Russia: US gave nod to Georgia

Russia: US gave nod to Georgia

www.presstv.ir

Russia says that Georgia's attack on the independence-seeking region of South Ossetia was likely executed with the United States' approval.

"It is hard to imagine that (Georgian President Mikheil) Saakashvili embarked on this risky venture without some sort of approval from the side of the United States," Russian Ambassador to the UN, Vitaly Churkin, told Russia's NTV television on Wednesday.

(visit the link for the full news article)

There's 2 ways of looking at this - either russia is playing the US at their own game and deflecting attention away from the conflict, or the US has decided to start another cold war against russia, due to their oil wealth and their support of Iran.

It's certainly quite possible that the US want to take russia's attention away from Iran, but I'm pretty sure this sin't the way to go about it.

People underestimate the russians at their peril - but the arrogance and seeming incompetence of the current administration may mean that they think they can manipulate things in the region in order to benefit themselves.

Judging from the russian response though, it ain't gonna happen.

www.presstv.ir
(visit the link for the full news article)

my guess - US wanted Russia to be distracted with Georgia while they attack Iran. But it went too fast in the favour of the Russians. my opinion - Russia did their best in this situation.

My read is the cold war is good for business in the US and Russia it's all about $$$$$

mikell

I think all this is the elites wanting to bring the cold war back. They play both sides and have a depopulation or at the very least an exploitation agenda, and the cold war was good to them, with all that needless military expenditure and general raping of the third world. So they seem to be engineering more conflict between russia and the USA, by developing the former and downgrading the latter.

These are TV wars which, unbeknown to the general popubaaaation, is selling a product.

Actually i agree with Maloy's take on the situation, basically Russia comes out of this looking like the aggressor due to mass media manipulation, and "now the US have a good excuse to rush Georgia into NATO, and to militarize the caucasus."

Full post

reply to post by sty


I agree, Russia had men and materials ready in the area.. how did they get in so quick and take control?

Someone in the US is pounding their fist on the desk

'' Where's ya backbone Georgia ''

Pretty brason...

What really irks me is that the North American media, as well as Stephen Harper (George Dubya's yes man) and GWB,
make out Russia to be the villain here.
Russia must stop the aggression, poor ole' Georgia.
Innocent Georgia, evil Russians.

The propaganda is annoyingly funny, boy, you can hardly tell that George Dubya has interests in Georgia, or Georgia is being groomed for Nato, or that US wants to encircle Russia with missiles.
No; one would never think that the media here is biased against Russia, why would we ever think that?

Agreed! It's really impossible to imagine that the Georgians didn't expect the Russians to respond like they did, Olympics or not.
So were the georgians expecting the US or NATO to come to their aid, or is this a part of a larger, more long tern plan?
The only other explanation I can think of is that the Georgian president is nuts and has no sense of reality...

reply to post by MrVertigo


IMO it's part of a bigger long term plan to not only pressure russia, but also to ease some of the reliance on russian fuel supplies that EU countries have.

This report may shed a little more light on things as well.

Please educate me on this subject.

While listening to NPR (National Public Radio - for those of you outside the US) I heard an interview of a local who said essentially:

Russian military peacekeeping forces had been stationed alongside (or in the general vicinity) of the Georgian forces in Ossetia as peace-keepers for a number (unspecified) of years. This might account for the apparent quickness of the Russian response in the conflict.

There had been several 'skirmish' type events occurring between the two forces, (I suspect the confrontations were not politically driven, just a natural occurrence of having generally 'opposed' forces in such close proximity. Like on the North-South Korean border from time to time.)

Georgia's president then issued a 'cease fire' order to put a stop to these clashes, but the very next day all hell broke loose. No one knows, (said the interviewee) exactly what sparked the large-scale Georgian knee-jerk reaction other than the 2000 Russian volunteers who were bused into the capital(?) of Ossetia at the time.

- - - - - -

I was also under the impression that Georgia had been withholding some services in the area (water, electricity, etc.), presumably as an incentive to fall in line with their government position on accepting American influence in the country. Those closely affiliated with Russia, by family connections, business, heritage, culture, or political influence, were not happy about the development and it seems that Russia wanted these people's desires respected. America proceeded with it's course of enticing Georgia to accept the western help (I'm sure to the benefit of NATO and America) which, of course, Russia correctly identified as having 'military-strategic' consequences.

The rest is history.

How wrong is this perception of the events?


[edit on 13-8-2008 by Maxmars]

Not so much America gave Saakashvili the greenlight to overrun Ossetia thinking he would have the full support of the US behind him, but NATO as well:

www.russiatoday.com...

Saakashvili himself has said:

"it's not about Georgia anymore. It's about America, its values."

"I ... thought that America stands up for those freedom-loving nations and supports them. That's what America is all about. That's why we look with hope at every American," the U.S.-educated president said.

www.reuters.com...

This guy really thought he had a chance of keeping an iron-fisted hold over South Ossetia. He thought NATO would send in everything but the Kitchen sink to ensure Russia didn't get involved.

Hence his open, unprovoked attack on Russia. He thought he had the world on his shoulders going in and that nothing was going to deter him from grabbing as much land as possible in the Caucasus.

Obviously America's friendship with you varies widely based on how much Oil you can provide to them and how well you fit into their grand Foreign Policy agenda. (Are you next door to a former enemy, do you want to be part of NATO, will you allow US troops stationed on your soil?)

They in the end they realised Georgia wasn't worth actually coming to blows with Russia, just yet.
The same way Russia realised it's not worth escalating this into a full invasion of Georgia for the same reason.

The two need each other more than they like to admit. Not as enemies, but as poster boys to justify their pre-eminent positions as global superpowers, huge military budgets and global influence.

They can profit far more from using each other, rather than fighting each other.
And profit is the name of the game when it comes to the military-industrial complex.

Russian or American, your going to make way more money if you can consistently keep your populace paranoid and the best way of ensuring that happens is to have an eternal enemy that will never go away.

Osama worked for the mean time but everyone is slowly coming to their senses and realising the "War on Terror" is a well-planned heist job and there really is little to fear.

So who can you turn to keep your people terrified so they'll give into your unconstitutional demands for power, your increased military spending, your wars, your words and your grave errors in judgement?

The same people who terrified your nation for 60 years before: Russia.

[edit on 13/8/08 by The Godfather of Conspira]

Originally posted by mikellmikell
My read is the cold war is good for business in the US and Russia it's all about $$$$$

mikell

It always about money.. War is the biggest profit for any big country.

Just a comment on the OP: yes, this is the opinion of the www.stratfor.com, which I think is an excellent source of info and analyses.

There is no way Saakashvili could have made the move without a nod from the US.

You know how you will know it's over???

It will be over when the Soviets hold the pipeline terminus.....

And Tbilisi....

And have installed a puppet to take the place of Saakashvili.

I find it sort of funny that Russia invaded because of seven dead Russian "peacekeepers". The Russians could throw 40,000 troops into a woodchipper and not bat an eye.

Putin's trying to grab the Oil, he could care less about Ossetians. They are just a pawn.

Originally posted by jerico65
I find it sort of funny that Russia invaded because of seven dead Russian "peacekeepers". The Russians could throw 40,000 troops into a woodchipper and not bat an eye.

Puh-leeze... You have Georgian artillery located in 5 different places, pounding the city. Your actions, Armchair Colonel?

Originally posted by budski
There's 2 ways of looking at this - either russia is playing the US at their own game and deflecting attention away from the conflict...

I agree, but only to an extent. They are not trying to distract from the conflict, but distract for the reasons and motivations behind the convict. Russia know exactly what they are doing here. Saying there was a "US nod" will provoke a knee-jerk Anti-American reaction. No matter what Russia does in Georgia, it will be justified in the eyes of the useful idiots.

Breaking the cease-fire: Well, if the US had not given Georgia the nod...

Expanding the zone of conflict: Well, if the US had not given Georgia the nod...

Shooting babies in their cribs? Well, if the US had not given Georgia the nod...

Using chemical weapons? Well, if the US had not given Georgia the nod...

Okay, those last two are outrageous hyperbole, but you can see the point I am making.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


I concur, many people don't want to consider the 'international' support aspect of this conflict.

In the end, Georgia can't simply declare, "well, America said it was OK so...,"

And Russia, who definitely seems to hold the high ground in the international court of opinion, may have a few new 'tricks' up her sleeve regarding public sentiment and how to 'use it' to their advantage.

reply to post by SaviorComplex


Spot on - but isn't everything you mentioned part of the process of deflection?

By this I mean also that the attention of the populace is focussed in different directions, as you rightly pointed out...

Originally posted by Maxmars
And Russia, who definitely seems to hold the high ground in the international court of opinion, may have a few new 'tricks' up her sleeve regarding public sentiment and how to 'use it' to their advantage.

I think in some respects, the US gave the nod to Russia for their dispproportionate response, at least in Russia's eyes. Putin knows that the West considers peace with Russia far more important than the sovereignty of any one nation.