There is enough blame to go around. Most of the world hardly trusts Russia's positon on anything.

Как Вас дела. Как Вас зовут? Откуда Вы?

I'm just an ordinary Chinese. I visit the Cellar to improve my english in a more light-hearted way.:)

online translation page gave me a hand to understand your post. :greenface why did you use russian. You think I'm a russian?
-----------------------------

Joinning anti-missile defence shield may be a dangerous gamble for Poland. I don't see any nessecity in 10-20 years.
It's more and more like a new cold war. :(

Most of the world hardly trusts the U.S. position on anything, either. :haha:

The Russia-Georgia conflict ends Thomas Friedman's theory that no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war. (original thinker)

No doubt. That is the point. If you don't trust the US why the hell would you choose to trust the Russian view? The reality is that you have to use NUMEROUS news sources to shape your opinion about anything these days. And the old adage of military intelligence still stands, "The first report is always suspect."

But aren't you assuming aliasyzy didn't do that, didn't look at the reports from east & west, then form an opinion?

As far as I can tell, Georgia has been trying to suppress the dissident Russians that want to be part of their traditional/historical mother country, by fucking with them pretty hard.

Meanwhile, Russia has tried to protect these people, under the guise of "peacekeepers", for the last 20 years. So when Georgia attacked South Ossetia, the Russians said, shock & awe, as bears are wont to do.

OK, your earlier link got into the possible thinking behind these actions, but just looking at what actually happened, I'd have to agree with aliasyzy, that Georgia screwed up.

We may never know what went on behind closed doors in the run up to this crap, maybe Saakashvili was set up, like Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, but doesn't make it the Russians fault.
We'll probably find out it was New Zealand's fault. :haha:

:lol2:

There were a lot of neocons in the region just this July. Both Condi and Rove had talks with Mr. Saakashvili during this visit. And even McCains foreign policy adviser was there...he is a lobbyist for Georgia.

Well there you have it!

"It's Bush's Fault!"

:rolleyes:

The backfire continues...


Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US
Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system.

Ukraine said it was ready to give both Europe and America access to its missile warning systems after Russia earlier annulled a 1992 cooperation agreement involving two satellite tracking stations. Previously, the stations were part of Russia's early-warning system for missiles coming from Europe.

"The fact that Ukraine is no longer a party to the 1992 agreement allows it to launch active cooperation with European countries to integrate its information," a statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.

It follows a declaration earlier this week from Ukraine's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, that the Russian naval lease of the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sebastopol would be scrapped if any vessels joined the conflict in Georgia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...pe-and-US.html

Some analysis on the situation
 

I have read a lot of different sources on this and here is a basic outline. Everything I have listed is what I believe to be true but I am not 100% certain because of potential media inaccuracies, biases, and lack of ability to get the needed information.

Some underlying facts:

• South Ossetia has tried to break away from Georgia since the early 90's
• Russian and South Ossetia's ties are very strong
• Georgia wants to join NATO
• Russia does not want Georgia to join NATO
• NATO and Russia are involved in power struggle
• No real economic importance in South Ossetia
• There is a pipeline that goes through Georgia
• NATO wants pro-NATO countries in control of the pipeline
• Russia would benefit from taking control of the pipeline
• The US needs Russia support for other issues

The real four possibilities I see for the start of this are:

• Russia
• South Ossetia separatists
• Georgia
• NATO (US)

Keeping all four possibilities open, this longtime ethnic conflict seemed to explode when Georgian troops started attacking SO separatists and Russian "peacekeepers". Then in response, Russia invaded SO, pushing the Georgian army out, and then kept going into Georgia. I am pretty sure that Russians have stopped their advance but I am not sure.

In Poland, the US made an agreement with Poland to place an anti-missile defense during the conflict.


Parts I do not know that would be helpful:

• length of time it took Russia to react
• NATOs knowledge of Georgia's invasion
• Whether Georgia withdrew troops from Iraq before invasion
• Whether US knew/helped with Georgia's troop withdrawals from Iraq

Looking though all this I cannot find any clear cut evidence of what actually happened. I do not believe this is US or NATO backed invasion. NATO and the US have nothing to gain from SO and need Russia with some other issues. They have control of the pipeline and knowing the risk that Russia would retaliate and threaten this pipeline would force NATO countries to react, something they do not want to do seeing how they did not support Georgia when Russia invaded. There are potential conspiracy theories that NATO encouraged Georgia to test out Russian reactions for other future events but I don't see anything to really back up this claim.

I see a perfect possibility that this is just Georgia wanting to control SO and bit more than they could chew. They either did not know that Russia would retaliate or expected NATO backup. The only "success" the Georgian's had were to look weak and as the victim in the western media.

Another possibility is that this the work of SO separatists without Russian involvement that exploded out of control. They may have known that even though the Russians didn't instigate the attacks, they would have the SO's back if Georgia attacked. The timing with the Olympics is fishy, Georgia, Russia, or NATO would use that more strategically then SO, but could be a coincidence or very good planning by the SO separatists.

The last possibility would be Russian caused. I have real doubts that Russia was only SO's knight in shining armor because they went farther into Georgia then needed but that could just be Russia making a show out of Georgia to prevent any other attacks on pro-Russian ground. I am 50/50 on whether Russia could have instigated the conflict because Russia's retaliation seemed to be more symbolic then actually political. Russia does not have much to gain from this besides protecting its "territory". There is the pipeline but Russia knows full well that taking control of the pipeline would start a massive shit storm.



I don't know if this small conflict will start to anything bigger, a second cold war, or is just another small power struggle and ethnic conflict but the Polish agreement is very interesting. This very strongly hints that these missile defense systems are geared towards Russia and not Iran and that Poland sees Russia as a threat.



Hopefully this will not escalate out of control and people will remember the real victims are the numerous SO and Georgian citizens that have died in the fighting.


Edit- Merc's last article goes very well with Poland's.

length of time it took Russia to react - days.

NATOs knowledge of Georgia's invasion - no country masses troops on a border, esp a country like Russia, without the US or Nato watching from the sky. I believe they knew the moment troops started to move toward the border.

Whether Georgia withdrew troops from Iraq before invasion - No. The US fly the 2000 or so troops back from Iraq.

Whether US knew/helped with Georgia's troop withdrawals from Iraq - See above.

NATO wants pro-NATO countries in control of the pipeline - Not to sure about this. Georgia wants to control it. Not so much Nato as the EU. Russia has cut off the main source of power to EU countries and pre-ComBlock nations, or threatened to do so, in an effort to get them to do what they wanted them to do. Any country who controls the natural resources of power controls everything. Russia has learned the lesson of OPEC style power and control.

Nice work laying it out PH45/Regjoe/Merc and all. Many layers on this one. A lot of us are old enough to think of Russia as the default bad guy. That is dangerous.

Yea, me too. But I have had this nagging feeling since Putin came into the picture, as an ex-KBG Chief, that something more nefarious was brewing. Much of the evidence over the last years have confirmed that notion. I think we are entering a new Cold War phase whether we want one or not. I think if Putin would have stepped down at the end of his term my thoughts would be different, instead they were reinforced.

It could be a new front in the energy war.

I really believe that as well. As countries become more populated and their needs grow over the next 50 years those countries who own the sources of power will control everything. The US, the EU, and many others will be second class consumers, a role we are becoming accustomed to more each year.

Bush is an idiot and ...anyway, not the source. By neocons, I mean the group that surrounds him and basically pull his strings. It does seem that a lot of the people involved in our foreign policy were in the area in July. The White House is currently trying to downplay the meetings, but its hard to ignore the coincidence.

It is also easy to believe conspiracy theories when they fit your preconceived notions about what you want to believe.

Hmmm.....it seems that in order for Georgia to join NATO, it can not have border and territory disputes. So, subduing SO and the other separatist territories are a must for them.

What conspiracy theory are you thinking I believe in? Maybe its the same as yours. Because I believe, like you, that this could be part of the 'new' energy wars to come. But, I also believe that our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were too.

yeah, cuz buildings falling down had nothing to do with afghanistan.

The world is sufficiently complicated to contain both those ideas.

That I do not believe and challenge you to prove your assertions.

Hell if we just wanted oil we would have invaded any numerous other countries with half the armies and a shorter distance at half the cost. Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, yea, there is a long list. We only get about 15% of our oil from the Middle East.

Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Huh.


My assertions are based on the research I did at the time. I discovered that there were several oil companies that needed a much calmer Afghanistan so that they could build a couple of planned pipelines. The Taliban were getting greedy and wanted a bigger cut of the action. I also discovered that Saddam was planning some sweet oil package deals with China and Russia to be set in motion once he was free of the sanctions. AND he was talking about dealing with euros instead of dollars. I cant say any of that is proof, but it sure did keep me from believing the propaganda we were given.

See, there was this organization called Taliban and a guy named Osama B... oh nevermind, just straighten your tin foil hat, it'll be easier.

I see you really really like the Kool Aid.

:eyebrow:

The taste is cool, but I love when the big guy crashes through the wall. You know something else I like? Reality. Try it some time.

You have been drinking something if you believe that crap. Let me adjust your tin foil hat for ya... Tell me you were born in 1990 or something like that so I can have some compassion for you....

Oh well.

I posted the debunking of that one right here in February 2003. The source article is still available.

You used something you assumed to be true, to determine other things were false. Don't do that.

I'm pretty sure I understand how and why we got started in Afghanistan, but can't figure out why they did such a piss poor job of it, then moved to Iraq before finishing the job. :rolleyes:

I won't argue with that point Bruce, just the idiocy of the people that still feel 9/11 was part of a big oil conspiracy.

The other way to say this is that, "Holy shit 15% of the worlds oil supply is endangered when the Middle East is destabilized!" We are not there to take the oil. We are there to ensure supplies for the world economy. That has nothing to do with tin hats. See y'all after vacation.

But I will use that information to question what I am being told. Although I understood the desire for decisive action after the attacks on 9/11, I was still wary of our decision to attack another country so quickly, especially since it was claimed that the attacks were perpetrated by an individual group. So I started to look around for more information and I found many interesting bits that led me to see interesting 'connections'. I admit I am no scholar, and especially when it comes to geopolitical issues, but it is hard for me to discount information that jives with my belief that most of the military action undertaken by the US has economic/resource implications. I will also admit that I did use this information as fodder in the blame game against Bush. However, since, I have come to realize the issue is much more complicated than that.

Speaking of complicated, I just found this article.

Now that you know it's false? That's ridiculous. Don't do that.

Current events is really hard - there is so much so know, so much to figure out. But your way is the way of the 911 truthers: aim at something you think to be true, collect every piece of information that confirms your conclusion and throw away ever piece of information that doesn't. Everybody is doing that to some degree, but I swear to you it leads nowhere.

To assume everything you're being "told" is false is madness too. You can't even tell what you're being "told", versus simple facts, typical spin, everyone's aim at "truth", etc. What you must do, if you don't have enough information, is just admit to yourself you don't know and wait for more details.

This is a natgas pipeline for India and has absolutely nothing to do with the larger issue. Pipelines are a more economical method of transporting things and will appear routinely.

So you dont believe that our invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with protecting US interests in central Asia?

The invasion of Afghanistan happened for multiple reasons. To say it was for a single reason really oversimplifies the situation and US foreign policy in general.

The world is much more complicated then any of us can imagine.

Agreed ph but there is one big reason on that one.

Before 9/11 there were many countries around the world, such as the Saudis, that supported terror, both overtly and covertly. The primary support was financial.

Previous to 9/11 our response to terror events was to either run away (Starting with Reagan, Lebanon 1983) or basically do very little, because it was difficult, and pissed too many people off were we actually to try to address it.

This informed those countries that they were free to fund as they liked, and there would be no negative result for them.

After 9/11, then, it became important to demonstrate to those countries that the US was not a paper tiger and would actually do nothing less than invade to address support of terror. Now, many years after the event, we know that the overt support has pretty much stopped; and while we don't know about the covert, we have not been attacked again, which might suggest it was successful.

George Jr administration did everything possible to get 11 September blamed on Saddam. But facts were irrefutable no matter how hard Cheney, Rove, etc spun it. Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 11 September. Virtually no responsible American civil servant was going to say otherwise.

US ultimatum was bluntly clear to Mullah Omar and his Taliban supporters. They refused to surrender al Qaeda leaders. So the US put massive support behind the Taliban's enemies. Cheney, et al had no choice - all the while planning for a Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq.

US invasion? Hardly. US forces were not even permitted to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora. The 'invasion' of Afghanistan was support for one war party over another. Some of those American allies were even 'bought off' by the Taliban - which is how bin Laden so easily walked out of Tora Bora.

Worse, the US never bothered to complete what is always required to win any war - ie Phase Four planning. If the US had plans on Afghanistan, then Phase Four plans would have - must have - been implemented. No such plans existed or were quashed by a naive administration that had no plans for Afghanistan. Who were also completely devoid of basic military concepts and strategy. Therefore even the Kabul - Kandahar highway was back in Taliban hands within a few years.

Where are all those corporate plans that justified an Afghan invasion? Back where they always existed - in conspiracy fiction stories. The administration's political agenda always was to take back *our* oil - as defined by principles that united those extremists: "Project for a New American Century". Afghanistan and bin Laden were problems that the George Jr administration repeatedly denied, intentionally delegated to subordinates of subordinates, and routinely ignored. Remember the expression, "Every light is flashing red?" Even multiple FBI investigations that threatened to uncover the 11 September plot were hindered or subverted by an administration that was in complete denial about bin Laden and his Afghan hosts.

US had no intentions on Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan was considered a greater threat to Iran. Just another reason to let Afghanistan be. Just another reason the administration wanted to blame 11 September on bin Laden's enemy - Saddam.

I didn't read your novel - yet. but welcome bag there big guy. How was your hiatus?

So now Russia is freezing its military cooperation with NATO and its allied countries. Geez, whats next. Love stong arming, I swear.:mad2:

What will happen with the current state of US-Russia cooperation in space?

We don't have enough shuttles to man the ISS until the Constellation program comes online. We *need* the Russian cooperation with Soyuz. Will that crash and burn too?

No worries. We'll just run our shuttles on an unsafe schedule until they go kablooey!

Thanks, I feel tons better now.

The ISS is designed so that the Russian section can disconnect and continue operating on its own. Other sections are designed to be dependent on the Russian section.

I think it needs pointing out that to do anything economic in Afghanistan needs a much calmer Afghanistan, just as it would be anywhere. Poverty surrounds and follows warfare, particularly on the battlegrounds. Prosperity follows peace. The more ambitious the economic project, the more calmness is necessary.

The Taliban getting greedy -- well, the Taliban proved to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever anyway, so it's hardly extraordinary that they stirred in an extra measure of rapaciousness to add to their lame, and official, attempts at blackmailing larger economies. To have done the opposite would have been the extraordinary thing.

I'm on record as being less than impressed about any allegations of propaganda this and propaganda that. I see the entire campaign as one integrated whole -- unstable unfriendlies are not who we want in charge of oil country, preferring that local friendlies who will be most stable (to say nothing of most prosperous) under democracy be the ones running the show. Democracy and economic connectivity are the things in shortest supply in oil country nowadays. Absent the petroleum industries, the entire gross annual output of all of Araby would be about that of... Holland.

Seriously, friendlies on the oil is all the neocons ever really wanted, and the Administration's strategy shows this clearly to anyone not struck purblind by anti-Republican prejudices (which I do not share because evidence is so lacking, and which usually signify to me a mind easily led around by anticapitalist, antiglobalist morons and sharpsters). I am resistant to anti-Republican spin -- our troubles in foreign policy come from non-democracies, and the fewer of those are around, the fewer our troubles shall be. The Democrats have managed no reduction of non-democracies at all; it's all been a Republican effort, which tells me the Republicans have the wisdom of it. I think they should be appreciated for that.

The beginning of the end for Saddam Hussein was to try conquest to cover international debts, rung up because dictators typically run their financial talent, among other kinds, out of their territory. Unless the dictator himself is a major financial talent -- seldom true -- the result is increasing debt followed by material ruin. Viz., Iraq. So Saddam launched two wars, Iran-Iraq and Gulf War I, to control more of the world's oil reserves, clearly in pursuit of oil revenues. He lost both, and with the second one his life also.

Bush unloads a can of whoop ass on Russia

Is Georgia a sovereign state? Methinks so.

We invade sovereign states all the time! How can Condi go in there and say invading a sovereign state is unacceptable when we do it all the time!

I know and understand the world and it's politics are are NOT my strong suit, (I like reading books about poetry) but, I'm asking: how is what Russia is doing any different than what we are doing?
How come NOBODY cares about Darfur??????

You could make an argument that Russia has done less then what we have on some wars. Georgia invaded South Ossetia so they could reach the requirements necessary for admission in NATO and Russia retaliated because the people in South Ossetian, many Russian themselves, feel a much stronger alliance to Russia then Georgia. Russia obviously is in fault too. They justified their attack by saying Georgians were committing genocide on the South Ossetians, which apparently isn't true.

Its just one of the many double standards used by the US and any organization in power.

Russia is doing exactly what they warned of four and six years ago. In fact, I believe the Putin speech that bluntly warned about this was in Munich about 54 weeks ago. Russia has continuously said that American anti-world (we must take *OUR* oil) policies would restart the cold war. Things that Russia considered essential to their security (ie SALT, anti-ballistic missile treaty, nuclear non-proliferation treaty) have been unilaterally terminated or subverted by the US.

Of course, you have heard other rumors and suggestions. For example, Russia may base nuclear bombers in Cuba. It would be a necessary Russian response if George Jr continues with his 'Russia is an enemy' containment policies.

Why did George Jr want to annex Georgia into NATO? Why was he talking same about Ukraine? Bottom line conclusion is unavoidable. Another puzzle part to surround and isolate Russia. You may not have noticed. But the Russians see that quite clearly. Ukraine, the K'stans, Baltic States, anti-missile bases on their border, etc. These are not actions of an America that trusts Russia. These are historic chess moves that preceded invasion. Appreciate why Putin has repeatedly warned about American actions since George Jr and his military empire building extremists have come to power.

Before 11 September, what was the George Jr administration attitude? They still believed that Russia was an enemy. They were rearranging the White House organizational chart to return to a cold war strategy. Why were Richard Clark and the Alex Station moved out or disbanded? Those did not coincide with their extremist attitude of containing the evil Bear. We are getting the cold war we want. Notice how many completely misunderstood Russian objectives in Georgia. Russian security has been threatened by George Jr administration attitudes and actions. Unilaterally discarding international treaties has consequences four and ten years later. How many, using lessons of history, understood those consequences when those treaties were discarded by George Jr? Georgia is an example of what results.

Feh. Ever the apologist for the totalitarians, NEVER the partisan of democracy. Tw, you repeat your self disgrace, never know any better, and essentially exhibit no sympathy for any society blessed with enlightenment. (No tyranny is, you bodacious, maximal political idiot. Comes of your not comprehending humanity.)

I think there is a huge difference. But of course you have to buy that we did not invade for oil or some other conspiracy theory.

Who said no one cares? We learned a lesson in Somalia on that one. Darfur is Africa's problem.

What is your working definition of "conspiracy theory"?

Make up stories.

http://www.therazor.org/?p=855

In this thread it is playing out as "anything challenging my world view." Do you really believe that oil had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq? I can understand if you believe it is less important than other factors but nothing is just nuts.

I believe it may have been a very small tiny factor in that terror states like Iran have the ability to disrupt the flow of oil out of the region. But that is about it. Now if you would like to show me how much more low cost oil we have gotten from the region since the war, I would be glad to believe that it was a larger factor. Since oil is at an all time high along with gas prices I am betting that theory doesn't hold water or oil.

Ah, this is where we are not communicating. The price for oil is set by the market. We're only trying to maintain a stable supply not set prices. At the beginning of this conflict, I knew folks who really thought cheap oil was going to pay for the war, but they were just war supporters looking for benefits. I don't remember any of the anti-war crowd claiming a beneficial drop in oil prices. I believe prices are high because demand is high and oil resources are limited. Protecting, which I claim is a subsidy, the diminishing supply of easy oil is more politically acceptable to GOP politicians than subsidies for alternative energy. This is probably because Republican politicians have been able to claim other, nobler, reasons for high concentations of American troops in unstable parts of the world.

I still don't buy that was a reason to go into Iraq.