Sarkozy warns Russia: withdraw from South Ossetia or face the consequences

Sarkozy warns Russia: withdraw from South Ossetia or face the consequences

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Russia/Georgia Situation News & Updates

The article goes on to talk about the US hardline rhetoric.

From the west US and allies, this is starting to seem suspicious, It seems like they keep issuing repeated warnings to Russia to pull out,
etc.

If the Russians do pull out following threats like this, how does that make them look back home?

I do not think the Russians will pull out under threats like this, when it can appear as if they are responding to orders from Washington.

What if they really don't want Russia to pull out?

www.guardian.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012

---

Yeah, that's got me wondering too. Russia signed the deal and there's a provision in there for them to make what security arrangement s they consider necessary before they pull out. It hasn't even been 24 hours yet and the West are jumping up an down like it's been a month.

Making demands now will only put the Russians in a position where they'll lose face at home if they do what they agreed to do (on their own terms) already.

Russia has responded and said they will pull out beginning mid day on Monday. We'll see if it actually happens.

reply to post by mythatsabigprobe

---

I absolutely agree.

They are pushing the issue too hard, if the Russians respond too quickly it means a bitter defeat for them, caving into orders and threats from the USA and allies.

It seems more of an act to provoke the Russians than to make them leave and honor the agreements.

Leaving after this latest warning would nearly appear as if they are bowing before the great George W Bush, supreme world leader!

Stuff like this isn't going to help matters:

U.S.' Gates dismisses Russian warnings to Poland

news.yahoo.com...



Maybe keeping the Russians preoccupied in Georgia/SO has certain advantages for the west?

Interesting, the original news source in the OP has another report on this topic, but it seems somewhat toned down:

Sarkozy threatens 'consequences' as Russia stalls on Georgia pullout

www.guardian.co.uk...



I wonder if they will remove the original report in favor of this one?

For now both are still available.

They are now sending mixed signals on this, here is the latest:

Lawmaker hints at long stay in Georgia, despite cease-fire

www.cnn.com...



Personally I believe the US and allies want to keep the Russians bogged down in the Georgian situation as long as possible, while trying to make it appear as if they are bowing to the west under pressure to pull out when they do. Leaving them in a way embarrassed and somewhat defeated when they do leave... So that when the real conflict with Russia over the Polish missile defense shield erupts the west will be in a better position to demonize Russia and claim a higher moral ground somehow. In the court of world opinion sometimes events like this have clear objectives amid the hidden agendas.

The Polish missile defense shield will be a powder-keg compared to the firecracker that was Georgia.

Now this is bad approach. I personally see Russian forces in Georgia proper (without even discussing S. Osetia or Abkhazia) for a while. They want to hurt Saakashvilli and to trade their military presence for certain gains (like S.Osetia or Abkhazia) and it should be dealt with. Not with threats though. Current Russian leadership feeds on "Everybody is against us but we are strong now and will show them" feelings of large part of Russian public. This is very dangerous to throw threats in this situation.Certain Russian leaders want another cold war, in my opinion, but West should not bring them this cold war prepared on the plate.
Seeing how this conflict is evolving lately, i am beginning to wonder if diplomats and politicians suddenly lost all their qualifications world-wide or it is something i simply do not get?

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

---

Absolutely. You know what's also quite dangerous? Robert Gates basically saying: "Meh, nah... they're all talk, those Russians."

Really, Robert?

Just you wait and see.

reply to post by chips

---

Actually the words he used were "empty rhetoric" which is both a direct insult and clear provocation to Russian leaders and military commanders.

Simply put... an incredibly stupid and asinine thing to say.

Perhaps some will see the clear prodding and outright provocations going on here, the mystery is WHY?

The height of Arrogance and/or Stupidity coming from the West in amazing. They've cornered the Russian Bear and it's growling, so they decide to poke at it with a stick.

They either really believe that America is invincible or they are trying to depopulate the world through a nuclear exchange. At least during the Cold War they had our respect and I believe that was a key ingredient to the worlds survival over that period.

Pulling out of the ABM Treaty was tantamount to reigniting the Cold War and now we've pushed our ABM's into ex-soviet states. Disrespect is the mistake that could make this thing go Hot.

Indeed, and if those threats along with provocations are meant to incite the Russians what is the gain from it?

Does anyone have a theory on this?

Like many others I have followed this story since breaking, but this latest twist to me is far more worrisome... I have been asked to contribute to other discussions on this matter, however I believe these reports and my personal views warranted a separate thread.

If we are indeed pushing the Russians, and it seems more than clear that we are if you simply read through the reports in this thread, it seems beyond wreckless, in fact dangerous, and I can't find any justification for it.

Unless there is something western intelligence has that we are not aware of, perhaps they have a reason for it... but as I said it is a mystery.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]

The threats are designed to provoke the Russians.

The crazier the Russians can be provoked into sounding, the more money these guys' (and Sarkozy is no Chirac, he's Bush's buddy remember) backers at EADS, LockMart, etc. stand to rake in from their respective sets of gullible taxpayers

I'm thinking that Energy and Finance are behind it for the most part. America is trying to fulfill world hegemony once and for all. Problem is, it has to borrow money from the same countries that it is threatening. Russia is some 300 Billion in the Black every year, while America is the worlds largest dead beat Debtor.

The only solution is to control Resources, which are REAL wealth. Thus the wars in the Middle East. I think the Russian's are drawing the Line at Iranian and Caspian Oil.

America will have to try and use its conventional forces to secure those resources BEFORE it goes bankrupt just like the Soviets. The Russian's don't appear to be going quietly. A very dangerous situation.

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012

---

I do not know, of course. But i can't even think of any good reason why this mess evolved the way it did.
Why Saakashvilli choose to attack? Even if one accepts provocations and ethnic issues taking place, Saakashvilli must have understand what it will cost Georgia ,or him personally even if he does not care for his country.
Why Russia answered in such a brutal and dishonest manner? Why they kept this area unstable for so long? Small gains - Abkhazia, s. Osetia or even puppet Georgia if the plan worked are worthy worsening relationships with almost all its neighbors and EU/US? Worthy of possible cold war? Worthy of US missile shield in Ukraine?
And why now EU and US are so harsh in what they say? It does not help with anything. Sweet-talking and saying that Russia deserves better treatment and influence while sending observers or even peacekeepers to the area will make Russian leader look strong to his public and Georgia feel protected.
And all along the way wrong choices are made and effort goes into wrong channels. I cannot understand it. I accept the presence of "big political chess" game in which few moves might seem illogical but the complete combination could be what really matters. But those few moves forward i can read are very worrying. I do not want anyone to be on a pawn's side while those big combinations take place. Also taking into consideration that number of nations now posses the ability to quickly end this game ,if their position will be extremely threatened , for a very long time with one red button is not calming.
I do not think that ww3 is to be in the near future, but it could be ugly enough even without it.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge

---

Like you said, it may not be WWIII, but something will come of this, the Russians have been insulted and provoked, the firing line will be at or near the Polish border, the final catalyst, the US/European missile defense shield. IMO

It's like watching two schoolyard bullies compete over little guys to beat up and push around, until the inevitable happens, when the two bullies square off with each other after school for a fight for supremacy.

This however is far more dangerous, these bullies have major weaponry... they are insulting and threatening each other, and in time something will happen...

From a link I read off of the megathread. The Georgians had US supplied intel showing a Russian convoy heading for a choke point. The main tunnel connection North and South Ossetia. At the same moment peace negotiations were breaking down. Georgia figured their best bet was to try and destroy the chokepoint first. They failed. Conflict on.

Now from the AP:

www.washingtontimes.com...



So, now the Russians are war criminals, and perhaps they will push that issue too?

This is getting kinda thick... and a bit scary.

I wonder how far they can push the Russians without a future threat of serious confrontations.

The US was also accused of war crimes, nothing ever came of that... The US invaded a sovereign nation based on fabricated intelligence, and it resulted in the deaths of thousands of civilians and combatants.. and devastating destruction.

Who has the high moral ground here?

Is that why the Bush administration is using France to threaten Russia by proxy?