[Peace-discuss] Geopolitical machinations

[C. G. Estabrook]

Comments on the comments on the comments...


Morton K. Brussel wrote:
> ... I don't believe we know very accurately the extent of casualties and 
> destruction  caused by both sides. There are conflicting reports.

But it makes a difference whether you attack civilians (as the Georgians did) or
military (as the Russians did).

And altho' the US media (including McClatchy) tried to minimize the destruction
in Tskhinvali, the foreign press (including the British) made clear that the
Georgians devastated the city.

CNN broadcast pictures of the destruction in Tskhinvali -- and labeled it Gori!
An honest mistake, perhaps...

> As you indicate, North Ossetia became part of Russia; S.Ossetia wanted 
> independence, but Russia was not ready to support them, and in that sense 
> they acquiesced to a status quo that reigned for some time. .

In fact, after the fall of USSR, minority ethnic groups in South Ossetia and
Abkhazia fought separatist wars to end Georgian rule. Both had Russian
financial and political backing.  In 1994 a ceasefire agreement established
Russian peacekeeping forces in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

> You know exactly what Saakashvili had in mind? You believe the Bush 
> administration's denials of knowledge in this affair? I believe Baroud's 
> statement [sc: Saakashvili was following a script that was hardly of his own
> writing] to be a not unreasonable conjecture.

Saakashvili's mind admittedly contains mysteries. E.g., in his joint press 
conference with Rice, he said the following:

"In South Ossetia, we build amusement park, we build Dolby system film theater, 
we build concert hall, we build Olympic size pool, we build schools and 
hospitals. And they [sc. Russians] went in and burned and destroyed all of this 
and shattered all of this. You know, everything that is nice and new makes them 
sick. You are dealing with the people who despise everything human, everything 
nice, everything modern, everything European, everything civilized. That's what 
they are after."

I don't think the Bush administration told him to attack Tskhinvali, altho' he 
was set up to do so by this administration and even more by the Clinton 
administration.  And McCain's man Scheunemann may have encouraged him.  But I 
think it was a hot-headed action of the sort that led him to attack domestic 
protesters last fall.

In a WP article entitled 'Georgia's Recklessness," former Bush State Department 
official Paul Saunders wrote s follows:

"...the situation inside Georgia belies Saakashvili's rhetorical commitment to 
freedom ... The State Department's 2007 Human Rights Report, released just a few 
months ago, found 'serious problems' with Georgia's human rights record and 
notes 'excessive use of force to disperse demonstrations'; 'impunity of police 
officers'; and declining respect for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, 
freedom of assembly and political participation. Ana Dolidze, a democracy 
advocate and former chair of Georgia's Young Lawyers Association, has described 
in detail how Saakashvili acted quickly after entering office to empower the 
executive branch at the expense of parliament and to strengthen the government 
by 'stifling political expression, pressuring influential media and targeting 
vocal critics and opposition leaders' -- including by using law enforcement 
agencies. Saakashvili is far from the morally pure democrat he would have the 
West believe he is.

"Georgia's internal realities help make clear that the fighting erupted not 
primarily because of what the country represents but because of its government's 
actions. Tbilisi could have avoided the confrontation by deferring its ambitions 
to subjugate South Ossetia and pursuing them through strictly peaceful means."

> I think this is the most interesting of Baroud's conjectures. That the Polish
> populace turned so abruptly for the U.S. base, agreeing now with its 
> government, is remarkable, showing that the stupid lie that the base would be
> to prevent Iran's missiles from striking Europe or the U.S. was nonsense. 
> The poles believed now they needed the missiles as protection from an 
> agressive and traditional enemy, Russia.

If the USG can manipulate the US populace into being abjectly afraid of a minor 
Mideast strongman, a fortiori it should be possible to manipulate the Polish 
populace with the fear of Russia to support a system about which both the US and 
Polish government are lying.

US and Polish government propaganda was working well before the events in 
Georgia: in February of this year 52% of Poles opposed the plans and 33% 
approved; three months later 46% opposed and 42% approved [AFP]. The most recent 
poll I've seen (after Georgia) shows 37% opposed and 58% in favor.

Gordon Prather explains:

"Condi Rice – desperately seeking a diplomatic victory of some sort – has 
capitulated to Poland’s 'key demand' that in return for allowing the siting in 
Poland of ten interceptors of our Ground-based Midcourse Ballistic Missile 
Defense system (GMD), we will give Poland at least one battery of our Patriot 
PAC-3 ballistic missile terminal defense systems.

"Of course, since Poland is now a member of NATO, there is no reason for our 
refusing to sell a PAC-3 battery to them. After all, we have sold PAC-3 
batteries to NATO-member Turkey, as well as to non-member Kuwait.

"But give it to them? Who does Condi think the Poles are; the Israelis?"

http://www.antiwar.com/prather/?articleid=13342

> Your certainty about what has transpired is astounding, and puzzling. --mkb

We have to look at the evidence and try to get it right.  --CGE