Caucasus Crisis

Roop · Post by **Roop** » 01 Sep 2008 01:05

Y. Kanan: Good post. I may have some minor quibbles with it, but nothing important enough to post here.

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 01 Sep 2008 07:41

prabir wrote:There are still some good men in the US who can act as a "check".
And you need economy to be strong to impose unilateral agenda.
The damage done in the past 8 yrs and huge deficit will take atleast another 5 yrs to correct if Obama comes to power.

During the cold war, US was known as a place of "freedom". That soft power and appeal has eroded over the period of time.

Good men in America? Yes, but they don't govern. When it comes to Russia, all Americans are paranoid. Forgot to add, that, that's how the US propoganda machine (all Media) is built to work.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 01 Sep 2008 08:55

On the friendly fire incident, there were similar incidents during OIF. Didnt a British aircrew take out a SAM battery and also an incident where a friendly was shot down?

I wonder what the sortie rate was. OIF boasted of an incredibly high number of sorties flown. Any reports on how the RuAF has done in general?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 01 Sep 2008 09:14

YK,

I'll address the specific points that I believe you have raised in reaction to my previous posts

+ Defence spending & defence posture;

You have rejected the contention that Russia is interested in maintaining as much of its Soviet military legacy as possible.

Again, have you actually looked at the number of nuclear weapons in the Russian arsenal? What is a country with by the figures that you have quoted, i.e. 14% of US military spending doing with the same number of nukes? France's nuclear arsenal has literally a 20th of what the Russians have.

Using 2007 SIPRI figures for PPP defence spending, and World Bank PPP GDP figures, US defence spending works out at 3.96%, while Russian defence spending is only slightly behind at 3.77%. France on the other hand comes in at 2.3%

This is particularly interesting when you also look at the number of armed forces personnel. Russia has 1.24m regular troops, plus 2m reservists (total 3.24m), out of a population of 142m. The Americans have about 1.4 regular, plus another 1.4 in reserves (total 2.8m), out of a population of 305m - more than twice as large. Not only do the Russians have more troops in real terms, but over double the proportion of their population in military service. Once again, by comparison, France has some 259,000 under arms out of a population of 64m.

In short Russia is bent on remaining a military superpower in terms of nukes and the size of their conventional forces.

Although spending is far below the insane levels of Soviet era, the Russian defence budget has been growing faster than even the Chinese military budget, over 20% a year for the last 4-5 years.

+ Russia's attitude towards 'empire'.

The PRC feels that it is entitled to the area that is equivalent to the territorial extent of the maximum extent of the Chinese empire's influence and control. That's the basis for their claims to Tibet, Taiwan, Xinjiang, etc.

Russia's definition of its area of *exclusive* entitlement is similarly defined by the maximum extent of the old Russian empire, more or less the same as the Soviet Union.

Hungary was invaded by the USSR when it attempted to leave the Warsaw Pact in 1959. Czechoslovakia received similar treatment in 1968 when it appeared to be moving in the same direction.

NATO is a military alliance, but one made of countries free to leave at any time. You have characterised it as a vehicle that only exists to extend US power.

What people ought to carefully consider is what NATO's European members seek from membership. Why do they think they need NATO to secure them?

Why wouldnt other countries in Europe, formerly compelled to be part of the USSR or Warsaw Pact *want* to enjoy the same benefits?

Unless Russia changes its attitude towards its periphery they WILL seek a better deal elsewhere.

+ The comments on Russia's political system are relevant only to the extent the wider point of the heavy continuity with the former Soviet Union, a system that ultimately failed because of its chronic economic and strategic miscalculations.

In the long run an undemocratic Russia is no more likely succeed against the EU and US, than Georgia was likely to succeed against Russia.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 01 Sep 2008 10:18

A biased view of Russia (because this Russian company specialises in getting people to emigrate out) but some of the statistics, if true, are interesting.

http://iputin.net/article/73b8002ff9881 ... 0ba0b1d29b

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 01 Sep 2008 11:09

Browns' Op-Ed in the Observer

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... ia.georgia

Europe is thinking long term and acting - and planning ahead, reducing dependency on Russians. In the meantime they are not going to rollover and play dead. This is the way to go.

If the day we all drive electric cars and get solar electricity, comes a bit early than we thought it would, we would have Putin, Ayatollah Khameni/Komeni and Chavez to thank for!

Y. Kanan · Post by **Y. Kanan** » 01 Sep 2008 11:31

Johann - I won't argue your point about the former SU being paranoid and fearful of Russia; nor would I blame them. History is a powerful influence, especially when it's a history of being conquered and subjugated. No one's arguing the Soviet Union was basically an evil empire to quote national hero and saint Ronald Reagan (PBUH).

But the problem with history is rather than learning from it, you can become trapped in it, unable to see that times and people have changed.

One thing that strikes me about your #'s is that Russia is throwing away a smaller portion of its national wealth than the United States. That's really striking to me, given that the US has 7x more GDP to play with. I would have expected the Russians to be spending a much larger portion of their GDP compared to the Americans, given the Russians' much smaller economy.

The allegedly expansionist, aggressive Russians aren't taking their military very seriously, are they? They seem to be giving priority to internal development. Indeed it's the US that comes off looking militaristic and aggressive here - despite their huge economy they insist on spending twice the % of GDP compared to any other advanced country (France, Germany, Britain, Japan, etc). America appears to be a militarized, brutal empire bent on expansion and conquest (see how rediculous this logic sounds when applied to your own side).

As for the large boost in Russian spending, keep in mind that budget increases of 20% aren't that impressive considering the dire straits they started from. The Russian military is just trying to catch up after being starved of funds for 15+ years. And even then, despite this "dramatic" buildup, the Russians still aren't pissing away as large a proportion of their national wealth as the United States routinely does each year.

Also your point about Russia trying so hard to preserve its nuclear forces at the expense of conventional military - again this shows a defensive posture. Nukes are a weapon of last resort, the best insurance against invasion. They're a defensive weapon. It you want to see what an offensive force structure looks like, study the US armed forces.

Overall, the #'s and facts just don't support this characterization of Russia as expansionist. Again, I feel compelled to point out this isn't the 1930's.

Suppiah - interesting stats indeed, in the sense that I was expecting them to be a lot more scary. I'm disappointed - it appears Russia's murder rate is about the same as the US, they suffer from an aging population but not as badly as Japan or W. Europe, and they are allegedly doomed to Islamic demographic takeover but will succumb about 25 years after India is predicted to be overtaken. It would also appear the Russians have a smaller portion of their population in jail than the US, and that everyone has access to free healthcare (shoddy though it may be). Yes, there's plenty of negatives and worrisome trends but nothing very dramatic here - similiar status abound which paint the same sort of dire picture for Europe, the US, India, Japan, China, etc.

Sorry to all if we're getting too far off topic here.

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 01 Sep 2008 13:04

Again, have you actually looked at the number of nuclear weapons in the Russian arsenal? What is a country with by the figures that you have quoted, i.e. 14% of US military spending doing with the same number of nukes? France's nuclear arsenal has literally a 20th of what the Russians have.

France have no enemies in their region in the current world, all of its neighbours are part of EU, but they still maintain that big a number. Russia has the biggest enemy that could happen to anyone on on earth, the USA. Any number would be less to counter US.

Using 2007 SIPRI figures for PPP defence spending, and World Bank PPP GDP figures, US defence spending works out at 3.96%, while Russian defence spending is only slightly behind at 3.77%. France on the other hand comes in at 2.3%

This is particularly interesting when you also look at the number of armed forces personnel. Russia has 1.24m regular troops, plus 2m reservists (total 3.24m), out of a population of 142m. The Americans have about 1.4 regular, plus another 1.4 in reserves (total 2.8m), out of a population of 305m - more than twice as large. Not only do the Russians have more troops in real terms, but over double the proportion of their population in military service. Once again, by comparison, France has some 259,000 under arms out of a population of 64m.

For the sheer size (nearly twice the size of USA?) of the Russian federation, a military of the size they have is nothing, considering that they have EU, radical Islamic nattions and China as their immediate neighbours and the US a distant enemy. US has no major conflicts with their only 2 neighbours, why do they need such big forces? I would say Russia is spending too far too little to protect their interests.

In short Russia is bent on remaining a military superpower in terms of nukes and the size of their conventional forces.

Although spending is far below the insane levels of Soviet era, the Russian defence budget has been growing faster than even the Chinese military budget, over 20% a year for the last 4-5 years.

The size of Russia, and their neighbours, requires them to be a military superpower in terms of nooks and other forces.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 01 Sep 2008 16:33

Those who say that Russia has maintained the same sort of defence structure after the SU's collapse are totally wrong.In fact,Russia has scrapped so many nuclear subs,particularly SSBMs in order to reduce its nuclear arsenal and reduce tensions between east and west..In addition,the number of new strategic bombers and major warships has dramatically shrunk.It scrapped the Varyag and all the Kiev class cruiser/carriers,the Gorshkov being modified for us.Even the Kirov class battlecruiser has been scrapped! In the Georgian spat,the Russian armed forces used Cold War weaponry,nothing new,leading Russian analysts to grumble about the lack of new sophisticated weaponry in service with the Russian services.Just compare this with the 50th DARPA anniversary edition of AWST I posted earlier on another thread and US/NATO weaponry being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.The amount of money and effort the US has spent on truly advanced weaponry is amazing.The US's (the only country with such an aircraft) first gen.stealth fighters the F-117,have now been scrapped! There are so many "black" programmes yet to be revealed and even the F-22 is considered so advanced that it is not being allowed to operate in any conflict zone or be based in a foreign/allied country.

After the end of the Cold War,it is indisputable that the US/NATO have deliberately engineered a masterplan to cut Russia down to an even smaller power and encircle it by roping into its military juggernaut the former Warsaw Pact nations.No amount of bullsh*t from any US/western apologists can wash or wipe away the true facts.The Bush neo-con masterplan of dominating the globe through just one "Supreme Power" has by this robust Russian defence of its legitimate interests in the Caucasus,been blasted into smithereens and the splinters shoved up the US's/NATO ass! More strength to Putin's power.The independent nations of the globe need just such a leader to resist and destroy the sinister aim of global dominance by the US.No wonder the intelligence agencies of the west have been working overtime using the services of disgraced criminal Russian oligarchs like Berezovsky ,safely encsconced in their western hideouts,working as exposed in the Litvinenko case,hand in glove with western intel agencies like MI6, to harm Putin's reputation.

There is no ambiguity in the Georgain/Ossetian/Abkhazian issue for India.In similar fashion as we have a "protecting" influence/treaty with Bhutan and earlier drew Sikkim into the Indian Union because of the sinister plot to subvert the state and scuttle diabolic Chinese plans,so has Russia recognised S.Ossetia and Abkhazia.If these states also like Sikkim want to join the Russian federeation later on,so be it.We need not feel that by recognising these two states we are weakening our sovereignity.We have done the same,except we did not have to go to war,except In Kashmir with Pak to defend our territory from the machinations of Pak and its western sponsors of the time,who are still funding it and supplying all manner of military equipoment like F-16s even now! In any case once these two states join the Russian federation,we will automatically be recoginising the fait accompli in the region.

PS:Just se how the US is rasing the tension by sending its Coast Guard warship into the Russian base of Sevastopol,which it has a lease agreement with Ukraine!The next step of planned NATO/US encirclement of Russia is to try and throw out the Russians from the base and make it a NATO base.That will definitely lead to war.There is NO way that Russia will alllow such a blatant US paction.It might very well scarp the understanding with the US and base nuclear missiles in Cuba again,plus establishing a permanent naval base there.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 01 Sep 2008 17:15

The decline of Russian military power was for two reasons - SU kept an extraordinary level of military power simply to match the West (Reagan's doctrine of outspending them to bankruptcy worked), so keeping it going is a massive task in of itself. The second being Russia's financial and other troubles during Yelstin era. There were articles in Time/NW few years back about the way fighter aircraft are lying wasted because of not flying, raw recruits to army working as domestic servants in the dachas of generals, dying of torture and abuse etc. The group 'mothers of soldiers' (if I get the name right) has been very vocal on raising these concerns and getting them addressed.

We cant this reduction in strength attribute to any sudden realisation of God while Yelstin/Putin sat under some Bodhi tree. It just happened due to neglect. It is pointless to pretend that one superpower is 'aggressive' and another is nice like Dalai Lama. Let us leave that to die-hard propaganda agents. They all want to be powerful within their means and sometimes beyond their means.

Putin is trying to set the situation right and I agree it is his right to do so. If figures given by Johann are right, they are spending a lot but not as much as Americans because they simply cannot even if he wants to. He cannot divert all the oil money (which constitutes 80% of their exports along with timber) to this task because of various other deep rooted problems in Russia.

No one can deny Russia, China or for that matter anyone the right to challenge the big dada for the No.1 goonda slot. They all have a right to have a go and use same tricks that US uses to get there. It is just that the current No.1 did not get there being a fool and is not likely to allow someone to take that slot without a fight. Given the irrational level of anger that seems to cloud Putin's judgment (see his interview in CNN where he repeatedly says Russia's enemies want to see them dead) and his equally irrational responses (arming Iran/Syria) and given Russia's vast problems, it just has IMHO less chances of success.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 01 Sep 2008 17:59

US is spending on Defense because of some imaginary enemy.

Their budget figures are huge. But did any one see the "punch" for every dollar spent ? They could not control Iraq, because, they failed in managing the conflict after "military victory". They should take some classes in managing conflict/occupation from their British allies.

Did any one know the unit cost of a soldier's breakfast meal in Iraq ? It is $20.

Who is making these 20 dollars ?

In Hurricane Katrina,

Govt. allots a contract to remove garbage - $20 per cu.ft (do not remember the exact figure. It appeared in one article).
The company that got the contract because of its superior connections, awards it to other contractor at $15 per cu.ft
That contractor awards to be a labor contractor at $10 per cu.ft

So, what I am trying to convey is, we should not get overwhelmed by their budget allocations. They waste money to serve some private interests.

And now, with deficit reaching unsustainable levels, what happened during the cold war will not happen again

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 02 Sep 2008 02:55

There is so much talk about Russia's weakness.

Can the US fight wars with say
-- North Korea
-- Iran
-- Iraq simultaneously ?

Will EU states be willing to fight and shed blood for US foreign policy interests ? I don't think so.... One indicator to this will some kind of soft/ compromising response from EU after their summit.

Now there is no war of ideology. So, in a "free" society, its very difficult to sell "defence of freedom" for Caucasus States. Every one in US is more concerned about negative spill over of Mortgage Crisis. Even EU countries are feeling the pinch. In light of this, "Punish Russia" campaign will sputter out in due course of time.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 02 Sep 2008 03:20

As I said earlier, expect some sort of compromise.... it has happened

"As long as the withdrawal of troops has not been respected, all meetings on the partnership accord are postponed," Jose Manuel Barroso told reporters after an emergency EU summit in Brussels. "It is clear that in the light of recent events, we cannot continue as if nothing has happened," he added. The French president, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the 27-nation bloc, said the EU condemns Russia's actions in Georgia, but does not want to sever partnership relations with Moscow. "We do not want to cut partnership ties with Russia," Nicolas Sarkozy said. "We condemn in no uncertain terms Russia's disproportionate reaction, but we in Europe realize the need to continue dialogue with our Russian neighbors." "Let's not launch a Cold War. There's no need to flex our muscles. Demonstrations of force, verbal aggression, sanctions, counter-sanctions - these will not serve anyone," Sarkozy said. The French president also said European Union member states will provide aid to Georgia, including financial assistance.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 02 Sep 2008 07:10

France have no enemies in their region in the current world,

er... u ignore history. France has surrendered to everyone in its neighborhood except Belgium, and hence needs the Force de Frappe to deter the Belgian imperialists.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 02 Sep 2008 07:16

Farce de wrap?

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 02 Sep 2008 07:29

Farce de Flandres

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 02 Sep 2008 14:03

Russia and Germany Fulfill Prophecy
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5481.3794.0.0

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 02 Sep 2008 14:14

Europe has to side with Russia and break away from the USA!

http://www.radio-utopie.de/2008/09/01/e ... m-the-usa/

Georgia’s recent Military intervention in South Ossetia with US intelligence and Support has forced Russia to act! Unfortunately, today’s US Government around the World is still practising the old Cold War tactics of deceit and Propaganda.

The US are playing a dangerous and hypocritical game in Georgia as well as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and China, not to mention Europe as well!

It is vital today to dismantle NATO and form a new alliance in the spirit of De Gaulle and Brandt. Europe has to leave NATO and form an alliance with Russia, The Middle Easter Countries and North Africa as well as India, China and Japan.

Leaving the US out, at least for now, until they learned and understood that the World has changed and that they have to co-operate rather then play deceiving Imperialistic Games.

Putin him self understood that and so did former Chancellor Schroeder as well as former President Chirac. Merkel and Braun are not up to the task, they are lacking long-term vision and Peace as the main goal as well as economic justice for all Nations!

Sarkozi does for his part understand the importance of integrating North Africa into the EU, as well as to integrate China, India, Korea, Brazil and South Africa into the G8, making it the G12 and eventually the G20. A vital move, for peace and Justice.

We also need to reform the UNO that is constantly being undermined by the 5 Veto Powers of wish the US are doing most of the Vetoing and breaking international rules and agreements! The Veto rights have to be removed and the UNO needs a permanent and independent Military force that would be the only one allowed to intervene in International conflicts! All Armies have to be restricted to self defence only and dismantling their ABC arsenal. This to apply to all even the US and Russia, as well as China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Europe!

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 02 Sep 2008 18:07

YK is spot on about Russia preserving a hard core of strategic deterence.It is defensive and not offensive.Here again it is doing just that with this latest modification of a Typhoon class SSBN to carry the new BUlava missile. The pic is superb.

http://www.barentsobserver.com/have-a-p ... 58932.html
Have a peek at Russia’s new submarine monster

2008-09-01
The submarine “Dmitrii Donskoy” is 172 meter long, has a 49,800 ton deadweight and can carry Russia’s state of the art strategic weaponry, the “Bulava” missile. After more than ten years of upgrades, the vessel was last week successfully tested in the White Sea.
The Russian Navy now also confirms that the “Bulava” missile (SS-NX-30), an adjusted model of the Topol-M missile, will undergo final testing in September-October this year, Rossiiskaya Gazeta reports in its weekly edission.

The “Dmitrii Donskoy” (TK-208) is the only of Russia’s six Typhoon subs, which has been modernized to handle the latest of Russia’s missile, the “Bulava”. As BarentsObserver reported last week, the vessel has been undergoing upgrades at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk for the last ten years.

-Tests have been on a high level and with positive results, the vessel’s captain, Arkadii Romanov, says in a letter to Nikolay Kalistratov, head of the Sevmash yard. -The vessel is now ready for tests of the missile complex, he adds, Sevmash.ru reports.

The vessel – the biggest sub in the world – is unique with sheer size and its double hulls. It has a deadweight of 49,800 tons, a length of 172 meters and a width of 23,3 meters. The “Dmitrii Donskoy” was first put on the water in 1981. It is one of six Russian Typhoon subs, of which only three today remain in service.

The rebuilt vessel can have 20 Bulava missiles on board. That is more than the newest model of the Russian subs. The country’s first fourth generation sub, the “Yuri Dolgorukii” (Project 955 “Borey”), can take only 12 of the missiles.

renukb · Post by **renukb** » 02 Sep 2008 19:50

prabir wrote:As I said earlier, expect some sort of compromise.... it has happened

............................................"We do not want to cut partnership ties with Russia," Nicolas Sarkozy said. "We condemn in no uncertain terms Russia's disproportionate reaction, but we in Europe realize the need to continue dialogue with our Russian neighbors." "Let's not launch a Cold War. There's no need to flex our muscles. Demonstrations of force, verbal aggression, sanctions, counter-sanctions - these will not serve anyone," Sarkozy said. The French president also said European Union member states will provide aid to Georgia, including financial assistance.

Where were these words When US attacked Iraq? Will the EU take similar standing when US starts a war with Iran?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 02 Sep 2008 21:56

One thing that strikes me about your #'s is that Russia is throwing away a smaller portion of its national wealth than the United States. That's really striking to me, given that the US has 7x more GDP to play with. I would have expected the Russians to be spending a much larger portion of their GDP compared to the Americans, given the Russians' much smaller economy.

...As for the large boost in Russian spending, keep in mind that budget increases of 20% aren't that impressive considering the dire straits they started from. The Russian military is just trying to catch up after being starved of funds for 15+ years. And even then, despite this "dramatic" buildup, the Russians still aren't pissing away as large a proportion of their national wealth as the United States routinely does each year.

... It you want to see what an offensive force structure looks like, study the US armed forces

- Russia with its huge natural resources and industrial base manufactures most of its own defence needs. Given the significantly lower cost of manpower and materials, as well as the greater simplicity of Soviet era weapons compared to NATO systems it costs them a fraction of what it costs the Americans to keep the same size of force in the field, or in the air.

Even so, Russia has chosen to maximise the number of divisions it fields, even if they are in poor shape. This is in part because Russian military doctrine, like Soviet military doctrine stresses the offensive, and conducting that offense with maximum numerical superiority.

- Russian PPP defence spending in GDP terms spending is only a tenth of percent behind the US, and that American lead is eroding. This is despite the fact that the scale of the conflicts that the US is involved in Afghanistan and Iraq are far larger than Russia's problems in the Caucasus. Again, that suggests that Russian capital expdeniture is growing far faster than America's. We will have to see where this trend goes.

Also your point about Russia trying so hard to preserve its nuclear forces at the expense of conventional military - again this shows a defensive posture. Nukes are a weapon of last resort, the best insurance against invasion. They're a defensive weapon.

Soviet and American nuclear doctrine at the military level are not about simple deterrence, which requires fairly small arsenals.

They are about nuclear warfighting - which is why they still both still have 5,000 nukes each. Nuclear warfighting means keeping both defensive and offensive options open.

On the American side, there are very few military men still enthusiastic about nuclear weapons. Its really the civilians who want to retain them.

However, the kind of nuclear wars that these American civilians want to be prepared to fight are against extremely hostile regimes like Iran or North Korea, or the like whose rationality they doubt. They are content to use simple deterrence against Russia and China.

However nuclear warfighting against these states requires a far, far smaller arsenal than nuclear warfighting against the Warsaw Pact and PRC, which is why the Americans have been pushing the Russians to accept heavy mutual cuts to strategic arsenals.

In Russia it is the military men who remain wedded to a giant nuke arsenal because it is the *only* offensive weapon in good condition that they still possess. In addition, the US remains their primary theoretical target for nuclear warfighting. So they are far, far less keen than the Americans to cut their arsenal because the target lists they keep in their top drawer just in case havent changed at all.

Y. Kanan wrote:Johann - I won't argue your point about the former SU being paranoid and fearful of Russia; nor would I blame them. History is a powerful influence, especially when it's a history of being conquered and subjugated. No one's arguing the Soviet Union was basically an evil empire to quote national hero and saint Ronald Reagan (PBUH).

But the problem with history is rather than learning from it, you can become trapped in it, unable to see that times and people have changed.

My reaction to the bolded section is Yes, *exactly*!

That is precisely why I've highlighted the degree of continuity in Russia's political system from the USSR (and the USSR from Tsarist Russia) as the source of Russia's problems with its neighbours.

There has been far, far more personnel turnover and political change in places like Poland, Czech republic, the Baltic Republics, etc than there was in Russia. People like Walesa and Havel were political prisoners who spent years in prison for daring to criticise the regime. They were put in prison by people like Putin.

Even though the communist party collapsed, most top members of the state nomenklatura (state, army, KGB) were CPSU members. The nomenklatura to an astonishing degree has remained in place, and in control of Russia. They are no longer all bound together by the same party discipline, but they still have many of the same reflexes, which are largely out of tune with whats happened or happening in its former satellites and territories.

That is why it is not surprising to see Putin publicly declaring the loss of the Soviet Union to be the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century, and very consciously reviving its symbolism, and promising with *great* seriousness to restore Russia's status to what it was.

It is no accident that Russia's closest ties with those states that have seen the least political change from the Soviet era - Belarus and the Central Asian republics.

Indeed it's the US that comes off looking militaristic and aggressive here - despite their huge economy they insist on spending twice the % of GDP compared to any other advanced country (France, Germany, Britain, Japan, etc). America appears to be a militarized, brutal empire bent on expansion and conquest (see how rediculous this logic sounds when applied to your own side).

With the possible exception of Cuba, none of America's neighbours believe that their sovereignty is fundamentally threatened by the Americans.

Mexico and Canada pursue quite independent foreign policies. They are economically integrated with the US only to the degree that they think makes sense.

Now if these countries felt threatened, there's no question that they would seek a military alliance that would protect them from the US.

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 02 Sep 2008 22:01

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 656255.ece
September 2, 2008
A return to 1815 is the way forward for Europe
The Congress of Vienna divided the continent into spheres of influence. Similar rules are needed for the 21st century

Take Russia, China and Iran. Each seethes at the recollection of what it considers historical humiliations visited on it by Western powers. For all three the beginning of the 21st century has opened opportunities for payback - for getting respect as a nation (just look at recent Russian newspapers). You don't have to like or approve of these regimes. But not to understand their histories is not to understand the mainspring of their external policies - in Russia's case its determination to rebuild its greatness, dismantled, as millions of Russians see it, by Mikhail Gorbachev and his Georgian Foreign Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, aided and abetted by the West. I would bet a sackful of roubles that Russian foreign policy would not be one jot different if it were a fully functioning democracy of the kind that we appear keen to spread around the globe.

What is to be done, as Lenin once put it? The first thing is to sweep away any rose-tinted illusions left from the Blair-Bush era. For the democracies of North America and Europe, relations with Russia are always going to be awkward and bumpy, at best co-operative and adversarial in equal measure.

The fall of the Soviet Union did not wipe the slate clean. The Russia that we are dealing with today, with its fear of encirclement, its suspicion of foreigners and natural appetite for autocracy, is as old as the hills, long pre-dating communism. It is a Russia that will never be reassured by the West's protestations of pacific intent as it pushes Nato and the EU ever eastwards.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 Sep 2008 22:45

After fall of Communism the Russians went back to Orthodox Church. They see the hand of the Western Europe in the moves to poach on their territories.

The fall of the Soviet Union did not wipe the slate clean. The Russia that we are dealing with today, with its fear of encirclement, its suspicion of foreigners and natural appetite for autocracy, is as old as the hills, long pre-dating communism. It is a Russia that will never be reassured by the West's protestations of pacific intent as it pushes Nato and the EU ever eastwards.

So its the old problems but with greater force behind them.

Suppiah · Post by **Suppiah** » 03 Sep 2008 07:39

Johann wrote: With the possible exception of Cuba, none of America's neighbours believe that their sovereignty is fundamentally threatened by the Americans.

Mexico and Canada pursue quite independent foreign policies. They are economically integrated with the US only to the degree that they think makes sense.

Now if these countries felt threatened, there's no question that they would seek a military alliance that would protect them from the US.

This is indeed the greatest strength of US. Neither are they bothered by internal separatism, nor by hostile neighbours straining the leash to sign up with external powers. Russia and India are very very different.

The other critical difference is that US hostility is towards regimes/ideologies, not people/nation. Whether such hostility is right or wrong is another matter. That explains why they have boat loads of people from nations they are at war with washing up their shores and finding homes. Vietnam, Cuba, even Iran et al. If today US so hostile towards Cuba, it is mostly explained by the pressure exerted by Cubans in US.

Russia on the contrary, seems to have fundamental issues with nations around her. It is not satisfied with them being just neutral or even friendly. It wants them to be either colonies or obedient servants.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 03 Sep 2008 08:15

With the possible exception of Cuba, none of America's neighbours believe that their sovereignty is fundamentally threatened by the Americans.

Tell that to Mexicans, Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Panamanians....

( I like when Johann spins, he is more difficult than his compatriot Mendis

)

Note the key words for the carrom ball " sovereignty is fundamentally threatened "
****

Read more, then you can play mendis better

http://andresoppenheimer.blogspot.com/2 ... eeded.html

http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/06/usa063003ltr.htm

Paul · Post by **Paul** » 03 Sep 2008 09:35

( I like when Johann spins, he is more difficult than his compatriot Mendis )

Most scary part is the number of people who fall for this type of spin, even on a think tank (supposedly) like BRF.

Why then blame the DCH crowd who fall for the spin of english media.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2008 12:11

Here's the world's worst trouble maker,"Dick the Pri*k" Cheney in action.Described by a British ambassador as having a "toxic" effect upon US policies,Cheney,the true power behind the Bush administration,acts as the "dark lord" and has been directly responsible for the dark influence of Blackwater/Halliburton on the world stage,which are among the worst legacies of the Bush era.Here he sallies forth into the Caucasus,like Reagan's legendary troubleshooter Gen.Vernon Walters,to rescue the shattered fortunes of his pupil Saakashvili,whose irrational,impetuous behaviour scuttled "Dick-the-Pri*k's" masterplan for the region!

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 663137.ece

Dick Cheney in Georgia: Europe has weak hand in game of power

Where there is oil and where there is trouble, you can expect to find Dick Cheney - and the US Vice-President arrives today in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, for a brief tour of the Caucasus, taking in Georgia as well as Ukraine, three states in the front line of the West's struggle for Asian energy supplies.

Mr Cheney is a veteran of this conflict and he is back, trying to rally support for a failing strategy. He has been a key supporter of the Caspian region as an alternative supplier of oil and gas to the West. Sandwiched between troublesome Iran to the south and overbearing Russia to the north, the oil and gas reserves of Azerbaijan, Khazakhstan and Turkmenistan were promoted as an energy safe haven, with independent links to the West via pipelines through the Caucasus. That Caucasian lifeline has been shown to be tenuous, its fragility exposed when President Sakashvilli, of Georgia, blundered into South Ossetia last month, guns blazing, to attack Russian separatists.

Today, it seems almost incredible that this chaotic region of gangsters, warring tribes and uncertain borders was trumpeted as an energy umbilical cord to the West, free of Russian influence. The construction by BP of a 1,700-kilometre (1,000-mile) pipeline (the BTC) linking Baku to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan via Tbilisi was a feat of engineering, but it was even more of a political triumph, a two-fingered gesture to Moscow as two former Soviet states - Azerbaijan and Georgia - combined to build an oil export system that bypassed Russia.

Tortuous negotiations over the pipeline route through Georgia should have alerted investors to the long-term political risks. A more direct path close to the Armenian border was blocked by Georgia, a mysterious objection until it emerged that the route passed close to a Russian military base.

Built in the late 19th century and abandoned only in 2007, the garrison at Akhalkalaki existed to defend the Kremlin's southern flank, initially from the Empire of the Ottomans and subsequently the empire of Nato.

In Moscow, the withdrawal from Akhalkalaki and the port of Batumi was probably regarded as diplomatic, not a strategic retreat. The rebel government in Abkhazia has now requested a permanent Russian military base on the Black Sea.

It is becoming clear that the Georgian export route to the Mediterranean is insecure, subject to Russian oversight and likely to become increasingly unreliable. The BTC was disrupted in August after an explosion that was blamed by the Turks on Kurdish separatists.

However, the real cause for concern is that we in the West have made a colossal strategic blunder over energy. We have closed off our options. In Brussels yesterday, the European Union delivered a petulant protest to Moscow, threatening to postpone trade talks. Brussels is anxious to present a united front over energy, but its strategy is barely credible. Leading European utilities in Germany and Italy long ago accepted the Tsar's writ, offering Russia direct access to their markets in exchange for new supplies of Russian gas.

Mr Cheney's world view is more in tune with that of Vladimir Putin than the European leaders who huffed and puffed but failed to blow the Kremlin's house down. In Brussels, President Sarkozy plaintively urged that the world should not return to spheres of influence, but in energy terms we are already there.

Mr Cheney understands spheres of influence. That was his analysis in the National Energy Policy, an attempt to frame a strategy for the United States in the wake of 9/11. It was presented as a way of making America more energy independent, but in fact it was all about securing energy allies, alternative suppliers to Russia and the Opec cabal. These were to be found in West Africa and the Caspian.

To be fair to Mr Cheney, he at least understands the dilemma, even if he played a key part in its creation. He failed to persuade the leaders of Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to follow the Azeri example and build a gas export pipeline across the Caspian to link up with BP's gas and oil caravan across Georgia to Turkey. The proposed Trans-Caspian pipeline was bitterly opposed by both Moscow and Tehran, correctly seen by Gazprom as commercial interference in its patch and by Tehran as a Western incursion into an Iranian sea. The clannish Kazakh and Turkmen leaders looked north to Russia and south to Iran and decided that discretion and an improved gas price was the better part of valour. Kazakh gas still heads north into Gazprom's network and Turkmen gas heads to Tehran.

Meanwhile, Europe is stymied. Where is the alternative supplier of gas to Europe? In the grip of a policy set in Washington that has run into the sand, we have no energy alternatives. We have excluded Iran, which holds the world's second-largest gas reserves, as an unacceptable partner. Again, thanks to a policy set in Washington, Iraq remains an improbable energy partner.

In Brussels, some draw comfort from the notion that Russia needs Europe's markets. That is true, but when there is no alternative supplier of scale, Europe's ability to set terms is diminished. At the same time, China beckons. Russia is building pipelines to the east, as are the Caspian states. There is competition for resources from a buyer that understands and accepts spheres of influence.

Meanwhile, we in Europe have put all our cards on the table. Our hand looks weak and our partner is showing less interest in the game.

PS:Cheney's last throw of the dice may still be an attack against Iran,which he dearly planned for,only to be stopped by opponents in the US military/State Dept., already overburdened with the ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 03 Sep 2008 16:32

Saakashvili's "pension fund" approved!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/03/usa.georgia

Bush administration set to announce $1bn in aid for GeorgiaProposal calls for spending about half the total in the administration's remaining five months in office

Associated Press guardian.co.uk, Wednesday September 03 2008 04:55 BST

The Bush administration plans to roll out a $1bn economic aid package for Georgia today to help the pro-western former Soviet republic rebuild after Russia's invasion last month, The Associated Press has learned.

The multiyear proposal calls for spending about half the total in the administration's remaining five months in office and recommending that the next president and his team continue financing the project when they take over in January, a senior official said.

Both the Democratic and Republican contenders for November's presidential elections, Barack Obama and John McCain, have expressed support for Georgia's embattled government in the face of the Russian invasion after Georgia moved to reclaim a breakaway province.

The package, some of which will require congressional approval, will be a substantial US investment in Georgia but is only half the $2bn a year in aid that Washington provides its closest Middle East ally, Israel.

The White House and US state department intend to jointly announce the aid package this afternoon after a fact-finding and assessment mission to Georgia by Reuben Jeffrey, a senior US diplomat who returned from the country last week, the official told the AP.

Jeffrey has recommended that aid be sped to Georgia to help rebuild its economy and infrastructure that was destroyed by Russian tanks, troops and airstrikes, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity ahead of the announcement.

Specific details of the aid were still being worked out, but large chunks will go toward fixing transportation, utility and other essential facilities damaged in the fighting, the official said.

The aid is aimed at showing concrete US support for Georgian president Mikhail Saakhashvili and his government and is to be announced shortly before US vice-president Dick Cheney visits Georgia this week.

It follows increasingly harsh criticism from Bush, Cheney, US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and other top administration officials of Russia's actions against Georgia and its refusal thus far to comply with the terms of a ceasefire brokered by the French and the European Union.

However, the aid will not be accompanied by threatened punitive measures against Russia that still are being considered and which the administration would like to take in concert with European nations, the official said.

European Union leaders threatened on Monday to delay talks with Moscow on a political and economic agreement unless Russia pulls its troops back from positions in Georgia that they occupied in early August in a dispute over the separatist areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

On August 7, Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, hoping to retake the province, which broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s. Russian forces repelled the offensive and pushed into Georgia.

Both sides signed the ceasefire in mid-August, but Russia has ignored its requirement for all forces to return to pre-war positions.

Moscow insists the ceasefire accord allows Russian checkpoints in security zones of up to four miles (6.44 kilometres) into Georgian territory.

Russia has now recognised the independence of the two regions, drawing condemnation but little else from the US and Europe, which have found only limited leverage with Moscow.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 03 Sep 2008 16:40

How much of the $1B goes to D1ck Cheney Reconstructions Inc, the holding company of Halliburton, I wonder... and don't they need Blackwater Security for Tbilisi Yahya?

The beauty of the Dubyan Economy Plan is that whether a nation gets "cleared" by American bombs or Taliban IED-Mubarak or Russian Su-25s, DCR still make out like bandits at the expense of the American Taxpayer. No, I know what u're thinking: "Oil revenues!" Those go through another pipeline to a separate company.

Wonder if they don't need a good, experienced in-country Commanding Commando to "administer" this $1B? I know one who is looking for a new position (and a new country where the Taliban is not yet established...). Currently resting in 'Pindi.

Skanda · Post by **Skanda** » 03 Sep 2008 20:35

HRW's flawed 'Research' on Georgian cluster bombs

On August 15, Human Rights Watch issued a statement-- still published on their website without comment-- saying its researchers "have uncovered evidence that Russian aircraft dropped cluster bombs in populated areas in Georgia." On that same page is a photo of Georgian men standing around a crater pointing to what is described in the caption as "the remnants of an RBK-250 cluster bomb dropped by Russian aircraft on the village of Rusisi..."

This story about "Russia's use of cluster bombs in Georgia" got huge play in the western MSM, many of whose leading contributors have come to treat HRW with almost oracular reverence.

On August 21, HRW issued another statement on the same subject, adding that despite Russia's denials that it had used these weapons, its researchers had "documented additional Russian cluster munitions attacks during the conflict in Georgia."

It turns out, though that the "research" in question was considerably less than expert or thorough, and that HRW's much-lauded lead "researcher" on this topic, Marc Garlasco, may have fallen victim-- or worse-- to a Georgian disinformation campaign.

Bernhard of Moon of Alabama is just one of those who've been pointing out that the bomb remnants in the photos published by HRW in those two releases are very different from those of a Russian "RBK-250 cluster bomb", or its submunitions. Indeed, they're not items of Russian manufacture at all... but Israeli, as can easily by seen by comparing them with stock weapons-ID photos and charts.

However, at some point in late August, the Georgian government had confessed to HRW that it had used cluster bombs during the recent conflict-- and that these had indeed been of Israeli manufacture. That news was posted on the HRW website yesterday, here

The latest HRW news release does nothing to retract or raise questions about its earlier "reports" about Russian use of cluster bombs in Georgia. Instead it says this:

In August, Human Rights Watch documented Russia's use of several types of cluster munitions, both air- and ground-launched, in a number of locations in Georgia's Gori district, causing 11 civilian deaths and wounding dozens more. Russia continues to deny using cluster munitions.

"Russia has yet to own up to using cluster munitions and the resulting civilian casualties," said Garlasco.

So Garlasco is still in good favor at HRW's New York headquarters, in spite of the clearly flawed nature of his earlier "documentation"?? And the two August reports about Russian use of cluster bombs remain in their original positions on the HRW website, with no clarificatory comment attached?

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 03 Sep 2008 22:54

Dear Spinster,

Mexican nationalism is a powerful force, but it mostly exerts its efforts in making sure that illegal Mexican immigrants in the US get a free ride. They havent worried about Gringos riding in to take over either militarily or otherwise since the Mexican Revolution.

Nicaragua has just elected Daniel Ortega, the former Marxist revolutionary who led the Sandanistas in the 1970s and 80s. So far there's been no drama - no denunciations of America as a threat to Nicaragua, etc.

In Panama, the US as scheduled withdrew troops and handed over the Panama Canal (which it paid to build), which used to be US territory. The Panamanians handed over its operation to a Chinese company, to the Americans annoyance but little else.

Hugo Chavez (BTW unlike the others in your list, Venezuela like all South American -as opposed to Central American- countries has never seen invading US troops) can rant and rave all he wants, but there are no US carrier battle groups hanging around off the coast of Venezuela. There are no crippling Cuban style economic sanctions of the sort Russia regularly hits its difficult neighbours with. Chavez's only real fear is that he will be ignored, and then he will not be able to live his lifelong dream of becoming the next Simon Bolivar fighting the Yanqui invader.

Even when it comes to Cuba, the lobby which has played the biggest role in maintaining the tough US line are the Cuban-Americans, without whom it is impossible to win an election in Florida.

The Americans have plenty of differences with the countries on its periphery in the western hemisphere, but very few that actually *fear* for themselves. If more countries in Russia's periphery could say the same that would be good for all concerned.

N,

Yes it is amazing isnt it at how in the end its Haliburton, Lockheed and Boeing that always come out on top.

One lesson the Russians did learn from the Soviets - never EVER give anything away for free again. Theyre still pissed at the trillions they gave away in free weapons and goods to dubious allies while there were breadlines in Moscow, and half a dozen families sharing single unheated apartments.

The Americans might want to remind themselves of those Russian lessons.

Interestingly enough, one of Putin's nostalgia drives is to recreate the VPK, the military-industrial commission. The VPK actually became more powerful than the General Staff by the 1960s, often dictating to the conventional forces how many and what kinds of weapons they would receive. And of course until glasnost there was no way to ever get stories out about the unimaginable levels of waste and corruption, so the problems mounted to the point where they just couldnt be fixed.

When a new VPK is combined with Putin's return to severe punishment for journalists who publish unfriendly stories, it will be interesting to see how Russia avoids repeating history.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Sep 2008 10:51

Narayanan,here's the latest revelation about "Dick-the-Pri*k" Cheney's skullduggery when he was heading Halliburton.We can imagine from this what new mishchief he is upto in the Caucasus!

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 18133.html

Cheney colleague admits bribery in Halliburton oil deals

By Stephen Foley in New York
Thursday, 4 September 2008

A former colleague of the US Vice-President, Dick Cheney, has pleaded guilty to funnelling millions of dollars in bribes to win lucrative contracts in Nigeria for Halliburton, during the period in the Nineties when Mr Cheney ran the giant oil and gas services company.

Albert Stanley, who was appointed by Mr Cheney as chief executive of Halliburton's subsidiary KBR, admitted using a north London lawyer to channel payments to Nigerian officials as part of a bribery scheme that landed some $6bn of work in the country over a decade.

The guilty plea, announced yesterday, came after a four-year investigation by US attorneys and threatens to stir up old controversies just as eyes are trained on the Republican party convention. Mr Cheney, who pulled out of an address to the convention because of Hurricane Gustav earlier this week, led Halliburton from 1995 until returning to government in 2000. He had previously been Defence Secretary under the first President George Bush, and the links with Halliburton have been a constant thorn in the side of the current administration as the company has gone on to win billions of dollars of contracts in Iraq and other US military spheres.

The corruption scandal which exploded back into life yesterday centres on more than $180m channelled into Nigeria via intermediaries between 1994 – before Mr Stanley's employer was acquired by Halliburton – and 2004. Prosecutors allege that the payments were vital to a KBR-led consortium securing a succession of construction projects related to a liquefied natural gas plant at Bonny Island, on the Atlantic coast of Nigeria.

KBR suspended Stanley in 2004 after $5m was found in his Swiss bank account.

The investigation – which began in 2004 and has involved investigators in Nigeria, Switzerland, France and the UK, as well as the US – has turned up handwritten notes by a former KBR executive that bribes may have reached the former Nigerian dictator Sani Abacha, whose regime was accused of human rights abuses.

Bringing its legal action yesterday, the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission – America's corporate watchdog – said Stanley and others met high-ranking Nigerian government officials and their representatives on at least four occasions to arrange the bribe payments. To conceal the illicit payments, Stanley and others approved entering into sham contracts with two "agents" to funnel money to the Nigerian officials.

Investigations by French officials several years ago revealed that one of the agents was Jeffrey Tesler, a small-time solicitor based on a run-down high street in Tottenham, north London. Mr Tesler has long-standing ties in Nigeria, and worked as consultant to KBR's Nigerian joint venture. Mr Tesler was identified in yesterday's legal actions only as "the UK agent", and has not been charged with any crime. Attempts to contact Mr Tesler last night were unsuccessful.

Stanley admitted one count under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – which outlaws bribery by executives and companies operating in the US, regardless of where in the world the corruption is taking place – and a further count of fraud. He faces 10 years in jail, and has agreed to pay $10.8m in restitution. He has also agreed to co-operate with the authorities as they continue their investigation into the bribery scandal.

Mr Cheney appointed Stanley to run KBR in 1999, when the subsidiary was created after Halliburton's acquisition of UK-controlled MW Kellogg, where Stanley had been an executive. There is no suggestion that Mr Cheney knew at the time of the acquisition, or subsequently, that bribery was involved in the Nigerian contracts.

"The Department of Justice is committed to aggressively enforcing the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act," said acting assistant Attorney General Matthew Friedrich.

Robert Fisk's World: Why do we keep letting the politicians get away with lies?

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Sep 2008 16:21

Flash!
Ukraine Govt. on the verge of collapse!

The fallout of the Georgian spat has been the immediate collapse of the Ukranian govt, coalition,where another US puppet,Yuschenko and his CIA sponsored "Orange" revolution is on the verge of being consigned into history's dustbin.Unkraine has a very large %age of Russian origin citizens.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 668626.ece

Ukraine government teeters amid President Yushchenko 'coup' claim
(Radek Pietruszka)
Mr Yushchenko appeared to accuse Moscow of interfering in Ukraine’s politics
Tony Halpin in Moscow

The shock waves from the Russian invasion of Georgia sparked a new crisis in Ukraine yesterday as the pro-Western Orange coalition fell apart in acrimony.

President Yushchenko accused his former ally, the Prime Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko, of forging a pro-Russian alliance to curtail his powers, claiming that a coup was under way a day before Dick Cheney, the US Vice-President, was due to visit Kiev, the Ukrainian capital.

Mrs Tymoshenko countered with the allegation that the President had destroyed the Government himself after deputies from his party withdrew from her ruling coalition. Mr Yushchenko threatened to call a snap election unless a new coalition was formed within 30 days.

The crisis erupted after parliament passed new laws restricting the powers of the President and making it easier to impeach him. The Tymoshenko Bloc voted for the legislation with the Party of Regions, the pro-Moscow Opposition led by Viktor Yanukovych, the former Prime Minister Members of the President’s Our Ukraine party then left Mrs Tymoshenko’s coalition Government, which was formed after elections that ended a similar political crisis 12 months ago.

In an address on national television Mr Yushchenko said: “A political and constitutional coup d’état has started in the parliament.”

He appeared to accuse Moscow of interference, saying: “The Tymoshenko Bloc has accepted union with the Regions Party and the Communists. The basis of this formation is not Ukrainian, I underline not Ukrainian.”

Vyacheslav Kirilenko, the leader of Our Ukraine, described the Party of Regions and the Tymoshenko Bloc as a “pro-Kremlin majority”. He said that the legislation was “just what the Kremlin has been asking certain political forces to do”.

Mr Yushchenko and Mrs Tymoshenko led the Orange Revolution in 2004 that swept their pro-Western coalition to power after a popular revolt against a rigged presidential election in favour of Mr Yanukovych.

Both want to take the country into Nato and the European Union, but repeated conflicts between them have paralysed Ukrainian politics for long periods. Russia bitterly opposes Ukraine’s membership of Nato.

The crisis in Georgia has contributed to Ukraine’s political turmoil. Mr Yushchenko accused Mrs Tymoshenko of “high treason” in allegedly siding with Russia over the war.

She denied the claim, but her party refused to back a parliamentary motion from Our Ukraine that condemned Russia. Mr Yushchenko openly supported Georgia and told The Times last month that Nato membership was “the only way for our country to protect our national security and sovereignty”.

Mr Cheney arrived in Azerbaijan yesterday as part of a tour of former Soviet republics to assert America’s continued commitment to the region. He is due to visit Georgia today in a show of support for President Saakashvili before travelling to Kiev for talks with Mr Yushchenko.

On the eve of his arrival in Tbilisi the US announced $1 billion (£563 million) in aid to Georgia to help to rebuild its war-ravaged economy. US officials said, however, that it was too soon to consider military assistance.

Azerbaijan and Georgia are critical to Western hopes of reducing Europe’s dependence on Russian energy by piping oil and gas from Central Asia via the Caucasus. “President Bush has sent me here with a clear and simple message for the people of Azerbaijan and this entire region: The United States has deep and abiding interests in your well-being and security,” Mr Cheney said after meeting Azerbaijan’s President, Ilham Aliev.

Russia lost 71 soldiers during the war with Georgia, a military prosecutor said. The revised number was seven higher than the previous toll.

Igorr · Post by **Igorr** » 04 Sep 2008 16:44

Funny

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 04 Sep 2008 17:38

Cheney heads for Tbilisi as Russia warns against rearming Georgia

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/se ... ia.georgia

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 05 Sep 2008 02:24

From Deccan Chronicle, 5 Sept 2008

Georgia lesson: Don’t fight for others
By Vikram Sood

Normally there would be very little reason for Indians to lose sleep over events in Georgia other than the knowledge that Georgians won three gold medals at the recently-concluded Beijing Olympics. But there have been other reasons that Georgia has been making the headlines in Russia, Europe and, sporadically, in the United States. Important lessons in statecraft flow from this.

Things had been brewing in the Caucasus for some time as the Americans played their game of encircling Russia. A regional summit of Guam (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova) was held in Batumi, Georgia, in July 2008. Guam is ostensibly an organisation for democracy and economic development, but in reality it is a military agreement and a de facto appendage of Nato to be used to extend its zone of influence into the Russian heartland. A US-Guam summit was also held on the sidelines, with Poland participating.

While the world awaited inauguration of the Beijing Olympics, the Georgians, following Washington-injected adrenalin, pushed their troops into South Ossetia, a region within Georgia that has been demanding independence and merger with North Ossetia in Russia. This happened a week after extensive US-Georgia wargames.

The Russians reacted the only way they could — with speed and force. The message for the outside world was that the Russians would do anything to protect their national interest and global opinion was not going to deter them. Lesson one: If a state wants to be recognised as a regional/global power, it must be willing and able to do what it must in national interest in its neighbourhood.

Georgia was not a helpless little country trying to defend itself against the giant next door as has been reported in the Indian press, drawing its information from Western mainstream media. In reality, Georgia was provoking Russia through a mixture of effective media management and Western sympathy. When the Russians reacted with force, there was very little the Americans could do except shake their heads, wring their hands and ask the European Union to join them in admonishing the Russians. Neither the Americans nor Nato was about to go to war with Russia on behalf of Georgia, and certainly not after Iraq and Afghanistan. They had encouraged Georgian adventurism, but had not anticipated Russian reaction. Lesson two: Adventurism, at the behest of distant powers against the local power, can be suicidal.

The third lesson is for the Americans. Intent on creating American clones in Russia’s periphery, they systematically induced various colour revolutions in what was once Soviet territory. The Georgians were promised democracy as a solution to all their problems and as redemption from all their socialist sins. After some initial upheavals, Washington grafted an American citizen, Mikheil Saakashvili, as Georgia’s President. They equipped the Georgian armed forces, Nato trained their men and the US pushed for Nato membership for Georgia, alarming the Russians.

In the 1990s, the Russians had watched helplessly after they dismantled the Warsaw Pact only to find Nato extending its eastern frontiers and the energy giants moving in as Boris Yeltsin and his groupies sold off national assets on the cheap. This was till Vladimir Putin arrived on the scene to reclaim history and geography. Obviously, there are limitations to power and Russia is not yet a write-off. Lesson three, therefore, is: Do not meddle around and do not promise if you cannot deliver. Finally, a lesson for all those involved in realpolitik.

Mr Saakashvili had led an effective media campaign personally and, in the initial days, the Georgians were portrayed by western TV and press as the innocent victims of Russian bullying. There were no takers for the Russian narrative of events. There is no Russian version of the BBC or CNN; nor, for that matter, is there an Indian version. The Russians accused CNN of telecasting footage of Georgian attacks in South Ossetia as Russian attacks in Georgia.

So, if you want to assert yourself, make sure the media is on your side; make sure your voice is heard far and wide and initial imagery is vital too. Soft power is as important as hard power. The question one might ask is why EU, Nato and the US are so keen about a tiny little Republic tucked away in the Caucasian mountains, between the Caspian Sea and the Black Sea, whose unnatural borders had been created by another Georgian, Joseph Dzhughasvilli, better known as Stalin. The real issue is not democracy or human rights. The real issue is pinning Russia down and freeing energy resources from Russian control.

The conflict in Georgia is not about its resources (it has few) but about its geographical location. The struggle is for control of energy and transport corridors from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia to bypass Russia and thus reduce Western dependency on Russia. The gas and oil pipelines from the Caspian and Central Asia have to go through the Caucasus to reach Europe if consumers want to avoid crossing either Russia or Iran.

The Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, from Azerbaijan on the Caspian coast to the Eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, has been an expensive and a controversial project that was completed in 2006 and has been disrupted by Kurdish separatists. The Russian response has exposed Georgia’s vulnerability and more pipelines through Georgia are unlikely. With winter around the corner, a West Europe that is dependent on Russian gas supplies would want a quick settlement of the dispute. Georgia could thus be the choke point.

Meanwhile, Turkmenistan, on the eastern coast of the Caspian, has offered more gas to China (40 billion cubic metres per year, instead of 30 bcm) through another pipeline. The Kazakhs are constructing a pipeline all the way from the Caspian Sea into China. The pipes, when completed, will stretch more than 7,000 km from Turkmenistan, cross Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, and enter China’s Xinjiang province. The Russians plan to hold a conference of gas exporters in November, possibly to discuss the creation of a gas charter similar to Opec. Gas and oil, instead of flowing westward through routes the West wants, could end up flowing eastward. It could be a long hard winter and a Cold War, Version 2, in George W. Bush’s fading months and Dmitry Medvedev’s early days.

Vikram Sood is a former head of the Research and Analysis Wing, India’s external intelligence agency

ranganathan · Post by **ranganathan** » 05 Sep 2008 04:05

[quote="Skanda"]HRW's flawed 'Research' on Georgian cluster bombs

Do people know that representative of HRW in Georgia is... Sandra Roelofs, better knows as the dutch first lady of Georgia

Arun_S · Post by **Arun_S** » 05 Sep 2008 11:55

renukb wrote:
prabir wrote:There are still some good men in the US who can act as a "check".
And you need economy to be strong to impose unilateral agenda.
The damage done in the past 8 yrs and huge deficit will take atleast another 5 yrs to correct if Obama comes to power.

During the cold war, US was known as a place of "freedom". That soft power and appeal has eroded over the period of time.
Good men in America? Yes, but they don't govern. When it comes to Russia, all Americans are paranoid. Forgot to add, that, that's how the US propoganda machine (all Media) is built to work.

You mean the American Pravda!!

The crushing motherly hug of Amrican Pravda to protect American citizens from bad news from abroad and be high in the opium of petti and important sexual issues to keep people busy in the swarg that is more of a prison, but people really feel they are free slaves.

prabir · Post by **prabir** » 05 Sep 2008 21:26

All Americans are not paranoid with Russia now. They were more paranoid about the "communist" threat.
Media does have a role, but, only when proven to be credible. With so many objective analysis available on Internet, smart people understand and do make a difference.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 06 Sep 2008 03:06

Video of Georgian attackers destroying Tshkinvali before Russian counterattack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe_-ubW98m0