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

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012

.... France to threaten Russia by proxy?

France is now head of EU, so Sarkozy is not talking that much as president of France but as "president" of EU. They have some kind of rotation and now it is him. EU had to react once one of its members (Poland) was thretened with targeting of nukes. But as all things lately they choose poor reaction to poor statesment in poor situation.

reply to post by ZeroKnowledge


Of course, but throughout these reports the US position is stressed along with what Sarkozy says... From a Russian perspective it would be easy to see Sarkozy as nothing more than a mouth piece for the Bush administration.

Hi There,

I think it is important that the following BBC weblink is seen and digested by everyone, in order that an more accurate opinion can be discerned regarding Russia's actions in Georgia.

Most western-media, particularly that in America, has sought to present the conflict to Americans as a too strong a reply to Georgia's attack upon Ossetia, and has further sought to both castigate and demonize the Russian response for political gain. Basically, the American-media has simply determined that its American audience is so unintelligent that they will swallow whatever lies it prints, and whatever slight-of-hand it produces on the television. All of this with a nod of the head from a grinning administration.

Russians losing propaganda war

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in Tbilisi on 13 August 2008
Most of the Western media is based in Georgia

The Bush administration appears to be trying to turn a failed military operation by Georgia into a successful diplomatic operation against Russia.

It is doing so by presenting the Russian actions as aggression and playing down the Georgian attack into South Ossetia on 7 August, which triggered the Russian operation.

Yet the evidence from South Ossetia about that attack indicates that it was extensive and damaging.

Blame game

The BBC's Sarah Rainsford has reported: "Many Ossetians I met both in Tskhinvali and in the main refugee camp in Russia are furious about what has happened to their city.

"They are very clear who they blame: Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili, who sent troops to re-take control of this breakaway region."

Human Rights Watch concluded after an on-the-ground inspection: "Witness accounts and the timing of the damage would point to Georgian fire accounting for much of the damage described [in Tskhinvali]."

One problem for the Russians is that they have not yet learned how to play the media game. Their authoritarian government might never do so.

Most of the Western media is based in Georgia. The Russians were slow to give access from their side and this has helped them lose the propaganda war.

Georgia, meanwhile, was comparing this to Prague in 1968 and Budapest in 1956. Even the massacre at Srebrenica was recalled.

Mud sticks

The comparisons did not fit the facts, but some of the mud has stuck and Russia has been on the international defensive.

The visit by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Georgia is a signal of support for Mr Saakashvili.

Significantly, she is not paying a matching visit to Moscow but will return directly to the United States where she will brief President George W Bush in Texas.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Washington on 13 August 2008
Washington has accused Russia of widening the conflict

She has refused to condemn Georgia and barely acknowledged Russia's point that it had to protect its peacekeeping forces (a battalion-sized unit allowed in South Ossetia along with Georgian and North Ossetian and South Ossetian forces under a 1992 agreement).

Instead she blamed Russia for widening the conflict by bombing beyond what the 1992 deal called the "zone of conflict" in South Ossetia.

She said: "This is something that, had it been about South Ossetia, could have been resolved within certain limits.

"Russian peacekeepers were in the area; that is true. And Russia initially said it needed to act to protect its peacekeepers and its people.

"But what Russia has done is well beyond anything that anyone could say is for the protection of those people and for those peacekeepers."

The Americans have sent in planes full of humanitarian aid, again a symbol of support.

But they have sent no military supplies. Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said: "I don't see any prospect for the use of military force by the United States in this situation. Is that clear enough?"

US diplomacy is also concentrating on the issue of sovereignty and territorial integrity - which means that South Ossetia and the other restless region, Abkhazia, must remain within Georgian borders. Russian has questioned this.

Moscow's anger

This widens the whole question into one of Russian behaviour generally, which is much surer ground for the Bush administration. The US will continue to press for eventual Georgian and Ukrainian membership of Nato.

The Republican presidential hopeful Senator John McCain also sees in this conflict an opportunity to put Russia in the dock, declaring: "We are all Georgians now."

German Chancellor Angela Merkel (R) and Dmitry Medvedev at G8 in Japan on 9 July 2008
Germany, at least, has been notably reluctant to find fault with Russia

All this is likely to anger Moscow, which will feel that it has a case and that it is being ignored. Right from the start it said that the operation was not an invasion.

The adverse effect on US-Russia relations, about which Mr Gates warned, is going to be a two-way process.

There are signs, though, that there is some sympathy for Russia within the European Union - although not among the Eastern European states who still fear Russia and not in the British government, which has matched the US line about Russian "aggression".

But German Chancellor Angela Merkel is seeing Russian leaders and while she too will urge them not to challenge borders, the German government has been notably reluctant to blame Russia.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Best wishes

I'm not worried about the Russians, they are going to do what they want regardless of what anyone says. I'm a WHOLE lot more worried about what the west will do. Don't provoke this Russian gov't. They WILL push back.

Originally posted by intrepid
Don't provoke this Russian gov't. They WILL push back.

I agree, which is why I found these latest twists in this ongoing saga so worrisome.

The thing is, they have already been provoked... and they are rubbing it in.

This was planned in June by Russia and they moved most of their troops to the region under the cover of an exercise. It was them who destroyed the city in South Ossetia with their heavy handed tactics, Just like Grozny. If you have even seen that city then you know what the Russians are like.

The Russians are digging in 30 miles outside of Tbilisi. If they try to enter the city they are going to have allot of men killed. They will be running into a huge natural trap and the Turks may move in to stop them.

Gates was right by saying what he said because what Russia says is utterly stupid. You don't threaten a country with nukes for wanting to be able to defend itself.

Russia could not even hit the oil pipeline with their bombers and the same un-accurate bombs killed many innocent people. The Russians used their best troops and faulty combat tactics and were very lucky that Georgia was not armed very well. Had Georgia had a decent air defense network and tank busting TOW or Javelin systems then Russia would be getting a beating. Only Russia's superior man power gave them a win.

reply to post by elysiumfire


I'm curious, do you have any idea how the Russians can now pull out and save face in light of all that has happened?

As you stated they have already been demonized by the western media, and now are being pushed hard to 'comply' with the agreements.

Do the Russians have any way out of this now that will not make them look like they are caving in to the USA and/or the 'west'?

Originally posted by Sky watcher
Russia could not even hit the oil pipeline with their bombers and the same un-accurate bombs killed many innocent people. The Russians used their best troops and faulty combat tactics and were very lucky that Georgia was not armed very well. Had Georgia had a decent air defense network and tank busting TOW or Javelin systems then Russia would be getting a beating. Only Russia's superior man power gave them a win.

Are you saying that the Russians are no match militarily for the USA?

I have seen this assumption posted elsewhere, and I think it would extremely dangerous to buy the propaganda and assume that Russia cant match the military power of the mighty USA.

It is a test I'd rather never see happen, though with the rhetoric, threats, provocations, movements of military assets, and defense systems taking priority on both sides... the test may yield real results soon, provided there is anyone left to asses the battlefield damages.

I guess nuking is good idea if the NWO wants the population down to 500 million to a billion people worldwide. They probably only need to kill 1 billion people with nukes, the sosial and economic unrest that follows will kill the rest of us leaving the elite to rule I'm not a NWO believer but its going in that direction imho, how much unrest in the world can be substained before it makes WW3 a reality? What we need now is Israel nuking that Iranian nuclear reactor, like forseen by a former remote viewer for the US goverment. I heard a radio interview with him in 2001 where he said that "they" had seen that WW3 was started by the Iraq war in 1991 but that it was a slow trickeling process wih more and more unrest on Earth, but that WW3 really shot pace when the Isralies nuked a Iranian nuklear reactor.


[edit on 17-8-2008 by Acharya]

reply to post by Acharya


Population reduction eh?

Where is the profit in that?

By the way.... This just in... Chavez speaks out to Georgia:

Chavez calls Georgia's leader a US 'puppet'

www.washingtontimes.com...

CARACAS, VENEZUELA (AP) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez says he considers Georgia's leader a "puppet" of Washington and is backing Russia in its conflict with the former Soviet republic.

Chavez said Sunday on his weekly broadcast show that the Russians "did what they had to do" in response to what he called a military provocation in the Georgian province of South Ossetia.

Chavez accused Washington of sparking the conflict, saying Georgia's troops were armed and trained by the United States. He did not elaborate, but added that Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili is "nothing but a puppet of the U.S. empire."

U.S. President George W. Bush has demanded that Russia respect Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity.

It's getting thicker....

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012


Says so on the Georgia Guidestones, if you believe that stuff. Reasons why NWO want population reduction




[edit on 17-8-2008 by Acharya]

reply to post by Acharya

Ruling over radioactive waste dump and propelling a global warming cookoff means feudalism and collapse of all monetary systems. That's no plan...that's called sheeple fear food to keep the masses in the huts.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by Regenmacher]

More news?

Another interesting article from the Guardian, just in:

The Russians yearn for respect in the same way as a street kid with a knife

Rubbing Moscow's nose in its historical failures cannot bring peace. The west must revive the art of traditional diplomacy

www.guardian.co.uk...

Seldom since the 1968 Russian invasion of Czechoslovakia has the west found itself in such a muddle as it is today about events in Georgia and South Ossetia. Among rightwingers, hawks are suddenly back in fashion, and not only in Washington. David Cameron wants Georgia admitted to Nato in quick time. Russian threats to Poland are compared to the Cuban missile confrontation.

In truth, of course, this remains a small crisis by comparison with those of the cold war, even if some of the principals, in Moscow as well as Washington, talk as if Stanley Kubrick was writing their lines. It is nonetheless a real one, because Moscow has shown its readiness to use force in its proclaimed sphere of influence.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, US policy in eastern Europe and beyond has sought to exploit Russian weakness to install pro-western regimes wherever fertile soil could be found. In Washington's perception, this does not represent aggression or even unreasonable assertiveness, because its honourable objective is to replace tyranny and repression with democracy and freedom.

The Russians do not care sixpence about these fine things. They perceive only that American missiles are on their way into Poland and the Czech Republic, while Georgia is becoming a US puppet. A Russian academic living in the west inquired in my hearing a few weeks ago: "What would George Bush say if our government announced that it was installing an anti-missile system in Cuba?"

Much more in the full page, good read.

Originally posted by The_Alarmist2012

Are you saying that the Russians are no match militarily for the USA?

I'll answer that question in one word.

No.

Poorly trained, poorly motivated, poorly manned, poorly... and this is not an anti russia comment, far from it. It is however the truth. The west has known for decades now that a Russian assault would flounder in days unless it was inside cities ala Stalingrad. Their tactical nuke artillery is the answer to US / Wests presicision guided weaponry, and their helicopters are about the only weapon a western army would have to fear due to their heavy capability and very good (read superbly excellent) tactical doctrine in helicopter warfare.

Take the helicopters out of the equation and you have a very bad situation for Russian forces.

reply to post by Dan Tanna


That is a lot of one words.

Got any statistics, reports or any kind of evidence to back your claims up, or is that just your opinion?

I think it is critical, if we are going to asses the the real threat Russia's military poses to NATO and the west that we use FACTS or at least provide some supportive evidence.

If Russia is ultimately intent on driving out western influence from the region and perhaps restoring some level of control over the former soviet states, then they must be fairly confident in their military abilities.

[edit on 17-8-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]

Originally posted by HimWhoHathAnEar
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.

Originally posted by Sky watcher

Are you saying that the Russians are no match militarily for the USA?

With that surplus, and the fact that they seem to have enough oil for themselves, do you think Russia is re-building their military might?

If so, how long do you think, it will take them to have weapons as good as, as sophisticated as the west?

Can they truly master, encourage new technologies (computer software, avionics, composite material, etc.), foster talent from everywhere for that purpose?

Or will Russia use China and India University talents to became the police of that portion of the world (against American menace?).

It sure look like Russia is flexing muscles, but how long before they became a serious threat?

More news?

This one just in....

U.S., allies contemplating action against Russia

www.usatoday.com...

CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — The United States on Sunday accused Russia of stalling its military pullback in Georgia, but the Bush administration is not rushing to repudiate Moscow for its actions.

The White House is struggling to figure out the best way to penalize Russia. It doesn't want to deeply damage existing cooperation on many fronts or discourage Moscow from further integrating itself into global economic and political institutions. At the same time, U.S. officials say Russia can't be allowed to get away with invading its neighbor.

Fighting broke out after Georgia launched a massive barrage Aug. 7 to try to take control of the separatist province of South Ossetia, which is heavily influenced by Russia. The Russian army quickly overwhelmed Georgia's forces, then drove deep into the country, bombed Georgian ports and military installations and tied up an east-west highway through the nation.

"There's no doubt there will be further consequences," said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who briefed President George W. Bush on the fast-changing crisis over the weekend at his Texas ranch.

She returned to Washington on Sunday and is flying to Europe on Monday to talk with NATO allies about what message the West should send to Russia.

Does President Bush have a nuclear survival bunker in Crawford?

[edit on 17-8-2008 by The_Alarmist2012]

reply to post by The_Alarmist2012


Washington: send angry letter again in Russian this time.
Moscow: more spam from DC, delete.

reply to post by Regenmacher


That would be an instant classic!

If this can be resolved via e-mails... awesome!

Suppose we will find out one way or the other soon.

More news?

From you:

ATS Thread full post link

Originally posted by Regenmacher
Looks like S. Ossetia is are prepping to join the Russian Federation.

South Ossetia President Sacks Government, Declares Emergency

MOSCOW (AFP)--The president of Georgia's pro-Russian separatist republic of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity, late Sunday dismissed his government and proclaimed a state of emergency in the rebel region, Russia's Vesti-24 TV reported.

"I have signed three decrees including one on the resignation of the government, another on proclamation of a state of emergency in South Ossetia and the third on setting up an emergency committee to settle the consequences of the Georgian aggression," Kokoity told the channel.

Meanwhile, looks like a Russian naval fleet is going to Venezuela and it's a stalemate at the UN.

Hey news is news, I'll take it where I can find it.

reply to post by PopeyeFAFL


Actually Russian technology is quite good. Their systems usually have good redundancy built in IMO. I think your question cuts to the heart of the matter in that if the US stays on its present course and Russia on its, there will be a big change in the balance of power do to resources. The US is doing everything it can to control access to Caspian and Middle East Energy.

Dan Tanna, Of course the Russians conventional capabilities are lacking at the moment. This is what makes the thousands of nukes pointed at us all the more disconcerting. They could fall back to them out of desperation.