Russia attacks Georgia and how Russia just spoiled Rothschild/Soros plans

[MikeWB]

Hahahah...

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 64,00.html
Israel freezes defense sales to Georgia
Published:    08.05.08, 18:31 / Israel News
Israel has decided to halt all sales of military equipment to Georgia because of objections from Russia, which is locked in a feud with its smaller Caucasus neighbor, Defense Ministry officials said Tuesday.
 
The officials said the freeze was partially intended to give Israel leverage with Moscow in its attempts to persuade Russia not to ship arms and equipment to Iran. (AP)

[MikeWB]

24 Oct 2007
'Inspired' by Israel, Georgia's FM seeks closer strategic ties
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/915881.html
By Yossi Melman


"We are interested in a strategic partnership with Israel at the same level as our strategic partnership with the United States," Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili of Georgia told Haaretz yesterday.

Bezhuashvili, who in the past served as his country's defense minister, would not elaborate on what he means by "strategic cooperation." However the phrase is understood as a code for arms and other security-related purchases, such as upgrading of planes, tanks, artillery, and border monitoring equipment.

Such cooperation existed without fanfare until the beginning of 2005, and included a deal with Elbit defense electronics to upgrade 25 of Georgia's MIG fighter jets, communications equipment, and brief military advisors. But under pressure from Russia, Israel has since limited itself to selling Georgia only defensive weapons.

Bezhuashvili, 40, studied law at the University of Kiev and in Texas, and furthered his education at Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government. As Georgia's foreign minister for the past two years, he guiding a pro-Western foreign policy toward European Union and NATO membership.

Troubling ties

But troubled relations with Russia are casting a pall over these efforts. Since Georgia declared its independence in 1991, Russia has supported two separatist groups in Georgia, from the regions of Avkhazia and South Ossetia. Numerous flare-ups between the Georgian army and the separatists have occured, in which the casualties occasionally include Russian officers.

"Since 2001, we are part of the struggle against global terrorism," Bezhuashvili said. "Our soldiers are in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan, and we don't harbor terrorists. However to my regret, relations with Russia are deteriorating."

According to Bezhuashvili, Russia wants relations with Georgia to be those of "client-patron."

Russia has also raised the cost of gas and oil to Georgia, and has banned the import of wine and mineral water from Georgia.

To improve its economic situation, Georgia wants to encourage Israeli investments to raise the trade balance beyond its present rate, which according to Georgia's ambassador to Israel, Lasha Zhvania, is an unsatisfactory $20 million annually.

"We admire the spirit and commitment of the people of Israel to their country," Bezhuashvili said. "We are inspired by it." During his visit, Bezhuashvili met with President Shimon Peres and Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik, and will meet today with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

[MikeWB]

War between Russia and Georgia orchestrated from USA
09.08.2008    Source: Pravda.Ru    URL: http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/confl ... _georgia-0

The US administration urged for an immediate cease-fire in the conflict between Russia and Georgia over the unrecognized republic of South Ossetia.

In the meantime, Russian officials believe that it was the USA that orchestrated the current conflict. The chairman of the State Duma Committee for Security, Vladimir Vasilyev, believes that the current conflict is South Ossetia is very reminiscent to the wars in Iraq and Kosovo.

"The things that were happening in Kosovo, the things that were happening in Iraq – we are now following the same path. The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America. South Ossetian defense officials used to make statements about imminent aggression from Georgia, but the latter denied everything, whereas the US Department of State released no comments on the matter. In essence, they have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals. They are responsible for this. The world community will learn about it," the official said.

In the meantime, it became known that the Georgian troops conducted volley-fire cleansings of several South Ossetian settlements, where people's houses were simply leveled.

"The number of victims with women, children and elderly people among them, can be counted in hundreds and even thousands," a source from South Ossetian government in the capital of Tskhinvali said.

The head of the Russian Foreign Ministry, Sergei Lavrov, told reporters that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia question its consistency as a state and as a responsible member of the international community, Interfax reports.

"Civilians, including women, children and elderly people, are dying in South Ossetia. In addition to that, Georgia conducts ethnic scouring in South Ossetian villages. The situation in South Ossetia continues to worsen every hour. Georgia uses military hardware and heavy arms against people. They shell residential quarters of Tskhinvali [the capital] and other settlements. They bomb the humanitarian convoys. The number of refugees continues to rise – the people try to save their lives, the lives of their children and relatives. A humanitarian catastrophe is gathering pace," Russia's Foreign Minister said.

The minister added that the Georgian administration ignored the appeal from the UN General Assembly to observe the Olympic truce during the Beijing Olympics.

"The Georgian administration has found the use to its arms, which they have been purchasing during the recent several years," Lavrov said. "The fact that Georgian peacemakers in the structure of joint peacemaking forces opened fire on their Russian comrades from one and the same contingent speaks for itself, I think," the minister added.

"Now it is clear to us why Georgia never accepted Russia's offer to sign a legally binding document not to use force for the regulation of the South Ossetian conflict," Lavrov said. "Not so long ago, before the military actions in South Ossetia, Georgia's President Saakashvili said that there was no point in such a document because Georgia would not use force against its people, as he said. It just so happens that it is using it," Sergei Lavrov said.

Sergei Lavrov believes that the international community should stop turning a blind eye on Georgia's active deals to purchase arms.

"We have repeatedly warned that the international community should not turn a blind eye on massive purchases of offensive arms, in which the Georgian administration has been involved during the recent two years," Lavrov said.

[MikeWB]

MUST READ!!!
http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/Articl ... 36,00.html

War in Georgia: The Israeli connection

For past seven years, Israeli companies have been helping Gerogian army to preparer for war against Russia through arms deals, training of infantry units and security advice
Arie Egozi

The fighting which broke out over the weekend between Russia and Georgia has brought Israel's intensive involvement in the region into the limelight. This involvement includes the sale of advanced weapons to Georgia and the training of the Georgian army's infantry forces.
 
The Defense Ministry held a special meeting Sunday to discuss the various arms deals held by Israelis in Georgia, but no change in policy has been announced as of yet.
 
Advice
Foreign Ministry warns Israelis against traveling to Georgia / Roee Nahmias
Ministry ups travel warning due to ongoing military conflict with Russia, asks Israelis already in Georgia to contact embassy in Tbilsi or ministry's situation room in Israel
Full story
"The subject is closely monitored," said sources in the Defense Ministry. "We are not operating in any way which may counter Israeli interests. We have turned down many requests involving arms sales to Georgia; and the ones which have been approves have been duly scrutinized. So far, we have placed no limitations on the sale of protective measures."  
 
Israel began selling arms to Georgia about seven years ago following an initiative by Georgian citizens who immigrated to Israel and became businesspeople.
 
"They contacted defense industry officials and arms dealers and told them that Georgia had relatively large budgets and could be interested in purchasing Israeli weapons," says a source involved in arms exports.
 
The military cooperation between the countries developed swiftly. The fact that Georgia's defense minister, Davit Kezerashvili, is a former Israeli who is fluent in Hebrew contributed to this cooperation.
 
"His door was always open to the Israelis who came and offered his country arms systems made in Israel," the source said. "Compared to countries in Eastern Europe, the deals in this country were conducted fast, mainly due to the defense minister's personal involvement."
 
Among the Israelis who took advantage of the opportunity and began doing business in Georgia were former Minister Roni Milo and his brother Shlomo, former director-general of the Military Industries, Brigadier-General (Res.) Gal Hirsch and Major-General (Res.) Yisrael Ziv.
 
Roni Milo conducted business in Georgia for Elbit Systems and the Military Industries, and with his help Israel's defense industries managed to sell to Georgia remote-piloted vehicles (RPVs), automatic turrets for armored vehicles, antiaircraft systems, communication systems, shells and rockets.
 
According to Israeli sources, Gal Hirsch gave the Georgian army advice on the establishment of elite units such as Sayeret Matkal and on rearmament, and gave various courses in the fields of combat intelligence and fighting in built-up areas.
 
'Don't anger the Russians'
The Israelis operating in Georgia attempted to convince the Israeli Aerospace Industries to sell various systems to the Georgian air force, but were turned down. The reason for the refusal was "special" relations created between the Aerospace Industries and Russia in terms of improving fighter jets produced in the former USSR and the fear that selling weapons to Georgia would anger the Russians and prompt them to cancel the deals.
 
Israelis' activity in Georgia and the deals they struck there were all authorized by the Defense Ministry. Israel viewed Georgia as a friendly state to which there is no reason not to sell arms systems similar to those Israel exports to other countries in the world.
 
As the tension between Russia and Georgia grew, however, increasing voices were heard in Israel – particularly in the Foreign Ministry – calling on the Defense Ministry to be more selective in the approval of the deals with Georgia for fear that they would anger Russia.
 
"It was clear that too many unmistakable Israeli systems in the possesion of the Georgian army would be like a red cloth in the face of a raging bull as far as Russia is concerned," explained a source in the defense establishment.
 
For inctance, the Russians viewed the operation of the Elbit System's RPVs as a real provocation.
 
"It was clear that the Russians were angry," says a defense establishment source, "and that the interception of three of these RPVs in the past three months was an expression of this anger. Not everyone in Israel understood the sensitive nerve Israel touched when it supplied such an advanced arms system to a country whose relations with Russia are highly tense."
 
In May it was eventually decide to approve future deals with Georgia only for the sale of non-offensive weapon systems, such as intelligence, communications and computer systems, and not to approve deals for the sale of rifles, aircraft, sells, etc.
 
A senior source in the Military Industry said Saturday that despite some reporters, the activity of Georgia's military industry was extremely limited.
 
"We conducted a small job for them several years ago," he said. "The rest of the deals remained on paper."
 
Dov Pikulin, one of the owners of the Authentico company specializing in trips and journeys to the area, says however that "the Israeli is the main investor in the Georgian economy. Everyone is there, directly or indirectly."
 
Georgian minister: Israel should be proud
"The Israelis should be proud of themselves for the Israeli training and education received by the Georgian soldiers," Georgian Minister Temur Yakobashvili said Saturday.
 
Yakobashvili is a Jew and is fluent in Hebrew. "We are now in a fight against the great Russia," he said, "and our hope is to receive assistance from the White House, because Georgia cannot survive on its own.
 
"It's important that the entire world understands that what is happening in Georgia now will affect the entire world order. It's not just Georgia's business, but the entire world's business."
 
One of the Georgian parliament members did not settle Saturday for the call for American aid, urging Israel to help stop the Russian offensive as well: "We need help from the UN and from our friends, headed by the United States and Israel. Today Georgia is in danger – tomorrow all the democratic countries in the region and in the entire world will be in danger too."
 
Zvi Zinger and Hanan Greenberg contributed to this report

[MikeWB]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92GC5G80&show_article=1
Bush warns Russia to pull back in Georgia   

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Monday demanded that Russia end a "dramatic and brutal escalation" of violence in Georgia, agree to an immediate cease-fire and accept international mediation to end the crisis in the former Soviet republic.
Almost immediately after his return from the Olympics in China, Bush warned Russia in his strongest comments since the fighting erupted over Georgia's separatist South Ossetia region last week to "reverse the course it appears to be on" and abandon any attempt it may have to topple Georgia's pro-western government.

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," the president said in a televised statement from the White House, calling on Moscow to sign on to the outlines of a cease-fire as the Georgian government has done.

"The Russian government must reverse the course it appears to be on and accept this peace agreement as a first step toward solving this conflict," Bush said, adding that he is deeply concerned that Russia, which Georgian officials say has effectively split their country in two, might bomb the civilian airport in the capital of Tbilisi.

He said Russia's escalation of the conflict had "raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region" and had "substantially damaged Russia's standing in the world." "These actions jeopardize Russia's relations with the United States and Europe," Bush said. "It's time for Russia to be true to its word to act to end this crisis."

Despite the tough talk, the president's comments were not backed up by any specific threat of consequences Russia might face if it ignores the warning. U.S. officials said they were committed to the diplomatic track and were working with U.S. allies in Europe and elsewhere, as well as with the Russians, to defuse the crisis.

Earlier Monday, the United States and the world's six other largest economic powers issued a call similar to Bush's for Russia to accept a truce and agree to mediation as conditions deteriorated and Russian troops continued their advances into Georgian territory.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her colleagues from the Group of Seven leading industrialized nations pledged their support for a negotiated solution to the conflict that has been raging since Friday, the State Department said.

"We want to see the Russians stand down," deputy spokesman Robert Wood told reporters. "What we're calling on is for Russia to stop its aggression."

Rice and the foreign ministers of Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan spoke in a conference call, during which they noted that Georgia had agreed to a cease-fire and wanted to see Russia sign on immediately, he said, adding that the call was one of more than 90 that Rice has made on the matter since Friday.

They called on Russia to respect Georgia's borders and expressed deep concern for civilian casualties that have occurred and noted that Georgia had agreed to a cease-fire and said the ministers wanted to see Russia sign on immediately as urgent consultations at the United Nations and NATO were expected, according to Wood.

The seven ministers backed a nascent mediation efforts led by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, whose country currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union, and Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb, whose country now holds the chair of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, he said.

The Group of Seven, or G7, is often expanded into what is known as the G8, a grouping that includes Russia, but Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was notably not included in the call.

Wood said the United States was hopeful that the U.N. Security Council would pass a "strong" resolution on the fighting that called for an end to attacks on both sides as well as mediation, but prospects for such a statement were dim given that Russia wields veto power on the 15-member body.

A senior U.S. diplomat, Matthew Bryza, is now in Tbilisi and is working with Georgian and European officials there on ways to calm the situation.

Meanwhile, the State Department said it has evacuated more than 170 American citizens from Georgia. Wood said two convoys carrying the Americans, along with family members of U.S. diplomats based in Georgia, left Tbilisi on Sunday and Monday for neighboring Armenia.

The U.S. Embassy in Georgia has distributed an initial contribution of $250,000 in humanitarian relief to victims of the fighting and is providing emergency equipment to people in need, although those supplies would run out later Monday, the department said.

The Pentagon said it had finished flying some 2,000 Georgian troops back home from Iraq on C-17 aircraft at Georgia's request.

It said it had informed the Russians about the flights before they began in order to avoid any mishaps, but Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin harshly criticized the step, saying it would hamper efforts to resolve the situation by reinforcing Georgian assets in a "conflict zone."

Wood rejected the criticism, saying: "We're not assisting in any conflict."

Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman said the U.S. flew the Georgians out of Iraq as part of a prior agreement that transport would be provided in case of an emergency.

Pentagon officials said Monday that U.S. military was assessing the fighting every day to determine whether less than 100 U.S. trainers should be pulled out of the country.

There had been about 130 trainers, including a few dozen civilian contractors, but the civilians had been scheduled to rotate out of the country and did so over the weekend, Whitman said. The remaining uniformed trainers were moved over the weekend to what officials believe is a safer location, he said.

[Ralph Furely]

"Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century," the president said in a televised statement from the White House, calling on Moscow to sign on to the outlines of a cease-fire as the Georgian government has done.

i dont remember the last time i read such thick irony.  he had to have been smirking when he said that.

[Anonymous]

LOL, Iraq/Kuwait come to mind... I do believe OIL was the igniter in that conflict where Iraq was having it's Oil slant drilled.

[MikeWB]

Hhahahhaha

[MikeWB]

Can we finally put the Zionist-started rumor that Putin/Medvedev are Jewish to rest? Good.

Putin calls Bush's bluff on Georgia - UPI, Aug. 11, 2008

By MARTIN SIEFF

UPI Published: Aug. 11, 2008 at 6:45 PM

http://www.upi.com/news/issueoftheday/2 ... 218473322/

WASHINGTON, Aug. 11 (UPI) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has called President Bush's bluff in his drive into Georgia to topple President Mikheil Saakashvili and affirm Russia's traditional dominance over the former Soviet republic.

The U.S. government was taken by surprise Friday when Putin unleashed the Russian army: Elements of the 58th Russian Army of the North Caucasus Military District thundered into South Ossetia, backed by the formidable 76th Airborne "Pskov" Division, to drive Georgian forces out of the breakaway secessionist region of South Ossetia. But once unleashed, they did not stop: Russian aircraft and artillery have bombarded the Georgian town of Gori and have even bombed Georgia's main international airport outside the capital, Tbilisi.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad even reported to the U.N. Security Council that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov had told U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a phone call that the pro-Western Saakashvili had to leave office. Khalilzad also clashed in an unusually nasty and public exchange with Russian Ambassador to the United Nations Vitaly Churkin.

The Bush administration has been gung-ho about supporting the pro-Western Saakashvili, who sent 2,000 Georgian troops to Iraq to aid U.S. forces there. Saakashvili wants to get his tiny former Soviet republic on the eastern shore of the Black Sea into NATO, and he had entirely convinced Bush, Rice and their top policymakers to back him all the way. But in March, at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, several of America's main NATO allies in Europe flatly refused to agree to let Georgia in.

The United States had major strategic reasons for backing Georgia, and the Europeans had major strategic reasons for refusing to do so. The United States has backed the construction of a major oil pipeline from neighboring Azerbaijan through Georgia that would break Russian domination of global export routes for oil from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan and from the Caspian Sea between them. The Caspian Basin is one of the largest potential sources of oil in the world.

However, the nations of Western Europe are already dependent on Russia for their natural gas supplies, especially for winter heating. And the Europeans are far more vulnerable to direct Russian pressure, especially if Moscow cuts off those gas supplies, than America is.

But also, Bush administration officials badly miscalculated: They did not realize that the Georgian army, at its best, is ramshackle and no match for even small Russian forces. They did not realize how determined the Russians were to topple Saakashvili, even if it meant resorting to force to do so. And they failed to rein in Saakashvili and prevent him from responding to Russian artillery bombardments of Georgian settlements close to the South Ossetian region.

Saakashvili sent his forces into South Ossetia, and they easily swept to the region's capital, Tskhinvali, despite fierce resistance.

Saakashvili may have thought he could not count on the next U.S. president, especially if it is Democratic front-runner Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, to back him to the hilt the way Bush has. So he may have wanted to take advantage of Bush's remaining months in the White House to finally eliminate the Russian-backed South Ossetian secessionists, who have been maintaining their thorny independence from Georgia ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991.

But Saakashvili miscalculated catastrophically: The United States still has 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq and another 36,000 in Afghanistan. Even Obama, who has long advocated a full U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq, wants to boost U.S. military forces in Afghanistan, initially by 10,000 more troops.

The last thing Bush or either of his prospective successors, Obama and Republican presidential contender Sen. John McCain of Arizona, want, therefore, is to open up a new military front anywhere in the world. That is especially the case where the conflict could risk direct U.S. military confrontation with Russia, the world's other major thermonuclear superpower in terms of nuclear warheads and delivery systems.

For 190 years until 1991, Georgia was under Russian rule. It was therefore ruled from Moscow longer and from an earlier date than most of America's states were part of the United States. The Russians have been determined that Georgia should not be allowed to join NATO. Also, Georgia remains on Russia's own southern border, and because of the long and bloody war against Chechen secessionists in the North Caucasus, large Russian military forces were always concentrated in the region.

Saakashvili has learned this lesson, but too late: He offered Russia a cease-fire. The Kremlin rejected it, and Russian forces are now driving deeper into Georgia. Where or when will they stop? Putin told the Russian people on state television Monday that the Russian government would not stop until it had taken "its peacekeeping mission to a logical conclusion."

What does Putin regard as a "logical conclusion" to the Georgian problem? We shall soon see.

[MikeWB]

From stratfor (email):

The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
August 12, 2008 | 1508 GMT



By George Friedman

The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.

Let's begin simply by reviewing the last few days.

On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.

On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region's absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.



(click image to enlarge)

On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.

The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion
In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia's move was deliberate.

The United States is Georgia's closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia's mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia's intentions. The second is that the United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow's calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.

The Western Encirclement of Russia
To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO's expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.


The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia's national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo's separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia's requests were ignored.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.

Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn't mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.

Resurrecting the Russian Sphere
Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.

By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.

The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow's interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).

In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn't all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.

The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia's public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

[MikeWB]

Georgia war is a neocon election ploy
Robert Scheer, Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Is it possible that this time the October surprise was tried in August, and that the garbage issue of brave little Georgia struggling for its survival from the grasp of the Russian bear was stoked to influence the U.S. presidential election?

Before you dismiss that possibility, consider the role of one Randy Scheunemann, for four years a paid lobbyist for the Georgian government, ending his official lobbying connection only in March, months after he became Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain's senior foreign policy adviser.

Previously, Scheunemann was best known as one of the neoconservatives who engineered the war in Iraq when he was a director of the Project for a New American Century. It was Scheunemann who, after working on the McCain 2000 presidential campaign, headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which championed the U.S. Iraq invasion.

There are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up. How else to explain the folly of his close friend and former employer, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, in ordering an invasion of the breakaway region of South Ossetia, which clearly was expected to produce a Russian counter-reaction. It is inconceivable that Saakashvili would have triggered this dangerous escalation without some assurance from influential Americans he trusted, like Scheunemann, that the United States would have his back. Scheunemann long guided McCain in these matters, even before he was officially running foreign policy for McCain's presidential campaign.

In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

Scheunemann is at the center of the neoconservative cabal that has come to dominate the Republican candidate's foreign policy stance in a replay of the run-up to the war against Iraq. These folks are always looking for a foreign enemy on which to base a new Cold War, and with the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime, it was Putin's Russia that came increasingly to fit the bill.

Yes, it sounds diabolical, but that may be the most accurate way to assess the designs of the McCain campaign in matters of war and peace. There is every indication that the candidate's demonization of Putin is an even grander plan than the previous use of Hussein to fuel American militarism with the fearsome enemy that it desperately needs.

McCain gets to look tough with a new Cold War to fight while Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, scrambling to make sense of a more measured foreign policy posture, will seem weak in comparison. Meanwhile, the dire consequences of the Bush legacy McCain has inherited, from the disaster of Iraq to the economic meltdown, conveniently will be ignored. But it will provide the military-industrial complex, which has helped bankroll the neoconservatives, with an excuse for ramping up a military budget that is already bigger than that of the rest of the world combined.

What is at work here is a neoconservative, self-fulfilling prophecy in which Russia is turned into an enemy that ramps up its largely reduced military, and Putin is cast as the new Joseph Stalin bogeyman, evoking images of the old Soviet Union. McCain has condemned a "revanchist Russia" that should once again be contained. Although Putin has been the enormously popular elected leader of post-Communist Russia, it is assumed that imperialism is always lurking, not only in his DNA but in that of the Russian people.

How convenient to forget that Stalin was a Georgian, and indeed if Russian troops had occupied the threatened Georgian town of Gori, they would have found a museum still honoring their local boy, who made good by seizing control of the Russian revolution. Indeed five Russian bombs were allegedly dropped on Gori's Stalin Square on Tuesday.

It should also be mentioned that the post-Communist Georgians have imperial designs on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. What a stark contradiction that the United States, which championed Kosovo's independence from Serbia, now is ignoring Georgia's invasion of its ethnically rebellious provinces.

For McCain to so fervently embrace Scheunemann's neoconservative line of demonizing Russia in the interest of appearing tough during an election is a reminder that a senator can be old and yet wildly irresponsible.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f ... 129NI4.DTL

[K-Sensor]

It's more than election ploy, but I'll agree that they may milk it for that too.    Obama and Mc Cain looked really bad in their response, if you ask me.  Obama was fumbling, whilst Mc Cain was acting like a rogue without a mind.

[MikeWB]

K-Sensor, it does appear that this was a good thing for McCain. McCain even upstaged the WH/GWB in his rhetoric.

Here's something strange as well:

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080813-georgian-attacks-might-not-be-russians-after-all.html
Russians may not be responsible for cyberattacks on Georgia
By Joel Hruska | Published: August 13, 2008 - 12:29PM CT

Earlier this week, we covered a report from the Georgian Foreign Ministry, claiming that the Russian Business Network (RBN) was actively engaged in cyberwarfare against Georgia—with the blessing and backing of the Russian government. There have been no new reports from that source, but several security experts have spoken up, and raised the question of whether or not the Russian government is actually involved.

According to Gadi Evron, former Chief information security officer (CISO) for the Israeli government's ISP, there's compelling historical evidence to suggest that the Russian military is not involved. He confirms that Georgian websites are under botnet attack, and that yes, these attacks are affecting that country's infrastructure, but then notes that every politically tense moment over the past ten years has been followed by a spate of online attacks. It was only after Estonia made its well-publicized (and ultimately inaccurate) accusations against Russia that such attacks began to be referred to as cyberwarfare instead of politically motivated hackers. Evron writes:

Running security for the Israeli government Internet operation and later the Israeli government CERT such attacks were routine...While Georgia is obviously under a DDoS attacks and it is political in nature, it doesn't so far seem different than any other online after-math by fans. Political tensions are always followed by online attacks by sympathizers. Could this somehow be indirect Russian action? Yes, but considering Russia is past playing nice and uses real bombs, they could have attacked more strategic targets or eliminated the infrastructure kinetically.

Arbor Networks' Jose Nazario offers additional proof of Evron's statements, writing: "While some are speculating about cyber-warfare and state sponsorship, we have no data to indicate anything of the sort at this time. We are seeing some botnets, some well known and some not so well known, take aim at Georgia websites...These attacks were mostly TCP SYN floods with one TCP RST flood in the mix. No ICMP or UDP floods detected here. These attacks were all globally sourced, suggesting a botnet (or multiple botnets) were behind them."

The image below was constructed using data Nazario collected over a period of three weeks, and shows the victims of these DDoS attacks as well as the location of the C&C server issuing the attack commands. According to him, "All of these are HTTP floods (ie rapid fire GET requests)."

 
Image courtesy of Jose Nazario, Arbor Networks
Given that the posts at RBNExploit finger the Russian Business Network as a part of this attack process, it's not unreasonable to hypothesize that the RBN might be working fist-in-glove with the Russian government, but Evron's wry comment on Russia's capability to destroy Georgian web access kinetically ought not to be dismissed.

The question of whether or not the Russian government backed these online attacks against Georgia is almost beside the point. One of the most basic tenets of conflict, any conflict, is that both attacker and defender must be able to accurately ascertain each others' identity. Throughout most of human history, and as recently as World War II, this was not a problem. With the subsequent rise of guerrilla/terrorist tactics, accurately identifying one's enemy on both an individual and national level has become more difficult, but not necessarily impossible.

Cyberattacks, whether they are government-backed or not, take this obfuscation to the next level. We've tracked the steady evolution of the malware industry from the basement to the big-time, and what is a government, ultimately, but just another customer? More to the point, how does the country being attacked determine if that attack is coming from another nation or a group of politically malcontent, computer-savvy individuals?

It's possible to answer such questions—both Evron and Nazario are in the business of doing so—but the analysis inevitably lags the actual events. The leaders of a nation under fire, as Georgia has been, do not have time to drink a cup of tea and wait for a comprehensive analysis of the situation. As the Internet continues to gain strength as a global communication network, the psychological and practical impact of losing access to it becomes greater. Such loss, combined with a standard physical attack on television and radio stations, could lead a defending nation to respond with a significantly higher use of force that it might have otherwise employed. At that point, the fact that the online attack was launched by political activists, rather than the government, becomes rather academic.

There is one final point I want to touch on that may explain the question Gadi Evron raises, namely, "why have these new attacks been classified as incidents of cyberwarfare, when so many attacks that came before them were not?" The fact that the alleged attacker is Russia, I think, explains much of this response. The Iron Curtain may have come down nearly two decades ago, but most folks over the age of 30 remember the Cold War and occasional Soviet crackdowns on dissident satellite nations all too well. For the citizens of the three nations that have accused Russia of cyberwarfare—Estonia, Lithuania, and Georgia—these weren't simply images on the nightly news, they were real-life events brought to you in living color.

In the years immediately following the end of the Cold War, Russia was far too occupied with its own internal problems to flex much muscle on the international stage, but the country's economy and social stability have improved tremendously even since Boris Yeltsin left office. Former President Vladimir Putin made no secret of his goal to reestablish Russia as a strong international power, and current President Dmitry Medvedev has shown no sign of deviating from that purpose.

Russia may no longer pose the same type of military threat to its former republics and Eastern Bloc neighbors that it once did, but the Russian bear has most definitely awoken, and is flexing its muscles. It's not hard to see how such actions, including the country's flat opposition to further NATO expansion, would make its neighbors very nervous, and could lead to premature accusations before evidence exists to support them.

[sullivan]

"Russia is fighting war with us in our own territory," Saakashvili told CNN. "And we are in this situation of self-defence against our neighbour."

Saakofshitshvili is a fraud and liar.  Georgia was the first to launch an unprovoked attack on South Ossetia, a largely Russophile territory that has been more or less autonomous since the early 1900's.  Saakofshitshvili, the US puppet, expected Uncle Sam to militarily back their unprovoked aggression, but so far the latter has failed to do so.

Self-defence does not include firing on fleeing refugees, as the Georgian army has done in recent days.

[K-Sensor]

I don't get it.  Haaretz is reporting Russia is saying to them that they have no intentions of leaving the Georian capitial yet, Western Media like BBC are saying Russia is pulling out.  Who do you believe?

Russia: We have no intention of withdrawing from Gori
Page last updated at 12:48 GMT, Thursday, 14 August 2008 13:48 UK
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1011711.html

or

Russians begin Georgia handover
"Russian troops have begun handing over control of the area around the town of Gori to Georgian security forces."
Last update - 15:23 14/08/2008
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7560100.stm

It's clear the West Media is milking this sentiment that they have an influence over Russia.  It makes US look still valid.  What are they going to come up with when Russia hasn't gone?   Will they then make Russia look the bad ones for so called lying to West when we know the Media is the liar.

[sullivan]

This war is very simple to grasp: South Ossetia is a secessionist republic full of Russians that don't like Georgian gov.

It is far more than that. Ossetia (North and South) have been autonomous for almost 100 years.  The population there isn't Russian per se, but definitely is philo-Russian. I can't say I would blame them when given a choice of siding with Georgia or Russia.

[MikeWB]

War à la carte, by Eric Walberg

Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 06:55:58 -0700 (PDT)

War à la carte

The US is inventing wars aplenty these days. Will it be Iran or Ossetia this month? asks Eric Walberg

Al-Ahram Weekly 14-20 August 2008

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2008/910/in1.htm
http://counterpunch.com/walberg08122008.html

Last week, Georgia launched a major military offensive against the rebel province South Ossetia, just hours after President Mikheil Saakashvili had announced a unilateral ceasefire. Close to 1,500 have been killed, Russian officials say. Thirty thousand refugees, mostly women and children, streamed across the border into the North Ossetian capital Vladikavkaz in Russia.

The timing — and subterfuge — suggest the unscrupulous Saakashvili was counting on surprise. "Most decision makers have gone for the holidays," he said in an interview with CNN. "Brilliant moment to attack a small country." Apparently he was referring to Russia invading Georgia, despite the fact that it was Georgia which had just launched a full-scale invasion of the "small country" South Ossetia, while Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin was in Beijing for the Olympics. Twenty-seven Russian peacekeepers and troops have been killed and 150 wounded so far, many when their barracks were shelled by Georgian forces at the start of the invasion. Georgian State Minister for Reintegration Temur Yakobashvili rushed to announce that their mini-blitzkreig had destroyed ten Russian combat planes (Russia says two) and that Georgian troops were in full control of the capital Tskhinvali.

Russia's Defense Ministry denounced the Georgian attack as a "dirty adventure." From Beijing, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said, "It is regrettable that on the day before the opening of the Olympic Games, the Georgian authorities have undertaken aggressive actions in South Ossetia." He later added, "War has started." Russian President Dmitry Medvedev vowed that Moscow will protect Russian citizens — most South Ossetians hold Russian passports. The offensive prompted Moscow to send in 150 tanks, to launch air strikes on nearby Gori and military sites, and to order warships to Georgia's Black Sea coast.

Georgia's national security council declared a state of war with Russia and a full military mobilisation. US military planes are already flying Georgia's 2,000 troops in Iraq — the third-largest force after the United States and Britain — back to confront the Russians. By Sunday, despite early claims of victory, Georgian troops had retreated from South Ossetia, leaving diplomatic rubble behind which will be very hard to clear.  Truth is stranger than fiction in Georgia.

The writing has been on the wall for months. Georgian President Saakashvili's fawning over Western leaders at the "emergency" NATO meeting in April and his pre-election anti-Russian bluster in May made it clear to all that Georgia is the more-than-willing canary in the Eastern mine shaft. The Georgian attack on South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali — I repeat — just hours after Saakashvili declared a cease-fire, looks very much like an attempt to reincorporate the rebel province into Georgia unilaterally. But whoever is advising the brash young president ignores the postscript — no pasaran! South Ossetia has been independent for 16 years and is not likely to drape flowers on invading Georgia tanks. It also just happens to have Russia as patron.

The aftershocks of this wild gamble by Saakashvili are just beginning. This is Russia's most serious altercation with a foreign country since the collapse of the Soviet Union and could escalate into an all-out war engulfing much of the Caucasus region. Russian warships are not planning to block shipments of oil from Georgia's Black Sea port of Poti, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said on Sunday, but reserve the right to search ships coming to and from it. Another source naval source said, "The crews are assigned the task to not allow arms and military hardware supplies to reach Georgia by sea." The Russians have already sunk a Georgian missile boat that was trying to attack Russian ships. Upping the ante, Ukraine said it reserved the right to bar Russian warships from returning to their nominally Ukrainian — formerly Russian — base of Sevastopol , on the Crimean peninsula. On Saturday, Russia accused Ukraine of "arming the Georgians to the teeth."

Georgia's other separatist region, Abkhazia, was mobilising its forces for a push into the Kodori Gorge, the only part of Abkhazia controlled by Georgia. "No dialogue is possible with the current Georgian leadership," said Abkhazia's President Sergei Bagapsh. "They are state criminals who must be tried for the crimes committed in South Ossetia, the genocide of the Ossetian people." Britain has ordered its nationals to leave Georgia. British charity worker Sian Davis said, "It's really, really quiet, eerily quiet. Everyone was either at home or had packed up and moved out of the city. People are really, really scared. People are panicking." So far the more than 2,000 US nationals in this tiny but strategic country are mostly staying put.

This is yet another made-in-the-USA war. US President George W Bush loudly supported Georgia's request to join NATO in April, much to the consternation of European leaders. NATO promised to send advisers in December. Not losing any time, the US sent more than 1,000 US Marines and soldiers to the Vaziani military base on the South Ossetian border in July "to teach combat skills to Georgian troops." The UN Security Council failed to reach an agreement on the current crisis after three emergency meetings. A Russian-drafted statement that called on Georgia and the separatists to "renounce the use of force" was vetoed by the US, UK and France. To dispel any conceivable doubt, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday: "We call on Russia to cease attacks on Georgia by aircraft and missiles, respect Georgia's territorial integrity, and withdraw its ground combat forces from Georgian soil."

But it's also yet another made-in-Israel war. A thousand military advisers from Israeli security firms have been training the country's armed forces and were deeply involved in the Georgian army's preparations to attack and capture the capital of South Ossetia, according to the Israeli web site Debkafiles which has close links with the regime's intelligence and military sources. Haaretz reported that Yakobashvili told Army Radio — in Hebrew, " Israel should be proud of its military which trained Georgian soldiers." "We killed 60 Russian soldiers just yesterday," he boasted on Monday. "The Russians have lost more than 50 tanks, and we have shot down 11 of their planes. They have enormous damage in terms of manpower." He warned that the Russians would try and open another battlefront in Abkhazia and denied reports that the Georgian army was retreating. "The Georgian forces are not retreating. We move our military according to security needs."

Israelis are active in real estate, tourism, gaming, military manufacturing and security consulting in Georgia, including former Tel Aviv mayor Roni Milo and Likudite and gambling operator Reuven Gavrieli. "The Russians don't look kindly on the military cooperation of Israeli firms with the Georgian army, and as far as I know, Israelis doing security consulting left Georgia in the past few days because of the events there," the former Israeli ambassador to Georgia and Armenia, Baruch Ben Neria, said yesterday. Since his posting, Ben Neria has represented Rafael Advanced Defense Systems in Georgia .

By Sunday, Putin was in Vladikavkaz and said it is unlikely South Ossetia will ever be reintegrated into Georgia. There are really only two possible scenarios to end the conflict: a long-term stalemate or Russian annexation of South Ossetia. The former is beginning to look pretty good, and Saakashvili is probably already ruing his rash move. The Georgian president is clearly hoping he can suck the US into the conflict. Alexander Lomaya, secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said only Western intervention could prevent all-out war. But it is very unlikely Bush will risk WWIII over this scrap of craggy mountain.

When US puppets get out of line, like a certain Saddam Hussein, they are easily abandoned. Saakashvili would be wise to recall the fate of the first post-Soviet Georgian president, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, also a darling of the US (in 1978 US Congress nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize). He rode to victory on a wave of nationalism in 1990, declaring independence for Georgia and officially recognising the "Chechen Republic of Ichkeria". But South Ossetia wanted no part of the fiery Gamsakhurdia's chauvinistic vision and declared its own "independence". Engulfed by a wave of disgust a short two years later, abandoned by his US friends, he fled to his beloved Ichkeria. He snuck back into western Georgia, looking for support in restive Abkhazia, but his uprising collapsed, prompting Abkhazia to secede.

Gamsakhurdia died in 1993, leaving the two secessionist provinces as a legacy, and was buried in Chechnya. Saakashvili rehabilitated him in 2004 and had his remains interred in Mtatsminda Pantheon with other Georgian "heroes". Truth really is stranger than fiction in Georgia. Now the burning question is: will history repeat itself? ***

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at

[TarasBulba]

LaRouche: Putin Was Right,
He Acted To Prevent World War III

 
August 12, 2008 (LPAC)—By acting to defend Russian citizens against a terrorist-type attack by the Soros government of Georgia, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has delivered a decisive defeat to the British Empire, said Lyndon LaRouche today. Any capitulation by Russia to the criminal aggression by the Soros puppet government of Mikheil Saakashvili would have been tragic for civilization.

Putin's action was objectively required, LaRouche continued. He was absolutely correct. He and President Medvedev could see that the British Empire, with its U.S. appendages, and its tool George Soros, was heading to consolidate its world empire. The British, and Putin, knew that the only obstacle to their plan at this time, is Russia, with its thermonuclear capability. If Russia had submitted to the terms being dictated by the British, the world would have been on the road to World War III.

Thus, Putin decided he had to draw the line. He acted decisively, and backed the British and the U.S. down. As a result, the Georgian puppet government has been destroyed, and a message has been delivered to the entire world.

Some British thinkers got that message, LaRouche said, pointing to an article in the London Daily Telegraph of today by diplomatic editor David Blair. Blair writes that "by seizing the opportunity to pound Georgia with air strikes and military incursions, Vladimir Putin, Russia's Prime Minister, is sending an emphatic message with global consequences. The curtain has fallen on the era when NATO steadily expanded into Eastern Europe and onwards to embrace the former republics of the Soviet Union—and Russia was able to respond with nothing more than bluster.... The balance of power in Europe has fundamentally changed...."

What Russia faced was a Pearl Harbor-like sneak attack by the Soros administration of Georgia, an attack carried out by the tool of the Hitler-like Soros, with the aim of Hitler-like ethnic cleansing, LaRouche said. Putin saw the existential threat to Russia, and where it was leading, and he acted, as FDR did against Pearl Harbor. He knew that if he did not, the British Empire—faced with the dissolution of its world financial system—would have pressed on toward world war.

The silly screams from the Bush Administration only testify to the effectiveness of the Putin action, LaRouche said. As for the Presidential candidates, the fact that Barack Obama is a bought-and-paid-for stooge for George Soros makes it hopeless that he could come to his senses. In the case of McCain, LaRouche said that he should stop being silly, and sit down and think, rather than shooting off his mouth.

The Russian action against the Georgian provocation is a crucial turning point, LaRouche concluded. It reverses almost 20 years of history, during which the British Empire, through Soros and other agencies, moved to take advantage of the collapse of the Soviet Union, to consolidate world empire. Through this entire period, the American people—the only other significant point of resistance—tragically capitulated, negotiating their own destruction, refusing to take the threat to their nation, and the world, seriously. How could Americans be so stupid as to tolerate Bush? How could they let Soros choose the Democratic Party presidential candidate?

The key to victory over the enemy of mankind, the British Empire, is to refuse to compromise on fundamentals, to turn over the rules of the game, LaRouche said. That is the decision which Prime Minister Putin made, for the benefit of all mankind.

Some people in Britain have gotten the message, LaRouche said. Now, it's time the American people did as well. It's time to destroy everything associated with the British Empire, especially its leading agents, the Hitler-like Soros, and Al Gore. Either this is done between now and the November election, or there won't be a United States.

[K-Sensor]

LaRouche wanting to bring down the Brits is very questionable.  Yeah purge the corrupt, but the Brits have been a positive force around the World in many Nations.