked out of the sky by a tiny enemy. Compare that to US Air Force losses - statistically zero - in combat in all of our wars since Desert Storm.

As one US officer observed to me, the Russian pilots are neither professionally nor emotionally toughened for their missions. Their equipment's pretty good (not as good as ours), but their training lags - and their pilots log far fewer flight hours than ours do.

Russia has been planning and organizing this invasion for months. And they're pulling it off - but the military's embarrassing blunders must be infuriating Prime Minister Putin.

 

[baywax]

For a good article explaining the political timing behind the South Ossetia confrontation, one of the most cogent articles I've seen is this one by Warner Todd Huston. He explains why Georgia's president Mikheil Saakashvili moved into South Ossetia at this time.

Oh yeah, this guy's a totally biased speculator who's a fat, out-of-shape (re:well kept) right-wing conservative giving his assumptions after getting a packet of cash from the McAin smear Obama campaign. Puleeez.

 

[WmLambert]

BTW: Val, in another forum, posted eyewitness reports in the local Russian, which I asked him to translate for us. I ran his Russian through a translator, but needed more:

— Я так понимаю, там всех уже зачистили?
- 4 so ponimayu, there all did already clean?
("Do I understand correctly that all people there have already been killed?")

— Да. То есть оттуда мирных жителей вывезли, там никого не было, кроме грузинских войск. А что касается мирных граждан, то в тех местах, где они еще оставались, мы, в отличие от войск Грузии, предоставили коридор и дали возможность мирному населению выйти. Но еще раз хочу вас заверить, что в этих анклавах фактически никого не было. Они заблаговременно всех вывезли — у нас были перехваты. Ведь грузинская сторона к агрессии серьезно готовилась. Они вывозили оттуда людей, они вывезли свое так называемое альтернативное правительство (прогрузинская временная администрация Южной Осетии во главе с Дмитрием Санакоевым.— "Ъ").
- Yes. I.E., they exported from there innocent civilians, there no one it was, except Georgian troops. But as far as peaceful citizens are concerned, in those places, where they still remained, we, in contrast to the troops of Georgia, granted corridor and they made possible to innocent civilians it left. But I again want you it certified, that in these the enclaves actually no one it was. They in advance all exported - the interceptions was. Indeed Georgian side for the aggression seriously was prepared. They exported from there people, they exported their so-called alternative government Progruzinskaya temporary administration of South Osetia headed by Dmitriy Sanakoyev. - - "7"

— То есть грузинские анклавы фактически уничтожены?
- i.e., Georgian enclaves are actually destroyed?

— А что, надо допустить, чтобы нас оттуда обстреливали? Опять стреляли нам в спину и издевались над нашим народом?
- A that, must it did allow so that us they would from there fire? Again they did shoot to us into the back and did jeer above I will sew by people?

— Грузинских мирных жителей туда обратно пустят?
- Georgian innocent civilians there conversely tyuey pustyat?

— Мы не намерены туда больше кого-то запускать. Более 18 тыс. осетинских беженцев из Грузии сейчас находятся в Северной Осетии. Нам их нужно возвращать в Южную Осетию. "
- we are not intended there more someone
it started. More than 18 thousand Ossetic refugees from Georgia now nakhodyatsya to North Osetia. To us they necessarily returned to South Osetia.

Please see my explanation inside of your quote (I hope I wouldn't confuse you :) )

Thank you, Val for your post. Could you possibly clean up the translation from my Mac translator? ...

1. Basically, he said that they killed everyone who was there, "but there were no civilians, only Georgian troops, because they had been transported out of the area by Georgians before the attacks, ... but in the place there were some civilians they let them out". They also have no intention to let Georgian civilians back in their villages in S.O.

This is an interesting way to say that they killed everyone ... but did not killed civilians, isn't it?

2. It was done not exactly by Russians, but by the Ossetin separatists. (See my links to wikipedia about South Ossetin autonomy inside of Georgia. In short, only part of the Ossetins living in Georgia, live in that autonomy, and slightly more than half of them lives (probably up to 30,000 from the top of my head, are under control of the separatists. This is an interview with their leader after they were "liberated" by Russian troops)

It is not Russian regular troops who were noticed in atrocities, but so called "irregulars", which are the "separatists" apparently controlled encouraged and used by the Moscow government and, probably some special troops .
Russian Regular troops mostly consist of young draftees, most of whom are average young people 18-20 years old, not specially prepared, just trained with the weapons for several months. ...

I realize it is all herky-jerky, but the gist is that the South Ossetian separatists were called "Russian Irregulars" by the Russians and were devastating the Georgians and non-separatist South Ossetians, causing the Georgian Peacekeepers to step in. Civilians ran away for safety, and the "drivers-awayers" were holed up in their vacant homes which were attacked. The Russians could righteously claim the Georgians killed everyone in the civilian area, without mentioning no civilians were killed.

"Who done what" is all over the place. There are South Ossetians, non-separatists and separatists, alike, who are now refugees in North Ossetia and elsewhere waiting to come back. Most Georgians who were forced out are refugees in Georgia, waitoing to return.

 

[quadraphonics]

Only recently Russia had asked Georgia to sign a non-aggression treaty committing all sides not to resort to force to resolve the issue.

No president of any country in the world would even consider signing a non-aggression treaty with a country that was stationing its troops on his soil. This is the equivalent of signing your country away. To claim that this represents a good-faith attempt by Russia to find a peaceful solution is absurd:

"Peacefully hand your country over to us!"
"No way."
"Well, we *tried* peaceful means..."

Yes Russia had troops ready to intervene if Georgia were mad enough to attack South Ossetia because they suspected Georgia couldn't be trusted and would have hoped a show of force would act as a deterrent. Unfortunately for Georgia their president, who btw still refuses to answer reporters who ask if his attack on S Ossetia was at America's instigation, thought Russia was bluffing.

It's amazing how you know what all these people were thinking, and what motivated them. Too bad they don't call anyone else to share their most secret thoughts.

Even after the Georgian onslaught started Russia tried to solve the situation diplomatically through the UNSC where a resolution they proposed calling on Georgia to ceasefire and withdraw to pre-conflict borders was blocked by the US and it's puppet state Britain (shades of Israel/Lebanon) which adds fuel to the suspicion that America was an instigator of the invasion and wanted to allow time for it's completion.

A silly supposition considering how badly Georgian forces were being trampled by the Russian onslaught. And speaking of the UNSC, where were Russia's efforts to build a truly legitimate, legal framework for resolving the crisis via the UN over the past 10 years? Oh, yeah, they didn't seem interested in that... but I guess denying them a fig-leaf of UNSC sponsorship for their invasion of Georgia somehow counts as war-mongering.

It really takes a huge leap of imagination to see Georgia as the victims of this situation.

Then it's fortunate for me that I don't. The victims here are the civilians caught in the crossfire. What's really staggering is that so many people are determined to see *Russia* as the victim.

they didn't bomb TV broadcasters in the capital (as NATO did in Belgrade) and they didn't hit government administrative buildings in Tibilisi either (as NATO did in Belgrade).

Georgia is not Yugoslavia. Even according to the most biased accounts, Georgian actions did not come close to the organized genocide that was underway in the former Yugoslavia.

And they certainly didn''t reduce the country to rubble as America did in Iraq. According to Georgian figures they also killed a magnitude fewer civilians than NATO did in Serbia and a minuscule percentage of the civilians Americans killed in Iraq.

And these comparisons are relevant how...?

Russia is now ringed by US military bases in what was it's former territory. One can only imagine America's reaction if Russia were to establish missile bases in Mexico, Canada and Cuba but I suspect it would not be one of apathetic indifference.

Funny, I didn't know that Mexico, Canada and Cuba were America's "former territory," although I like how you lend legitimacy to their brutal occupation of various countries by consigning them to the status of "Russia's territory." It just so happens that pretty much all of those countries weren't so hot on belonging to Russia, which is a big part of what pulled NATO so far east so quickly, and why Georgia bristles even today. Also, Russia *IS* trying to put bases in Cuba right now.

Your contention that the west has learned from it's previous mistakes and inhumane behaviour and is now a paragon of virtue with no imperial ambitions is naive to the point of incredulity

Who said anything about "paragon of virtue" or "no imperial ambitions?" I just pointed out that slavery and Nazism were defeated and repudiated in a way that authoritarianism and imperialism in Russia were not. If you can't respond to that without putting words in my mouth, don't respond at all. Could it be that America's faults, whatever they may be, are not actually the most relevant factor when it comes to Russians and Georgians shooting each other?

 

[meopemuk]

Can you imagine how Americans would feel if after 9/11/01 leaders of Western countries were lining up in the queue to the Osama bin Laden's cave offering him and his organization membership in NATO, and America was threatened by various sanctions, because it allegedly "provoked" the attack by its Mid-Eastern policies?

Make substitutions:
Americans -> Russians
Osama bin Laden -> Saakashvili
Middle East -> Caucasus
9/11/01 -> 8/08/08

and you'll understand what is the mood in Russia right now. I don't think that the word "betrayal" comes even close.

 

[Art]

A silly supposition considering how badly Georgian forces were being trampled by the Russian onslaught. And speaking of the UNSC, where were Russia's efforts to build a truly legitimate, legal framework for resolving the crisis via the UN over the past 10 years? Oh, yeah, they didn't seem interested in that... but I guess denying them a fig-leaf of UNSC sponsorship for their invasion of Georgia somehow counts as war-mongering.

Okay, this single paragraph epitomises and exposes your total ignorance of the situation re Georgia in the past two weeks and the past 10 years. Perhaps you should read up on it first and then maybe we could have a discussion based on reality as I am not wasting any more time rebutting your fantasies.

 

[Oberst Villa]

Can you imagine how Americans would feel if after 9/11/01 leaders of Western countries were lining up in the queue to the Osama bin Laden's cave offering him and his organization membership in NATO, and America was threatened by various sanctions, because it allegedly "provoked" the attack by its Mid-Eastern policies?

Make substitutions:
Americans -> Russians
Osama bin Laden -> Saakashvili
Middle East -> Caucasus
9/11/01 -> 8/08/08

and you'll understand what is the mood in Russia right now. I don't think that the word "betrayal" comes even close.

Are you connected with people living in Russia ? If so, do people there think the US was involved in the Georgian decision to attack ? Or do they think it was a lone decision by the Georgian gouvernment ? (I assume most Russians do believe in the version that it was an unprovoked surprise attack by Georgia).

A little off-topic: Could you recommend one or two Russian news sources that more or less represent Russian "public opinion" ? Every now and then I have a look at "Argumenti i Fakti" (trying to learn Russian, but without much success) - is it popular in Russia ?

 

[meopemuk]

Are you connected with people living in Russia ? If so, do people there think the US was involved in the Georgian decision to attack ? Or do they think it was a lone decision by the Georgian gouvernment ? (I assume most Russians do believe in the version that it was an unprovoked surprise attack by Georgia).

Though I am an ethnic Russian I didn't live in Russia proper. I have a number of relatives there, though our contacts are sporadic and I didn't have a chance to ask them about latest events. I had some exchanges with immigrants from former USSR living and working around me.

I think it should be clear to anyone that Saakashvili (unless he is a complete madman) could not perform this stunt all by himself. He should have known better what the reaction of Russia would be. He was warned by Russians many times not to do exactly what he did.

My personal opinion is that he was encouraged by the US. The aggressive American PR campaign in support of Saakashvili seems to confirm that. Perhaps Bush became bored with Iraq and Afghanistan which seem to go nowhere and decided to start a new game in his quest for domination? Perhaps he has a big geopolitical plan of dividing the world into opposing camps (Europe and America on one side, Russia and China on the other) in preparation for the Armageddon? I have no idea.

Or perhaps things are not so apocaliptic and Saakashvili "simply" decided to retake South Ossetia by force. He could have succeeded if Russians hesitated to respond for a couple more days.

A little off-topic: Could you recommend one or two Russian news sources that more or less represent Russian "public opinion" ? Every now and then I have a look at "Argumenti i Fakti" (trying to learn Russian, but without much success) - is it popular in Russia ?

"Argumenti i Fakti" was extremely popular during "perestroika". I think they even got to the Guinness Book of Records as a periodical with the highest circulation in the world.

I am not a political junkie, and I didn't pay much attention to the current Russian press before this event, which made me furious. You can try www.yandex.ru[/url] for compilation of articles from different sources (including US and Georgian). A good source of video footage and commentaries in English is [PLAIN]www.russiatoday.com . I have 6 Russian TV channels at home from DirecTV, but I pay smthng like $60/month for that. Some would say that Russian media is not credible, because it is state-controlled. But I can say with some authority that most Russians agree with what they see on TV during last 11 days. What is that? The media accurately reflects people's opinion? Or the population is brainwashed by the media? I would vote for the former.

For a strong anti-Kremlin and pro-Western stance you can try Garry Kasparov's www.theotherrussia.org in English.

 

[russ_watters]

Some parts of the Western press are freer than others.

Ireland for example is ranked no. 1 in Reporters Without Borders annual report whereas the US domestic press only makes no. 22 a long way behind former communist countries such as Latvia and Estonia whilst US press freedom in Iraq is ranked at 108th. Not the sort of positions the self appointed leader of the free world should be proud of and indicative that Americans should be suspicious of what they see and hear in their media.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

The US may be in the low-end of western countries on that scale, but it is still in the range for western countries. I'm proud of the progress the former soviet republics have made and their recent conversion is part of the reason they are so close to the top. I hope they keep their idealism towards democracy a long time before socialism starts creeping back in.

The point is that Russia, on the other hand, is near the bottom of the entire scale. Staggeringly low for a country that supposedly has freedom of the press. Their press shouldn't even be consulted, much less trusted as a source of news.

 

[meopemuk]

The US may be in the low-end of western countries on that scale, but it is still in the range for western countries. I'm proud of the progress the former soviet republics have made and their recent conversion is part of the reason they are so close to the top. I hope they keep their idealism towards democracy a long time before socialism starts creeping back in.

The point is that Russia, on the other hand, is near the bottom of the entire scale. Staggeringly low for a country that supposedly has freedom of the press. Their press shouldn't even be consulted, much less trusted as a source of news.

Interesting, why your independent and trusted media sources do not attempt to go to Tshinvali and see for themselves what is the situation on the other side (I am currently browsing CNN and BBC websites and see that all their operations are inside Georgia proper)? If (as you perhaps may claim) Russian authorities do not let them in, why don't they cry outloud and demand the entry? This makes me to suspect that Western media just doesn't want to see the scenes of devastation in Tshinvali and doesn't want to talk to the residents of the city. This doesn't fit into their convenient black-and-white picture.

 

[quadraphonics]

Interesting, why your independent and trusted media sources do not attempt to go to Tshinvali and see for themselves what is the situation on the other side (I am currently browsing CNN and BBC websites and see that all their operations are inside Georgia proper)?

Well, why don't you take a look at the Los Angeles Times website:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-breakaway18-2008aug18,0,5306223.story

Or the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...south_ossetians_direct_bitterness_at_georgia/

Or the Kansas City Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/753677.html

Or ABC News:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/17/2337791.htm

Or the International Herlad Tribune:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/16/europe/EU-Georgia-Forced-Laborers.php

Or the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/world/europe/18tblisi.html

If you want to ignore Western media, that's your prerogative, but don't try to twist your own ignorance of its contents into an argument that it should be ignored.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think it should be clear to anyone that Saakashvili (unless he is a complete madman) could not perform this stunt all by himself. He should have known better what the reaction of Russia would be. He was warned by Russians many times not to do exactly what he did.

My personal opinion is that he was encouraged by the US. The aggressive American PR campaign in support of Saakashvili seems to confirm that. Perhaps Bush became bored with Iraq and Afghanistan which seem to go nowhere and decided to start a new game in his quest for domination? Perhaps he has a big geopolitical plan of dividing the world into opposing camps (Europe and America on one side, Russia and China on the other) in preparation for the Armageddon? I have no idea.

Or perhaps things are not so apocaliptic and Saakashvili "simply" decided to retake South Ossetia by force. He could have succeeded if Russians hesitated to respond for a couple more days.

I think it's important to recall that war is a fundamentally political act, and so its goals and success or failure must be judged in political, and not solely military, terms. While it is possible that Saakashvili thought he really stood a good chance of retaking South Ossetia by force, it's unlikely that such a simple, risky move was the primary object of the war. Whenever a small state sandwiched between superpowers acts, it acts as much to affect the disposition of the surrounding powers as to win the actual battles in question (which are necessarily very limited in scope).

That said, I think that an important part of the backdrop here is NATO's rejection of Georgian membership (under European objections) at the recent NATO summit. This presumably left Saakashvili with the impression that the EU was lukewarm about eastward expansion of NATO, and without much sense of urgency or unity on the question of the security disposition of Georgia (and Ukraine). If so, a confrontation with Russia, which was bound to make Russia look bad in Europe, is just the thing. If he can grab South Ossetia and hang onto it, so much the better, but he must have calculated that his alliance with the US, and support from NATO, would allow him to at least preserve his polity and some semblence of the status-quo-ante. He'd have been crazy to expect a direct American intervention against Russia, and the surprised response from the US seems to be pretty strong evidence that America did not anticipate this move.

So, judged on those terms, it seems that Georgia has actually won this war: it lit a fire under Europe's *** on the question of his country's security disposition, with NATO now aligned in Georgia's favor, and other Eastern European states scrambling to strengthen their defenses over Russian objections (see Poland). Meanwhile, Russia's stock market took a massive hit, is suffering isolation from various prestigious international organizations, and is widely perceived as an aggressive, violent power. Expect Europe to intensify efforts to lessen dependence on Russian energy, and become more supportive militarily of the Baltic and other Eastern European states. Meanwhile, gas prices have leveled off, and American troops are expected to begin leaving Iraq within the next year, which will put that much more pressure on Russia. Sure, Georgia lost the battle for South Ossetia, but so what? They didn't control South Ossetia prior to the war, and it's not like everyone didn't already know that the Russians could easily crush them if they so chose. In the end, this looks like a win for Georgia and a loss for Russia.

 

[Gokul43201]

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm