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.

 

What's your view on George-Russia conflict?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:11 AM
link   
I'm just interested in peoples' perceptions of the conflict between Georgia and Russia now that some of the dust has settled and more information is starting to come out.

Who do you see as the aggressors? Who were the victims?

Was this a demonstration of Russian bullying and aggression? Or were the Georgian government equally (if not more) to blame for the crisis and its handling?

I've got my views, but I'll keep them to myself for now - but I'd be very interested to hear peoples' opinions




posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   
Aggressor: Georgian politicians.
Provocers: Russian dito.
Victims: General civilians on both sides.

You have to understand the history; the Russians and Caucasian rebublics (sovereign or not) have always been in each others hair. This has to do with different mentalities, goals and ethnicities.
None of the sides in this conflic are ready to step down, the Russian side is way to aware of how vague their control in this region is, and have always been. If they let some part go, the others will cry out for freedom directly. I don't say that no part has the right to struggle for their independence, but there are different ways to play the game with Russia. Look at Tartarstan, they made it A-ok because they did it by diplomacy and careful stratigies. But also did Tartarstan not have the ancient grudges like most of the caucasian states have.
The people in this specific area also have a certain way of life and a very strong feeling of national pride and they won't take crap from anyone, and especially not from Russia who has been pushing them around all the time.
But is it really that smart to raise arms agains an opponent that will obiously kick you ass over and over? I would say not. But they think so.

It is so much more complicated than this, but it's a starter.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:37 AM
link   
It's pretty hard to ignore the facts in this case.

1.) Georgia launched an artillery attack on South Ossetia during the night on August 7.
2.) They killed a large number of civilians and UN Mandated Peacekeepers (Russians).
3.) Russia responded on August 8 and drove the Georgian troops out of South Ossetia and back into their own territory.
4.) Russia agreed to the French brokered peace treaty.
5.) Russia setup buffer zones and performed peacekeeping duties as agreed in the peace treaty.
6.) Russia withdrew to it's previous positions as agreed in the peace treaty.
7.) Russia received international condemnation, threats and sanctions.
8) Georgia received international praise, support and billions of US dollars to rebuild their army and economy.
9.) US Taxpayers got shafted once again.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:45 AM
link   
I know for a fact that the US sent weapons and military supplies to Georgia in the week before Georgia attacked Ossetia. I have heard the theory that Dick Cheney was the mastermind behind this war. He probably made a fortune from it.



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Here's a question... how would it affect the world if Russia was invited to join NATO? Would they ever go for it, and would NATO ever conceivably extend the invitation?

Failing that, how about the EU?



posted on Oct, 29 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
I think it likely that the invasion of S.Ossetia by Georgia was a prelude to an Obama win that will help set the stage for further American/Israeli (and allied) *sponsored* actions in this part of the world that are going to be in line with Brzezinski (Russiaphobe) hard line policy. The NeoCons merely passed the torch over to the Dem. side of the aisle to further carry on their slightly modified agenda.

Everywhere now we see the scramble is on for control of real estate and the oil/nat. gas pipeline routes that this battle is largely about. One can clearly see this doctrine in the pre 9-11 battle in Afghanistan between Bridas and Unocal factions courting the Taliban of which Bridas reportedly won. This set the stage for having to have a pretext (9-11) so that a consortium of business/gov. interests could invade Afghanistan and seize an area that they could not win by lawful business deals. Look for more of the same in the Caspian Basin and surrounding areas of Russia as Obama takes the stage to carry on (oil/gas) Empire "Wars that won't end in our lifetime."



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join