Nato holds Georgia crisis summit

Nato holds Georgia crisis summit

news.bbc.co.uk

Nato foreign ministers are gathering in Brussels for an emergency summit to discuss how the alliance should respond to Russia's military action in Georgia.

On the eve of the meeting, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the West must deprive Russia of any strategic victory from its assault on Georgia.

Tbilisi says Russia is not pulling out, as pledged, but Moscow denies it.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The outcome of this meeting will likely influence how this crisis develops both in the short term and the medium term.

It will be interesting to see whether specific sanctions emerge or whether NATO is only able to produce a carefully-worded statement.




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

There is just so much focus and coverage of this that I wonder just what is happening elsewhere that is not getting coverage. After all, this is nothing more than a regional dispute that has been blown WAY out of proportion by western media and politicians.

All focus has been shifted from the constant Iranian threat stories and hyped fear to Russia and it's evil domination plots to enslave all democratic states that border it.

As always, it's time to look at what isn't getting media attention, rather than what is.

Last I checked Russian was a representative democracy, so who is liberating who?

US to liberate Ukraine from it's natural resources and leave pile of sand...news at 5.

reply to post by Britguy


It's always helpful to get some lateral thinking. What you have said could arguably spawn a theory that the U.S. was happy for this whole thing to blow up in the first place (-although on the evidence I've seen so far I tend to believe the Russians encouraged the South Ossetian separatists to stir trouble, in the full knowledge there would be a backlash).


reply to post by Regenmacher

Last I checked Russian was a representative democracy

Correct on paper, but in reality the media are pretty tightly controlled. National TV news shamelessly spews pro-Putin propaganda, often in the guise of national interest / patriotism.

I agree though, it is not a straightforward case of "Who are the good guys and who are the bad guys?" All I look for is "Who is bending / breaking international law?"




[edit on 19/8/08 by pause4thought]

Originally posted by pause4thought
Correct on paper, but in reality the media are pretty tightly controlled. National TV news shamelessly spews pro-Putin propaganda, often in the guise of national interest / patriotism.

And that's different how?

Ok, I'll grant you there's one difference. Our media manipulation is a little more refined. We have one side that stirs up sentiment against the country's leader while the other side stirs up support. But you'll notice that both sides manipulate the public to support the government's agenda. This war's a good case in point - seen any articles on CNN that are pro Russia? I haven't, but I did see them get caught showing pics of the destruction caused by the Georgians and claiming it was the destruction caused by the Russians..

Makes you wonder, huh?

reply to post by pause4thought


I really have not noticed much of a difference from either side's main stream media in regards to the bias and spin factor. I am sure thousands of internet savvy Russians read news outside their domains also.

Ria Novosta seems fairly balanced, and a lot more than Fox News:
en.rian.ru...

I will have to ask my Russian friends if their media headlines Bigfoot and ET news to distract their sheeple from asking too many questions....lol


NATO foreign ministers to send firm message to Moscow

"We are going to send the message that we are not going to allow Russia to draw a new line at those states that are not yet integrated into the transatlantic structures like Georgia and Ukraine," she said.

"We are determined to deny them their strategic objective."

[edit on 19-8-2008 by Regenmacher]

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

Originally posted by pause4thought
Correct on paper, but in reality the media are pretty tightly controlled. National TV news shamelessly spews pro-Putin propaganda, often in the guise of national interest / patriotism.

And that's different how?

Ok, I'll grant you there's one difference. Our media manipulation is a little more refined. We have one side that stirs up sentiment against the country's leader while the other side stirs up support.

And therein lies the answer. During a Russian election the TV broadcasts are almost entirely one-sided, especially when it comes to news broadcasts. And I mean one-sided not just in terms of being pro-Putin / Putin poodle, but also in terms of deriding the opposition.

It's not very different once an election is over, either.

(And just to clarify, I agree with you that the most powerful western media are often controlled/manipulated by media barons/news editors, etc. to spoon-fed the masses as to how they should interpret events/evidence/statements, etc., so it is necessary to engage in your own research to get to the bottom of current events in general.

I also have enough of a sense of humour to enjoy your avatar!)



reply to post by Regenmacher


Many thanks for providing additional information.

I agree that the quote from Rice that you provided was notable. It's pretty clumsy if you ask me. Surely the issue is that Georgia's territory has been breached in contradiction of international law, over and above concerns about the need to counter any Russian "strategic objective". The latter sounds like she's playing 'Risk' (-a board game in which players seek to dominate countries, then continents by squeezing out rival powers).

A faux pas / freudian slip, perhaps?

I also noted the following (from the same source) with interest:

These would likely include agreement to send a team of civil emergency planning experts to help Georgia assess the damage done to its infrastructure during the Russian military action which began over a week ago, including energy supplies and the public health system.

The ministers could also agree to help assess the damage to Georgia's military facilities, in particular reports that its radar system was badly damaged.

This could reveal the other side of the coin: 'shrewd' US strategy (in inverted commas because I find any strategy that leads to deaths/suffering despicable). In allowing the Russian to carry on doing their worst for a few days, the US just happens to gain the opportunity to engage in reconstruction. The determination of the Georgian people to ally themselves with the West will thereby be cemented (via the civilian programmes) and the degree to which the Georgian military is ready for integration into NATO will be materially increased (via the installation of NATO radar systems).

It all fits like a glove: Russia gets its cake (South Ossetia / Abkhazia) and the U.S. gets its cake: Georgia.

My reading is that both parties will be satisfied, thus averting the possibility of any ongoing or wider conflict.

(It's all a bit late for dead and maimed, though. As usual.)

Here's an initial report of the outcome:

NATO cools relations with Russia

Nato foreign ministers have said there will be "no business as usual" with Russia, as they urged Moscow to pull its troops out of Georgia immediately...

...In a joint statement, Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said no co-operative programmes had been axed yet "but this issue will have to be taken into view".

Nothing drastic, that's for sure. It tends to back up what I've said above: this will now blow over, with both sides considering that they've 'made gains'. How significant the cooling off in NATO-Russia relations will be is now the question.

The Russian government has started to respond to the NATO announcement:

Russia hits back at NATO warning

I find the following quote from Russia's Foreign Minister difficult to believe until the facts on the ground support it:

He insisted Moscow was not occupying Georgia and had no plans to annex the separatist region of South Ossetia.

Furthermore, it seems the Russian government is pretending to be surprised that NATO has been roused by recent events, which is not a very constructive response.