Conflict in the Caucasus: A Warning for Ireland

by Hugh Briss Thu Aug 21, 2008 16:51

Georgia's Nato membership on track, says David Miliband (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/20/georgia.nato)

The boy Milliband wants Georgia in the North Atlantic Treaty Org.

The Georgians can't actually physically pick up the whole country and drag it westward, closer to The North Atlantic so instead Saak launches an unprovoked attack on a territory guarded (under a 1992 agreement between the Russians and the Georgians) by Russian peacekeepers.

The Media's responds heroically, twisting and torturing language to make it appear the Russki's are now 'aggressive expansionists'™

Various internet identities pop up to assure us that once the Fog of War™ disappears, Russian duplicity will be plain for all to see.

despite copious evidence implicating US military and Israeli and US mercenaries (and by extension, also the Israeli Military) in this military farce we are assured that if only the Russki's weren't so meddlesome the problem would never have manifested itself

Meanwhile the French seem to be practising a little duplicity of their own.
http://www.counterpunch.org/walberg08202008.html

The duplicity of the West is everywhere in this current crisis.

Even French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s cease-fire proposal signed by both Georgian and Russian presidents was a ruse.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov revealed that the document that Saakashvili approved did not contain an introduction that had been endorsed by Russia, South Ossetia and the other breakaway region, Abkhazia.

Meanwhile, US military planes are flying in “aid” and the US has announced it will henceforth have a permanent presence in Georgia.

by Hugh Briss Thu Aug 21, 2008 14:23

The tactics and methods used in their invasion show otherwise.

please elaborate

by Hugh Briss - Society to out Pro-US Sockpuppets Thu Aug 21, 2008 14:21

an Identity created specially to comment on Georgian affairs (and no others) at Indymedia.ie, keeps claiming that he seeks to blame neither one side nor the other YET he constantly trots out lines such as:

GAAW may find themselves regretting framing the conflict as started by Georgia while the fog of war was still thick on the ground.

i-Bawl seeks to constantly remind us that the Gerogians MAY NOT have started it after all, he even regularly hints that evidence may come out (when all the smoke has cleared) that Georgia did NOT, after all, launch an unprovoked and unexpected attack on a territory guarded (under a 1992 agreement between the Russians and the Georgians) by Russian peacekeepers. He has so far not provided ANY evidence to back this up.

A look at even the past few months would show that Russia was positioning itself for serious escalation, building up forces in Abhkazia and South Ossetia.

A look at the same few months would also show you that the US and Israel and the Georgians were doing the exact same thing. Indeed if one were to look even further back, let's say the last 6 years, one would also notice that the US and Israel have been preparing for this for a long time.

Saakashvili is not so stupid as to see more and more Russian forces entering , and think that there is no risk that they would be used against Georgia.

I already addressed this point elsewhere. My theory is the Saak launched the unprovoked and unexpected attack un the unsuspecting S. Ossetians in the knowledge that he WOULD lose. His aim was to find a rational that would be swallowed by idiots in the west to explain why NATO troops were justified in maintaining a military prescence in Georgia.

i-Bawl dismisses that theory but can provide no rational alternative. The FACT that the Georgians launched an attack that they were BOUND TO LOSE is totally ignored by i-Bawl (an Identity created specially to comment on Georgian affairs (and no others) at Indymedia.ie, )

i-Bawl (an Identity created specially to comment on Georgian affairs (and no others) at Indymedia.ie, ) constantly implores us not to jump to conclusions until the smoke has cleared YET at the same time i-Bawl (an Identity created specially to comment on Georgian affairs (and no others) at Indymedia.ie, ) constantly apportions blame on the Russian side. Which seems a tad similar to what one would do were one prone to jump to concluscions

That is the height of hypocrisy and dishonesty.

But what else would one expect from an Identity created specially to comment on Georgian affairs (and no others) at Indymedia.ie,?

by I-bawl Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:36

Unlike the professional media, we don't intend to sell "tomorrow's chip-wrappers"
Where you have NATO, the Kremlin and all their cloak and dagger spooks involved, things are not as clear cut as first presented, and to my mind, there was no good guy in this fight. Both power blocs were preparing for a showdown, and these things have a way of becoming self-fulfilling prophecies, with plenty of civilians in the front row seats.

Obviously the first thing that should be done is call for a ceasefire, regardless of who fired first.
Secondly, in this case, GAAW's statement seems to portray the Russians as peacekeepers in this. The tactics and methods used in their invasion show otherwise.
I have plenty of respect for GAAW, but they should have been more cautious in how they crafted their press release.

by rutol@mail.ru Thu Aug 21, 2008 10:13

May be good approach is to visit http://ossetians.com/ and read what Ossetians themselves think and write about these situation.
I think it can be interesting.

by tomeile Fri Aug 15, 2008 14:46

The fog of war is likely to be on the ground for a while - GAAW should be commended for opening a debate . Grass roots activists should imo feel free to speculate on and debate the implications the war will have for world peace without having to defer to the professional pundits . The best of the professionals do speculate themselves of course as Seamus Milne did in yesterday’s Guardian :

“That a stronger Russia has now used the South Ossetian imbroglio to put a check on ….[NATO’s] expansion should hardly come as a surprise. What is harder to work out is why Saakashvili launched last week's attack and whether he was given any encouragement by his friends in Washington.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/14/rus...orgia

Today's Asia Times speculates on the implications the war will have for Iran :

"Georgia is one of Iran's "near neighbors" and as a result of geographical proximity and important political and geostrategic considerations, the current Russia-Georgia conflict is closely watched by Tehran, itself under threat of military action by the US and or Israel, which may now feel less constrained about attacking Iran in light of Russia's war with Georgia."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JH16Ak01.html

by i-bawl Fri Aug 15, 2008 01:34

GAAW may find themselves regretting framing the conflict as started by Georgia while the fog of war was still thick on the ground.
A look at even the past few months would show that Russia was positioning itself for serious escalation, building up forces in Abhkazia and South Ossetia.
Saakashvili is not so stupid as to see more and more Russian forces entering , and think that there is no risk that they would be used against Georgia.

The claims of a genocidal Georgian barrage on Tskhinvali are at present unconfirmed claims.
Georgia's version of events is that pro-Russian separatists were using Tskhinvali as a base to shell Georgian villages, and that these separatists were the then targeted by Georgian forces.
Nobody sitting in Ireland, without access to on the ground intelligence can say for sure who true either scenario is. I somehow doubt that GAAW has been watching the Georgian situation very closely during the summer, and suspect that they are reacting to the limited, and highly unreliable information from the mainstream media.

It is quite plausable that the Russians contrived to drag Georgian forces into South Ossetia as a pre-text for a massive Russian military 'response'.

Just because NATO has an awful lot of blood on their hands from previous and current conflicts, that doesn't mean they are always the aggressor. There's more than one powerful warmonger out there, and the rules of engagement when dealing with Russia are very different than when targetting some small fairly defenceless country.
GAAW, and IAWM should have called for a ceasefire, and investigation, and condemnation of the loss of innocent life.