It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abkhaz Leader Has Ordered Army To Sink Any Georgian Ships In Its Waters

page: 6
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Maloy, correct me i'm wrong but isn't a lot of the smuggling going on in western Russia organised by Georgian "gangs"? (This is what i heard few years ago)
There have allso been cases of Georgians trafficin illegal immigrants into EU.
[edit on 7-10-2006 by northwolf]


I have not heard much about illegal trafficing of people, but I am more than certain that it takes place. Georgians might be involved, but so are many other ethnic groups. Smuggling might take place indeed in the form of illegal contraband or products restricted from import (such as Georgian wine and other produce now that this conflict has grown).

What Georgians are more known for, is selling and reselling produce from Georgia and Southern Russia in the markets of large cities. There are literaly tens of thousands of them running their trucks back and forth with produce from the fertile regions in South Russia- and this produce and products are cheaper than in any store- they sell them at outdoor markets right off the truck. The problem is- this line of business required one to have "roof" over their business, or protection from gangs and mafia. Well there are so many Georgians, that they decided it would be more profitable to form their own mafia. And now they have their own "zones" in the markets where either only they trade, or make others pay them. And just like Chechens and Amrmenians, Georgians are very business oriented. There are a lot of restaurants and clubs owned them- which also tend to get involved with mafia or illegal activities.




posted on Oct, 7 2006 @ 11:36 PM
link   
Maloy you make it seem like Russia is so innocent and the US is a big devil lurking behind every conflict. Seriously, why shouldn't the West surround Russia with pro-Western states? Why not? Is being pro-western bad? Are they going to attack Russia because of the American/European alliance?

These countries know that the West has more to offer them than Russia does. Georgia would benefit a lot more being a part of NATO and the EU. Why does it have to be EVIL?

Russia is in the SCO. For whatever reason they joined...they are still a part of it. And maybe the other ex-soviet countries do not want to join that little club between Iran, China, Pakistan. Maybe they would rather join the EU with Britain, Germany, and France. Maybe they want to join NATO with the US, Britain, Canada, etc.

They are allowed. And they shouldn't have gas lines turned off, etc. because they don't want to.

About your Russian and Georgian nationalists...I cannot believe people like that still exist in what I would think is a developed part of the world.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 03:30 AM
link   
First, Russia is not the good guy here, they play dirty tricks to maintain their control of the region. But on the other hand Tbilisi was conducting a ethnic cleaning in abkhazia until Russians forced them to stop.

Nato may want the ex soviet states, EU does not, they don't meet the minimum economic, legal or human rights standards needed to join the union.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Maloy,

You analysis of the western media is interesting, however when events like this happen it again highlights why Western media does have a lot of credibility about Russia, because those who report contraversy accurately inside Russia end up dead.

There are efforts in your country to silence independent voices in the media and control what is said, which leaves Russian media credibility in question for those of us who are skeptical of governments in general.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
First, Russia is not the good guy here, they play dirty tricks to maintain their control of the region.

And why shouldn't it?

The amount of help (including financial) Russia gave to these nearby countries is enormous. The people in these countries were practicly considered brothers and were trusted.
Foreign people in Russia were always treated better than Russians themselves. In Soviet Era, a big chunk of politicians were not even Russians. Know Stalin? Think he was Russian? Think again.
It was Lenin's idea. He believed that if his people got all the best and were treated above the rest - something like what happened in Germany would've happened. The country would've been practicly unstoppable, because all people would've had the same goal in mind, they would've been like one organism. It would've done what Hitler had in mind - conquer the world.
Hitler made some stupid mistakes though. That's why he lost. If he had worked on decisions in a clearer mind, he would've conquered the world. It's true.

Anyway, my point is that after all of the good Russia has done for its neighbours: they now turn their backs to it and join the enemy. But not only that, they do it in the most arrogant way possible. Suddenly, all of Russia's help is forgotten and only the bad things are remembered or made up. Only human nature, huh?



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Russia has allso attacked, suppressed and terrorized it's neigbours in the past.... ('39 attack into Finland, genocide and deportations of minorities... list goes on)

I didn't mean that Russias attempt to regain control is bad... it's just happening and the game is dirty on all sides



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy you make it seem like Russia is so innocent and the US is a big devil lurking behind every conflict. Seriously, why shouldn't the West surround Russia with pro-Western states? Why not? Is being pro-western bad? Are they going to attack Russia because of the American/European alliance?


Russia is in no way innocent. The brutality of both Chechen, and Afgan wars was beyond most Western comprehension. The problem I see with the US, is not in what it is doing necessarily, by how it is doing it. Obviously US politicians care only about how to further their own nation, and their foreign policy is concerned with increasing US influence. Russia did it, so did China and everyone else.

But US is acting very pretentiously and hypocritically. It initiates its coups and invasions, while it teaches everyone else how to live. It lectures Russia about democracy (like Bush did during G8, and on so many other occasions), and about human rights. Yet its politicians are burying the US Constitution with things like the Patriot Act, and on many occasions have violated human rights of WOT prisoners and killed civilians in Iraq/Afganistan. It tells Russia not to interfere with Iran, yet it's interefering in Georgia, Ukraine and all around Russia. So- if US chooses to act like it does, attacking and threatening various countries around the world- be it; US has the power and the will. Heck there were empires throughout history why not now. But at least it should stop lecturing everyone on democracy and peace- because the way its going now US is becoming a counter-symbol of these concepts. The hypocracy is hideous, and even more hideous that so many people belive what they are told.

Everytime Bush (or Blair) lectures Putin on democracy and other ideals- the Russian people openly laugh at it. Why? Because of the pretentiousness. Outside the US nobody belives the words that come out of the White House anymore. Its empty talk. Iran supposedly helps terrorists, and North Korea has the potential to kill alot of people? Don't give us exuses for what you about to do- Just Do It. Everyone knows you'll do it sooner or later with or without any allies, so why the whole UN shuffle. US attempts to pass off its actions as fair and justified- they are not. Why even try?



Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
These countries know that the West has more to offer them than Russia does. Georgia would benefit a lot more being a part of NATO and the EU. Why does it have to be EVIL?


How exactly will Georgia benefit? So far there was only one major benefit- Georgian army is now armed with the newest weapons, and are being rearmed at such a rate that they are practically forced to use these weapons. The people have not benefited in ANY way in either Georgia or Ukraine. How do I know? I have been there on many occasions. Because of Georgian boycott by Russia, Georgian farmers are struggling to sell their produce. Russia was always Georgia's main trading partner. Ukraine's economy grew at a tremendous pace thanks to subsidized energy at extremely low prices (and Ukraine uses more energy per capita than any country in Europe- most of it comes from Russia). Now their economy is encountering major obstacles preventing it from growth. Many people who worked at mines, metallurgical plants, military tech factories are now left without jobs (tens of thousands), because these industries no longer have ties to Russia. Overall the population today IS WORSE OFF. The future is yet unclear.

EU is not evil. NATO is an overfunded, uneened organization, which should have passed away with the Cold War. The only major NATO action since the fall of the Soviet Union, was the illegal invasion of Yugoslavia (Russians and Serbs are still very angry about this). This was a 100% illegal war (Serbia did not attack an outside sovereignty, threatened no NATO member, and only defended its own people from ethnic cleansing by equally deplorable means). Americans have long forgoten that war- where Russia's ally was taken out as soon as Russia was too weak to intervene. Russians remember it very well. They know what NATO did there, and they are determined to prevent that from ever happening closer to home.



Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Russia is in the SCO. For whatever reason they joined...they are still a part of it. And maybe the other ex-soviet countries do not want to join that little club between Iran, China, Pakistan. Maybe they would rather join the EU with Britain, Germany, and France. Maybe they want to join NATO with the US, Britain, Canada, etc.


No one is making anyone join SCO. Russia does not mind Ukraine or anyone else joining EU (but as someone said, EU is the one that doesn't want them). More power to them. But about NATO- you have to realize that half of the people there don't want this. And not only do they not want this, they are extremely anti-NATO, and will even take it upon themselves to prevent this from happening (like what happened in Crimea during NATO exercises). Yuschenko want to join NATO for his own reasons. NATO will not bring either Georgia or Ukraine any benefits, besides arming them and putting NATO bases on their soil. However these countries have no one to fear attack from- Russia has never attacked either or them throughout history. So the only reason they are there for, is to be ready to attack Russia.


Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
They are allowed. And they shouldn't have gas lines turned off, etc. because they don't want to.


I assume you are talking about Ukraine. Just so you know this conflict over gas started a long time before Yuschenko. Russia was gonna raise prices before he came to power (like they did now with Belarus). It warned Ukraine half a year before this happened, that prices will go up and the two sides need to negotiate on them. Ukraine ignored this memo. Russia warned them 3 times during that year. Ukraine did try to negotiate to leave the prices as they were- at the point where Russians were making a loss on the transaction. And why would Russia subsidize Ukrainians' gas, if they chose sides with an enemy. US does the same thing- Bush Administration stopped energy subsidies to North Korea- in return NK resumed its nuclear development.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
I didn't mean that Russias attempt to regain control is bad... it's just happening and the game is dirty on all sides

Exactly.
Politics is not about who is good and who is bad. It's about who is winning and who is loosing. That is why many people prefer not to get themselves involved into politics. You can't win (or even stay in the middle) if you don't play dirty sometimes.

@Darksided, The motive for her murder was obviously because of her work. Kremlin had a hand in this. I do not support that type of action, but it happens in all powerful nations. Leaders need their people to be supporting them and their cause in large countries, because if people start rebeling against the government the country will be powerful no more. Contrast America, Russia, China and Sweden, Belgium, England and many other nations.
Rebelions against government happen when the government starts becoming too cruel and unfair to its people. Journalist are there to monitor the government and inform the people, so I believe they are needed and shouldn't be murdered. Of course, those who speak lies and are only there to destabilise the country (often sponsored by foreign nations) are a different matter.

A Russian article about this incident: External Link

Guess what? It blames the government as well. Looks like there is freedom of speech after all.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Russia has allso attacked, suppressed and terrorized it's neigbours in the past.... ('39 attack into Finland, genocide and deportations of minorities... list goes on)

I didn't mean that Russias attempt to regain control is bad... it's just happening and the game is dirty on all sides


I believe that Russia's attack on Finland (and later Afganistan) was its only major wrongdoing. Many Eastern Europeans now accuse Russia of occupying them right before WWII (when Germany partitioned Poland into two parts). This was simply Russians reoccupying the land they had before WWI. Even though Russia was an ally and helped win in WWI, it lost more terrirory than Germany which was defeated. Russians were still very sore about that. The West partitioned the Russian empire, without Russian approval. So when Germany gave them back a part of Poland, Russia only felt entitled to it (ethical or not, it was still the time of empires).


And how exactly is Russia trying to regain control today? It is doing absolutely nothing in fact, when in my opinion it should be doing something because US and NATO are pushing to close to its borders. If this was the Cold War, this would be taken as a sign of absolute aggression, and would have lead to a major conflict. US is using an opportunity of weakened Russia, and Russia is forced to do all it can to hold out (like the shutting off of gas). Russia has not threatened any countries. It has not invaded anyone since the end of the Cold War. All it had was a very localized civil war.


My main issue- is why the US is using the War On Terror to instead surround Russia. Clinton didn't try to surround Russia- what changed with Bush? Wasn't this war started to hunt down Bin Laden and other terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11? Obviously not. What do any of the CIS countries have to do with the WOT? It started when Tajikistana nd Uzbekistan decided to HELP the US station their troops there. What did the US do in return for this help- attempt a coup of the leadership to establish US bases there permanently. And after they failed in the first attempt, US didn't even pay the promised amount for using their land. Great allies eh? Russia warned Tajikistana and Uzbekistan. After that all of them got a lesson in what you get for helping the US. And do Americans know about this- ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Then all of the sudden US turned its attention to Ukraine and Georgia. Then Azerbaijan and Tajikistan when US found out there is alot of oil there.

Basically nobody in the world is then safe in the WTO. Terrorist or not you may be targeted for whatever purpose. Hell even Finland can be targeted for some obscene reason (my advice- if you find oil in Finland don't tell the Americans). And then they wonder why nobody supports this WTO. Honestly- people in Russia feel fairly threatened by the US right now. So do many anti-Yuschenko Ukrainians and anti-Saakashvili Georgians. What if US tries to do with any of them what they did with Yugoslavia, should the US-installed government fail. Many try to turn this issue on its head, by saying- Hey Russia is evil too. It is evil in certain respects, but in the current context of events- The US IS THE AGGRESSOR. It is a concern for the whole world, not just Russia. Europeans don't sense any danger, because they were always friendly with the US. But how would you feel if you lived in the crosshairs of the largest military force in the world?

Don't be surprised if these aggressive tactics by the US awaken Russia once again, and then Russia will be on a campaign to invade and gain influence to offset US invasions. And then people will say how evil and bad Russia is. Remember- everything in history is contigent on everything else, and in many cases you can predict where the current conflicts are leading to. And WTO is leading to somewhere very unsafe.



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by darksided
Maloy,

You analysis of the western media is interesting, however when events like this happen it again highlights why Western media does have a lot of credibility about Russia, because those who report contraversy accurately inside Russia end up dead.

There are efforts in your country to silence independent voices in the media and control what is said, which leaves Russian media credibility in question for those of us who are skeptical of governments in general.


As Alex Dude said, many Russians know who killed her and why. They understand that their media is a propaganda machine, and thats why they don't believe all that it says.

Alot of controversial and political matter is discussed in Russia. Hundreds of journalists and writers are not afraid to venture where this woman has. There is good reason to believe that the situation will improve in the future. Russian TV network NTV, still airs controversial affairs. Although they are in a form of a political cartoon, and never mention Putin's name or show his face- you can comprehend the point they are trying to pass across. Neutral and accurate news are reported in Russia, if you care enough to find it. Sure on the large scale, Russian media is not yet as free as European. However it doesn't say that its a "free and unbiased press", and you are not led to believe that everything they report is neutral and accurate (unlike the US media).



posted on Oct, 8 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
I'm watching the Channel One news report on Georgia right now.

This is how the situation is basicly expressed as: they were a close nation to us and their people were considered brothers to our nation, a lot of them worked in Rssia without any permits or rights to stay in our country, their produce was bought even though some of it wasn't of a good quality, Georgians that worked in Russia sent a lot of money back home to Georgia and basicly Moscow helped an awful lot to Georgian government, but they have taken a back-stabbing move, arrested Russian officers (that were innocent) to improve the president's decreasing rating and to get an anti-russian feel in the country to make the georgian people feel like joining NATO is a good move to make.

The news report also showed how the Georgian president won the election, while 60% of people have refused to vote. How the president opened up a new motorway with a speech like "We have a motorway that they don't have in Russia. We have hospitals that they don't have in Russia etc. (in the same manner)". Another move that the president of Georgia made was name a street after George Bush and print a picture of him on the street sign.

But the president ignores that the majority of Georgian people are against joining NATO and feel much closer to Russia.



posted on Oct, 9 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
British official calls for Georgia and Russia to exercise restraint and to avoid inflammatory statements. He said that the UK wants to see an early solution to Georgian-Russian relations.


Civil Georgia: British Official Calls for Russia, Georgia to Show Restraint

2006-10-09



The British Foreign Office official in charge of European policy called on Russia and Georgia to exercise restraint and avoid inflammatory statements in order to maintain regional stability.

Minister for Europe Geoff Hoon, who is visiting Georgia on October 9-10, said that “the UK wants to see an early solution to the current difficulties in Georgian-Russian relations.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Russia sees no need for any top level talks between Georgia and Russia until Georgia stops its "hostile actions".

Civil Georgia: Stop 'Hostile Actions,' Kremlin Official Tells Tbilisi

2006-10-09



There is no need for top level talks between Georgia and Russia until Georgia curbs its “hostile actions” towards Russia, Modest Kolerov, the Russian presidential administration official in charge of regional relations, told Georgian journalists on October 9.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

Russian evacuation of 270 Russians from Georgia has been postponed until Tuesday afternoon.

RIA Novosti: Russia asks Georgia to admit 2 evacuating planes in next 2 days

09/ 10/ 2006



Russia has asked Georgian diplomats to allow two evacuating planes to land on its territory in the next two days, amid a spying row, an official said Monday. The request came after Georgia denied permission earlier in the day for flights by two Russian rescue planes, set to bring some 270 Russians back to Moscow from Tbilisi.

Airport officials said the two planes could not fly on Monday due to repair works on the runway Sunday, adding that no heavy planes with a cargo capacity of more than 100 metric tons were able to land at the airport during the day. Airport officials told passengers that the flights had been postponed until Tuesday afternoon

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Oct, 12 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   
Russia will ask the UN Security Council to vote today (Friday) for Georgia to withdraw its troops from Abkhazia. Russia claim that Georgia has violated the 1994 Moscow ceasefire agreement by sending troops into Abkhazia. Russia also calls for Georgia to refrain from any "provocative actions". The Russian Defense Minister warned that his forces will defend Abkhazia and South Ossetia if necessary.


BakuTODAY.net: Russia asks UN vote on Georgia, breakaway Abkhazia

13/10/2006



Russia formally introduced a draft resolution in the Security Council urging Georgia to withdraw troops perceived as threatening the breakaway province of Abkhazia and said it hoped for a vote Friday.

In July, Georgian troops mounted an operation in Kodori Gorge, which Abkhazians and their Russian allies saw as a Georgian violation of a 1994 Moscow ceasefire agreement and a move toward taking control of the province. The latest draft "urges the Georgian side to ensure that the situation in the upper Kodori valley is in line with the Moscow agreement and that no troops unauthorized by this agreement are present." It also calls on Georgia to "address seriously legitimate Abkhaz security concerns, to avoid steps which could be seen as threatening and to refrain from militant rhetoric and provocative actions, especially in upper Kodori Valley."

Sunday Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov warned that his forces would go to the defense of Georgia's separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia if Georgian government troops launched an assault. He said that Moscow did not want war with Georgia, but if there was fighting in Abkhazia or South Ossetia, "that is another matter".

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

War "if there was fighting in Abkhazia or South Ossetia"...



posted on Oct, 13 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
EU's foreign ministers will meet in Luxembourg on October 17th. They are likely to adopt a declaration which will be sharply critical of Russia. They are still working on the actual wording of the declaration but they say it will be difficult for Moscow to misinterpret...


Photo: TASS


RFE/RL: EU Set To Criticize Moscow Over Georgia

Friday, October 13, 2006



The European Union is set to voice "grave concern" over Russia's economic blockade on Georgia and its recent mass expulsions of Georgians. According to EU sources in Brussels, the EU's foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on October 17 is likely to adopt a declaration sharply critical of Moscow -- although its wording may still change in the coming days. The EU move -- if it survives what is liable to be a heated debate among EU ministers -- would mark a change in the union's approach to Georgian-Russian tensions. An EU diplomat -- who asked not be named -- said EU ambassadors agreed on a preliminary text today. However, as the matter is highly sensitive, the final wording will be decided among EU ministers over lunch in Luxembourg. The diplomat said that although the wording of the declaration may change, it is likely to be adopted in a shape "that will be difficult for the Russians to misinterpret."

The current text with its sharp criticism of Russian measures was backed by the EU's Nordic, Baltic, and some Central European member states.

The United Kingdom was described by the EU source quoted above to have been "significantly" more skeptical of Russia than often in the past

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Abkhazia is going to appeal to Russia to recognize its independence. The appeal is to be signed on Monday. Saakashvili ("Stakkars-Willy") says he currently controls 30 percent of Abkhazia, his intention is to restore control over the whole of Abkhazia, and "no power in the world will stop this"...


MosNews: Georgia’s Breakaway Abkhazia Prepares Appeal to Russia to Recognize Its Independence

15.10.2006



Representatives of Abkhaz nongovernmental organizations said they would urge Abkhazia parliament and President Sergei Bagapsh to start talks with Russia on Abkhazia’s recognition as an independent state and on establishing long-term relations, based on agreements, with Russia, Interfax reports. The appeal has been negotiated and is to be signed on Monday by the heads and representatives of all nongovernmental, public, religious and political organizations of this breakway region of Georgia.

Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili said Saturday that a UN resolution urging Georgia to withdraw troops perceived as threatening will not affect its control over part of Abkhazia, AFP reported. “We currently control 30 percent of the territory, on which we will continue to build schools, hospitals and police stations,” he said at a briefing in Tbilisi after the Security Council resolution was passed. “No power in the world will stop this,” he said. “Nobody has any illusions that anyone will kick out the legal authorities and citizens by force,” he said. “We intend to restore control over the whole of Abkhazia through negotiations.”

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Ok seems like everybody is now interested in this war. Great. Let them fight it out. Saakashvilli is gonna make sure Georgia doesn't lose this time. Start digging the mass graves.



posted on Oct, 15 2006 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by maloy
Ok seems like everybody is now interested in this war. Great. Let them fight it out. Saakashvilli is gonna make sure Georgia doesn't lose this time. Start digging the mass graves.


Funny, I haven't heard anything about it on the news in the US and I only watch the news on TV.

CNN did however have a fashion designer critique dictator's clothes. And let me tell you maloy that is NEWS. Kimmy of North Korea got a thumbs down, and Ahmandenjad...his clothes definitely were a no no. I mean seriously what is up with Fidel by the way? Thankfully he wore that jogging suit when he took pictures in the hospital, I mean that military uniform was sooooo 1964.

Thankfully CNN is reporting on some real news


[edit on 15-10-2006 by RetinoidReceptor]



posted on Oct, 16 2006 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Well Putin has got to be the best dressed dictator out there (is he officially a dictator yet by USA standards?). Kim Jong Il needs to do something about those glasses though. Castro is keeping it conservative- you can tell he doesn't want to start a revolution in fashion- one revolution is enough. Now Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya- there is a real catwalk catch.


On the note of Abkhazia- it seems that a war is unavoidable. After Georgia lost in the first war, Saakashvilli is determined to restore the nation's "honor". A nationalistic war that will follow thus promises to be even more brutal than the first war. This is similar to Russia going back to Chechnya during the second War, to make up for its mistakes in the first war.

It also seems like Saakashvilli got some sort of approval from US for military action, because UN and NATO are not interfering at all, and are even pushing Russia aside to speed it up. Now I am convinced however, that there has to be a war there sooner or later. Abkhazia is as of yet- an undecided territory. Its a semi-autonomous state in the midst of a temporary ceasefire (just like south Lebanon under Hezbolah).

And this is a very good time to start wars. All the attention is on Iraq and North Korea (and fashionable dictators it seems). So nobody is gonna pay much attention to a ten thousand non-Americans dead here, twenty thousand non-Europeans dead there. And by the time the media wakes up from its WOT hybernation, everything will be complete. Abkhazia will be Georgia, and Georgia will be NATO.

[edit on 16-10-2006 by maloy]



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Maloy what do you think of this article?

cfr.org...

It is about this conflict.



posted on Oct, 17 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy what do you think of this article?

cfr.org...

It is about this conflict.


Well certainly this article is somewhat less biased that the mainstream media (I suppose its an American source). However the fact that the website proclaims itself as nonpartisan, does not mean it is not biased. It simply means its rhetoric is neither Democrat nor Republican, but voices both sides at the same time. But the US foreign policy (globalist and NATO expansion- at times aggressive) is common to both parties; thus a nonpartisan news source has no problem reporting on the pro-American expansionist basis, and it is exactly what this article is doing (it is not pro-Bush or pro-Democrats; its pro-American). Yes it voiced Russia's opinion, but also expressedly stated that Russia today has imperialistic ambitions, has its nose in its neighbors' business, and that US is doing nothing wrong.


About what the article conveys- it is nothing new.

Firstable- yes the conflict started before Saakashvilli. But previous president of Georgia, Eduard Shevardnadze, was not as hostile towards Russia. He understood that Russia and Georgia had relations going back centuries, and that this conflict is no reason to completely destroy these relations. He lost the first (assuming there will be more) war in Abkhazia, and after that decided to work out on autonomity status. Saakashvilli destroyed those hopes however. So obviously something changed between Shevardnadze (whose retirement from presidency was questionably, and likely an overt coup by Saakashvilli) and Saakashavilli. And this something was the US.

The article mentiones Russia's deep involvement in Georgian politics (and makes it seem like Russian troops were actually involved in the war), but sites no proof. Abkhazia and South Ossetia received help from Chechens and other Caucas neighbors. Russia never engaged in conflict (this is a fact) with Georgian forces, nor was it heavily involved in Georgian politics. If it was, don't you think that war would have been avoided from the start? Russia was a mediator. Sure Georgians did not like Russia's interference, but it was in accordance with the principles of the UN and various humanitarian conventions (before Russia's peace keeping force, there were thousands of civilian casualties on both sides).

The article sites that Russia wants to add Abkhazia and South Ossetia to Russia. This is completely false and baseless accusation. Why would Russia need war-ravaged Abkhazia and Sukhumi, if it already has hundreds of miles of Black Sea coastal land on its own terrirory, much of which is still undeveloped? As for South Ossetia- Russia has absolutely no remote need for that small parcel of land. The real reason for Russia's interference is because Abkhazia and South Ossetia (mostly with Russian population) asked for protection from Georgians. Sure Russia wants a friendly Georgia on its southern border, but it has no intention of adding Georgia to the Federation whatsoever.



And about the comparison between Kosovo and Abkhazia by Russia- thats a good addition in the article. It adds more credibility to Russia, because US and Europe are the ones propagating independence for Kosovo. So why the double standards (the article doesn't even openly mention the underlined double standards)? Kosovo and Abkhazia conflicts are indeed very very similar, almost identical in fact. But unlike Russia's peace keeping force, US didn't just position itself in Kosovo. It first conducted heavy bombing campaigns against Serbia (killingmmany civilians, destroying a TV station with reporters, and bombing a Chinese embassy of all things). Only then it occupied Kosovo. Russia never bombed Georgia; it never engaged Georgian troops; in fact if it did come upon Georgian forces in the beginning, the Russians were ordered to retreat and not engage. And now everybody (Georgia, EU, NATO, hell even UN) are pressuring Russia to get out of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Where is the international pressure for NATO to get out of Kosovo? For all we know US has imperialistic ambitions and wants to add Kosovo as its territory (like it accused Russia in Abkhazia).

The article touches on this issue, and then leaves it off. It does a seemingly good job in presenting the views of both sides, but stops short of criticising American foreign policy.

And why not talk about the questionable circumstances of Saakashvilli coming to power in the first place? Shevardnadze wins the election (never proven that it wasn't a win). Then all of sudden from nowhere thousands of protestors led by Saakashvilli arrive and send the president a message that violence will follow if he doesn't resign. Saakashilli's team further blackmails Shevardnadze into resignation. This was a coup, and Russia knows it, and obviously is not happy with it. How would the US feel if there was a Radical Islamic coup in Mexico all of the sudden, with pro-Iranian regime? Same thing to a lesser extent happened in Ukraine. Yanukovich wins the election, and suddenly Yushenko puts up a huge stink- funded by who else- the US. The crying and whinning leads to a questionable reelection, which is illegal (since Yanukovich already got elected legally).


here are a few articles about these coups and what Uncle Sam is up to, from the non-pro-American side:

Georgia: Welcome to America's New El Salvador

New World Order Playground. Georgia 2005

Color Revolutions, Geopolitics and the Baku Pipeline

The Show of Shows: George W. Bush in Tbilisi



In the end all of this is not about Russia's imperialistic ambitions. It not about the possibility of tens of thousands of dead civilians in Abkhazia. It's not even about Georgia's nationalistic pride. Its about the US interests in the regions, due to the oil. What many do not realize (and what you article does not even mention) is that the new US-built Caspian oil pipeline will define the geopolitics of the regions for decades to come.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join