Abkhaz Leader Has Ordered Army To Sink Any Georgian Ships In Its Waters

Maloy how do you know that the US is doing all this? Such as supporting coups?

EU alarmed, Russians evacuated from Georgia, satellite launch delayed by one day...

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy how do you know that the US is doing all this? Such as supporting coups?

It is a fairly obvious that US was involved from the onstart of these colored revolutions. Ask any Russian, or anyone exposed to these events, and they will tell you the same thing.

Both Yuschenko and Saakashvilli had major supporters and funding sources in the West, particularly in the US, prior to their coming to power. In both "colored revolutions" unexpectedly thousands of protestors appeared on the streets. Banners, advertisements, extensive and well prepared campaign crews, extensive coverage in the Western media all characterised the opposition parties in these cases (Yuschenko and Saakashvilli). Both rose to fame in a matter of months, with unlimited funds, coming from seemingly nowhere. They seemed to be well prepared for starting protests after they lost. Yanukovich and Shevarnadze both were attacked in an eirily similar way (sort of political blackmail). Both opposition groups voiced the same accusations. It was as if both "revolutions" were rehersed and planned according to the same guide book. The only source that could have enabled Yuschenko and Saakashvilli to rise to the top so fast was the US and to a lesser extent other Western countries.

US all of the sudden became interested in Ukraine and Georgia, covering the events there on a daily basis on all of its news channels. This also came out of nowhere. US never cared much about either Ukraine and Georgia and never paid attention to whats going on there. Suddenly it was as if Ukraine is the 51st state. It was obvious US was very interested in seeing the opposition win. Why? Because the opposition was funded by them.

Immediately after coming to power, both Yuschenko and Saakashvilli started receiving tens of millions of dollars of aid from the US, and business contracts from the West. Both started cutting all ties to Russia, and Saakashvilli even met with Bush.

At about the same point in time, they announced interest in joining NATO. In 2005 and 2006 both held military training exercises with the NATO. At about the same time monetary aid (and military aid to Georgia) from the US increased by a huge margin. Now tell me- what remote reason do either Ukraine or Georgia have for joining NATO, besides a puppet regime in power? Heck Georgia has always been enemies with Turkey (a NATO member) throughout history, and now they are in the same boat. The NATO request was a surprise for citizens of Ukraine and Georgia. Nobody even remotely expected this to happen.

And why does NATO even exist anymore? Its sole purpose for existance is long gone. No one can even remotely be considered a threat to Western Europe. The only thing NATO has done in the last 20 years, is invade Serbia of all countries. Hell, US didn't even receive the needed help from its ally Turkey when invading Iraq. UN is left to deal with the "unwanted affairs" like Sudan and Lebanon. So what is the use of NATO? Why not include all US allies in NATO is we are at it- Australia, Japan. China can be seen more of a threat than Russia anyway.

Add to all that, the War on Terror, and a more aggressive foreign policy by the US worldwide, and it all fits together perfectly. Before the War On Terror, nobody in the US even knew what Georgia is, or where in the world Ukraine is. But 9/11 gave US a great exuse to expand its "borders". But why limit yourself only to a few Arab countries? US is the sole world superpower- might as well grab a learger slice, or maybe even the whole pie. No one is there to stop you so why not?

Ukraine, Georgia, Baltics, Tajikistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan- all of these countries had absolutely nothing to do with NATO or US, and no significant relations with US before 9/11. In a matter of 5 years, they became America's best friends, while all of the opposition (old pro-Russian politicians) suddenly fell off the face of the earth. In just 5 years, US accomplished more than it could remotely hope to accomplish throughout the Cold War. Russia, 5 years ago surrounded by friendly neighbors and allies, is now surrounded by alienated ex-partners, and possible future enemies. In 5 more years, Russia could share as much as 1/2 of its land borders with NATO. It would be virtually isolated from Europe, and US could have radars, and military bases positioned within a short striking range of over a half of Russia's population- virtually eliminating the possibility of a future Cold War.

Add to that a multi-billion dollar oil deal by the US in Azerbaijan and potentially an even bigger deal in Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan. A brand new multi-billion dollar oil pipeline, which will take at least 3 years to realize its value in oil exports. The CIS coutries (especially Asian CIS) are the hottest parcel up for grabs in the world right now- as far as US is concerned. Oil and resource rich, currently politically unstable (easy to topple over to America's side), within striking distance of Russia's major cities and military bases, and hungry for some burgers and American weaponry- what more could US hope for?



Now is this all a coincidence, or a well orchestrated tactical positioning by the US? It might not be clear to the West, concerned more with Muslim extremism and Iran, but it is painfully clear to Russia. Suddenly Russia feels as if it is the target of the ubiquitous War On Terror. And to add insult to injury, it is the one being accused of meddling on the affairs of others, and helping Muslim countries acquire means to defend themselves.

So who sponsored the "revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia? Maybe the same power who stood to gain the most from them...

[edit on 17-10-2006 by maloy]

Abkhazia officially sent an appeal to Russia asking for recognition of its independence. European weather satellite launch (Soyuz 2-1A) has been postponed again because of "bad weather" at 11 kilometers altidude...

Georgian Foreign Minister Gela Bezhuashvili responded to some “deliberate inaccuracies” made by President Putin at a news conference in Lahti, Finland, after the EU-Russia summit. He says Putin is insulting the intelligence of Europe's leaders by telling them lies. He also warned of blood baths and disasters.

Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said today that Russia does not intend to restore transport links with Georgia soon. And Abkhazia launched maneuvers today. The Abkhazian Deputy Defense Minister said they will mobilize the reserve troops on the first day of exercises.

South Ossetia has at dawn on October 31 liquidated four Georgians which they claim were saboteur-terrorists!



edit to add:


[edit on 2006/10/31 by Hellmutt]

He is a link to an insightful video about whats going on between Georgia and Abkhazia, from a first hand account of Abkhazian patrolman. There are several more videos on that website. Gives a much better perception that this conflict is primarily among 2 small ethnic groups, and only then is a larger playing field between US and Russia.

www.combatfilms.com...

This part is about the Kodori corridor region, and UN observers figuring out what can be done there if anything by interviewing an Abkhaz figher. I think this is 1997, but to people there little has changed since then.

[edit on 31-10-2006 by maloy]

Well maloy, Georgia is seeking dialogue with Russia:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Well maloy, Georgia is seeking dialogue with Russia:

news.bbc.co.uk...

Firstable a "strong and united Georgia" means nothing. Iraq under Saddam was "strong and united", and that didn't end up so well.

Georgia says its more stable now and Russia should appreciate that... Yes true- a stable government in the buffer zone between Russia and the troubles of the Middle East is theoretically good. However what makes Georgia today more stable? Georgia is in no way more stable today than before Saakashvilli. Conflict with Abkhazia and South Ossetia is getting heated up. Chechen rebels continue using Georgia as a staging ground to regroup and hide. Economy sees no considerable long term improvement. True Georgia is better armed now, but how does that make it stable?

He is trying to make it seem as if whats going on in Georgia is mutually beneficial. And clearly it is not- with NATO getting involved I see no benefit for Russia. Why should Russia support Saakashvilli? How would Russia benefit from "having a good relationships with stable [Georgia]"? NATO was designed with Russia as the main opponent in mind.


And the statement that Georgia wants to hold talks with Russia is nothing new. But what are the supposed terms of those talks, and what concesions would go to Russia and Georgia? That was not stated in the article, and for now we can only guess what it is. Maybe with mighty NATO behind them, Georgians will demand complete Russian withdrawal from Abkhazia, and end of the trade restriction.

See- if this is supposed to be an equal dialogue, Russia will end up getting some concesions from Georgia, and Georgia will end up getting different concesions from Russia. But maybe Russia knows ahead of time what these concesions will be (and most likely they do), and they are not interested. How do we know talks and negotiations aren't already going on behind the curtain, with Russia not being satisfied yet, and all these statements by Georgia are just PR?

Maloy do you know for a fact that Georgians do not want to join NATO and be closer to the west [like join the EU] and that they would rather be closer to Russia?

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
Maloy do you know for a fact that Georgians do not want to join NATO and be closer to the west [like join the EU] and that they would rather be closer to Russia?

I am assuming you are talking about the majority of Georgians, because just like in any county opinions and stances differ widely among the population. I don't know these things, because I do not live in Georgia. But I do know some expatriat Georgians, and their opinions.

What concerns EU and economy- most probably favor increased relations with the West. Russia has nothing against it though. EU is an economic entity and economy is the sole discretion of the country it concerns. Many Russians probably would like to join EU as well. But neither Russia, nor Georgia, nor Ukraine are even considered as candidates for the EU. I don't even know if Saakashvilli is actively pursuing this, because right now it seems far out of reach for countries like Georgia.


As for NATO- I am of the assumption that the split is approximately 50/50. Half of the population has embraced Saaka's rhetoric, and became so to say- radical nationalists (which is not always a good thing). They care only about Georgia and its pride, and little else. They remember the disappointing defeat of Georgia in the war against Abkhazia. They resent Russia for siding with the Abkhazians and Ossetins. These are the people that are joining Georgian armed forces by masses. They belive that the way for Georgia to regain its pride- is to join NATO, and attack Abkhazia as soon as possible.

But observing them, and other radical nationalists around the world, leads me to believe they have been largely brainwashed. To some extent all nationalists are brainwashed, and are biased towards the interests of only their country. Now its not much of a problem in a stable and peaceful country like say Canada. But if mix nationalism and conflicting disputes within the nation or with other countries, the result is war. This is what happened to Serbia in the 90's- Nationalism advocated by Milosevic plunged the whole region into long war. In Georgia the result of this nationalism seems to have a similarly adverse effect. Georgian nationalists want to deal a deadly blow to Abkhazia at any cost- in this case selling out to NATO.



The other half didn't buy into Saakashvili's rhetoric. They are upset about Abkhazia, but not to an extent that they want to cut relations with Russia, and attack Abkhazia again. These people still feel a closer tie to Russia than to some far away NATO and US. Many Georgians studied in Russia. Many recall the more peaceful times of the Soviet Union. They could care less about whether Abkhazia wants to be independent or part of Georgia. They might favor Sakaashvili on some reforms, but they oppose his foreign relations and policies. Georgia and Russia have been together for centuries, beginning from their alliance against the Turks. Not to mention Georgia contributed many well known celebrities to the Soviet Union (not including Stalin).

I know several Georgian expatriats, and they have varying opinions on Sakaashvili. But all of them feel that Georgia "sold out" to NATO, and that it was a wrong thing to do. In my opinion, no matter what Georgians feel about Abkhazia and Russia's role there, NATO simply does not belong there. Nor does it belong in Ukraine. Nor, for that matter, does it belong anywhere because its primary focus- to offset communism is absolete.

Also Georgia and Russia have more in common economically as well, as opposed to Europe. The Black Sea separates Georgia and Europe. However it shares its longest border with Russia. Most of it exports are sold in Russia, both official and unofficial. Fresh produce from fertile Georgian farms can reach most major Russian cities in a few days, almost all year round. Many Georgian speculators make their living this way, as well as selling other Georgian products like wine. Selling in Europe would be far more difficult and require compliance with a huge number of regulations, while untill recently, selling in Russia required nothing. A huge portion of Georgian economy depends on this trade, even if its not part of the official GDP.

With Europe however, Georgia will require major investments by European firms to offset the exports it would lose (and is losing) to Russia. I doubt Europeans will want to heavily invest in a region that could potentially be plunged into war at any moment. Sure Georgia could open up to the West economically and still be tied to Russia. But this was the case with Shevarnadze, and for some reason no European firms invested or considered investing in Georgia back then. Only when US took interest in the region, did the Europeans and other investors follow suit.

Originally posted by maloy
Nor, for that matter, does it belong anywhere because its primary focus- to offset communism is absolete.

NATO's purpose is evolving and isn't only to offset communism. What is the purpose, I don't know. I, for one, would rather have Japan join NATO over Georgia. Who knows, with China over there, they may one day do just that.

Originally posted by RetinoidReceptor
NATO's purpose is evolving and isn't only to offset communism. What is the purpose, I don't know. I, for one, would rather have Japan join NATO over Georgia. Who knows, with China over there, they may one day do just that.

So judging by this evolving purpose, NATO should currently be up at arms on the issue of terrorism and the War On Terror. Why then has Turkey violated its trust as a member of NATO, when it let US down during the invasion of Iraq? Turkey didn't even need to participate, it only needed to allow use of its airspace and other possibly its border- and it didn't. Then there was the NATO attack on Serbia, where all members (except Greece possibly?) quickly obliged to participare- even though the invasion and bombing was completely unjustified from the stand point of NATO's rules.

And if communism and protection of Europe isn't the purpose any longer, why indeed not include all US allies. Why not include Taiwan and Phillipines along with Japan. And maybe Australia and Pakistan. And then why still use the acronym of NATO since its world wide. Why not call it GPD- Global Police Department. Why is it only Europe and US- does America not trust Asians or Africans to help it protect freedom and whatever else it is assumed to be doing? Perhaps I am not fully knowledgeable about NATO.

It seems that NATO needs to reconsider its priorities and goals. Why does it need Georgia or Ukraine? And more importantly why does Ukraine or Georgia need NATO? That could perhaps be answered if we knew what NATO and its purpose is these days- but it appears that we do not.



It seems to me, that membership of some country in NATO, is a way for the US to ensure that that country stays loyal and remains an ally - Once you are NATO you don't go back. So if Ukraine or Georgia join NATO- can they bow out of the agreement later on? And what would happen to US military investments and military outposts there? Would US agree to "let them go", or will it make sure that a pro-American regime stays in power.


Seriously though- no matter what NATO's purpose today it, its positioning in Ukraine and Georgia is only aimed at one potential enemy- Russia. And if US sees Russia as such a threat, maybe Russia should offer less concesions to the West regarding democracy, and oil trade, and what not. Bush keeps saying that Russia is a friend against evil, while at the same time he positions NATO strategically around Russia- a stab in the back if you will. All of the sudden China seems like a more honest friend for Russia.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by maloy]

Originally posted by maloy
All of the sudden China seems like a more honest friend for Russia.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by maloy]

Unfortunately Maloy, Russia really doesn't have any friends. You know as well as I that China would send millions of people to Russia [like they are sending thousands to Siberia] to take over its resources in a heart beat.

But if that is a friend to your standards then I guess China is a great friend...

The Chinese are certainly encroaching on Russian territory, and they are almost pushed out of China because of overpopulation. If you look at Russia-China border in the far East, the Chinese portion is completely populated and cultivated. Russian portion however is endless unpopulated forests. But the fact that Chinese government for the most part supports this migration of population and their exploitation of Russia is certainly not a good thing.

But Russia does/did have real "friends" or allies. One is Belarus, which has always been on good terms with Russia throughout history. So has Ukraine and Georgia, prior to these events. Then there is Armenia and Serbia, the later of which is considered almost a sister country to Russia. Besides Ukraine however, all of them are minor countries and uncomparable to US allies. Ukraine going over to NATO camp however is the biggest disappointment of all however, as I stated many times before. Before Yuschenko Ukraine was Russia's closest ally. Imagine Canada or Britain suddenly joining the North Korean or Iranian alliance. This is how Russia feels about Ukraine and NATO.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by maloy]

Originally posted by maloy
Imagine Canada or Britain suddenly joining the North Korean or Iranian alliance. This is how Russia feels about Ukraine and NATO.

Maloy I doubt Russia feels that strongly. I don't think Russia views the US and Europe on the same level that the West views North Korea and Iran.

How do you feel about China?

[edit on 1-11-2006 by RetinoidReceptor]

One thing I don't like about China is the governments concern for money and profit above everything else. They condone the behavior of Chinese migrants in Russia, as long as they birng some profit for China.

One problem with these illegal migrants, is that they start exploiting Russian resources without any permits, and do not pay taxes or any fees. They either bribe local officials, or do it without any approval whatsoever. Their primary business is cutting timber and selling it back in China. Through all this they leave the area deforested and do move on to other areas. Other violations include illegal hunting and fishing, selling Chinese products illegally without paying tariffs or meeting regulations. For example, there were cases of Chinese toothpaste sold in Russia, which poisoned some people because it was made with cheap chemicals; or clothes sold which were for some reason laced with poisonous chemical material from production. And this is going on on a massive scale in Siberia and the far East. Now I don't really mind illegal immigration of Chinese, since Siberia is vastly underpopulated and could use more labor force, but this exploitation is out of bounds.

As far as the Chinese government is concerned in its relations with Russia other than this, I see it as friendly, but not as allies. Chinese government has immense budget, so they can afford to buy Russian technology, including commercial and military, and make other investments in Russia. This is very beneficial for Russian businesses, especially in the Far East.

Nor is Chinese government laying claim to any Russian territory right now. So far the border is agreed upon, and there is no contention or disputes. China has no interest in threatenting Russia. However I do see a problem in the future, where the Chinese will outnumber Russians in some regions, and possibly start pushing for those territories to become part of China.

So China really is not an ally. Russia is no longer communist, so that tie is long gone, even though it was never really present because Mao and Stalin differed significantly in their theories. They are economic partners, and peaceful neighbors, and thats it.

But if thats the way to look at it- Russia has even less in common with the US. Putin did seek allies among Europeans- particularly Germany. Progress of that has been impeded recently however.

[edit on 1-11-2006 by maloy]

Originally posted by maloy


But if thats the way to look at it- Russia has even less in common with the US. Putin did seek allies among Europeans- particularly Germany. Progress of that has been impeded recently however.

Are you saying Russia has more in common with China than the US?

I always look at alliances with cultural similarities...you will see the true allies are very culturally similar than allies who are friends just for convenience. I have never been to Russia, but from what you have said, Moscow is westernized while the other parts are not. But with that information, I would think most people who dwell in Moscow would rather be allies with the West over the East.