Commentary: WOW! I did not see that coming at all. Sure, I did notice that both chambers of the Russian parliament passed a resolution calling on President Medvedev to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia *unanimously*, but then, considering that by now all the parties in the Russian parliament were basically ‘anti-Western’ (bad expression, but you know what I mean) I was not too surprised. My guess was that Medvedev would keep this resolution on his table while trying to get the West to cool it and start making sense. That he chose not to do so clearly and unambiguously shows one thing: his analysts have told him that there is no point in hoping for any kind of partnership with the West. I guess that the last hopes that the Russians might have had about the Europeans showing some spine have finally vanished and that they now fully recognize that they are dealing with one, monolithic or, at least, centrally commanded hostile block.
As I have stated in an earlier post, the Russian rules of hardball play say that you should never promise, never threaten, but only take direct action. That is exactly what Medvedev has done. Not once since the end of combat operations in South Ossetia and Abkhazia has Russia threatened to recognize these republics if this or that did, or did not, happen. The Russians never threatened to ‘retaliate’ for the West monumental hypocrisy (though they did drop hints about this in the wake of the West’s recognition of Kosovo). They took a long hard look at what was going on and decided to act in what can only be considered as an extremely provocative way: recognizing these two republics is an inherently dangerous decision as it literally forces the West to either loose face, or escalate. There can be no doubt that the recognition of these republics is the single most important Russian foreign policy decision since the birth of the post-Soviet Russia in 1991. Likewise, this is also the most serious challenge to the US Empire since the end of the Cold War and God knows the Imperial High Command had it coming. Please consider,
The Western breakup of the former Yugoslavia, the US military support for Croatia and the Bosnian Muslims and, even more so, the Kosovo represented a fundamental change in the international order as it had been designed following the end of WWII. The illegal invasion of Iraq by Dubya only sealed a process which Papa-Bush and Clinton had started before him: the total deconstruction of the rule of international law. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union the Empire felt that it had no more need for diplomacy, no more need for partners, no more need for the rule of law and its entire foreign policy was reduced to two basic principles: ‘might makes right’ and ‘my way or the highway’ (which can really be summed up in the short ‘screw you!’).
If the semi-literate morons sitting in the White House had been exposed to even an introductory course in world history or dialectical philosophy they could have guessed that such imperial hubris would, sooner or later, generate a devastating response. This has now happened with Russia which is clearly adopting an openly defiant position. Make no mistake, this is only the beginning and the list of countries which will dare to openly define its former imperial overlords will only grow (in particular in the former Soviet Union and in Latin America).
Russia, China, India, Iran and most Latin American countries have almost identical foreign policy interests which can be summed up with two words: multipolarity and independence (objectively, one could argue that Europe has very similar interests, but considering how firmly the USA control the Old World this will not affect Europe’s abject subservience to the Empire). The interests of Asian and African countries are harder to summarize if only because these continents lack a cohesive or common foreign policy stance.
How will the Empire react to Russia’s provocation? NATO-Russian collaboration is over, that is clear. The Cold War rhetoric will ‘go through the roof’ and NATO can be expected to forward deploy some assets (which makes no military sense whatsoever, but is a way of ‘showing the flag’). I personally would not put it past the ‘crazies in the basement’ to actually deploy military forces in Georgia in a reenactment of the Berlin crisis with Russian and US troops looking at each other across a demarcation line in Georgia. The political crisis in the Ukraine will escalate as, on one hand, Yushchenko & Co. will press for an accelerated integration into NATO while most of the population is firmly opposed to this idea. There is a very real risk of Russia taking unilateral action in Crimea if NATO persists in its plans to incorporate the Ukraine (just imagine what a NATO base in Sevastopol would look from a Russian point of view!)
God willing, the Empire will simply tend to its bruised ego and get it over with, but I don’t expect it. Things are about to get much worse.
The Saker
Saker, do you have an opinion of how this relates to the credit crisis? What I understood was that many countries, that lent a lot of money to the US, have now the capabilities to debase the dollar and ruin the Amerian economy. E.g. they dump the dollar or shares in American companies. Of course, it is not in China’s or Russia’s direct financial benefit, but we start to talk about factors that are more important (e.g. stopping the US). Any thought of how that would fit into the showdown that seems to unravel? Albert
@Albert: I have to begin by telling you upfront of my very limited competence to answer your question: I have not preoccupied myself with economic issues for over 15 years and I have not good sources on info on this topic. Still, I would venture to guess that the inherent weakness of the dollar is a reflection of a deeper, systemic, crisis in the US empire. Thus, it is the general weakness of the US economy which gradually exposes it to the influence of foreign interests and that, in turn, means that countries like Russia or China have little to fear from the US economic power. There is no doubt that if Russia or, even more so, China decided to crash the dollar they could do it, but that would be very detrimental to their interests. The most advantageous course for these countries is to very gradually wean themselves off the dollar for their international trade while preventing a sudden crash of the greenback.
Frankly, I do not expect a dramatic economic or military showndown between Russia and the USA, at least not if Russia can avoid it (I am less confident about the ideological crackpots sitting in Washington). Expect a lot of hot rhetoric supported by some stupid moves, but not a “gunfight at OK corral” :-)
Thanx Saker,
I have to admit I was also surprised by the recognition of BOTH countries. When I heard about the Duma resolution I had thought it was going to be a bargaining chip for the Russians. The west would talk down the crisis and Russia would hold off on recognition.
But Medvedev’s action just 24 hours later is indeed an example of “don’t threaten, just do.”
It is a sign Russia feels there’s no point in negotiating and a also a warning of how they will handle future provocations.
I am also very surprised, because I was very sure that it was in Russia’s interest not to recognize the independence of these two republics. In fact, nothing will change, as Abkhazia and South Ossetia were never controlled by Tbilisi since the end of the Soviet Union. But Saakashvili may soon be gone, perhaps a more reasonable leader may appear (even if pro-Western), and Russia could use Abkhazia and South Ossetia as bargain cards, like they did with Transdnetria in Moldova: “you don’t join NATO, and we don’t support your separatist region.”
By recognizing S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, Russia destroyed all possibility of coming to an agreement with Georgia. Kosovo was already a difficult issue for the US and the EU, but S. Ossetia and Abkhazia will be much harder for Russia, for three reasons:
1- The West can try to convince the Serbs to accept the loss of Kosovo by promising a membership in the UE. A promise to join the Eurasian Organization won’t seduce any Georgian.
2- Though many countries refused to recognize Kosovo, at least there was an important number of them which did: US, Canada, almost the entire EU (except Spain and Greece), Japan, some Central American countries. Who will recognize S. Ossetia and Abkhazia? I can only think of Belarus, and perhaps not even this country. I doubt China, India, Cuba, Venezuela or close allies in the CIS will be in a hurry to do the same.
3- I think that was still some hope that the EU would have a more balanced position towards the conflict in S. Ossetia. The Comissar of Human Rights of the European Council visited Tskhinvali recently, and was shocked by the devastation. I don’t think the EU position had much coherence with the US in this subject, and perhaps Russia could expect some support. At least they could wait until december, when there will be a decision about NATO membership of Georgia and Ukraine. Now, by recognizing S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, Moscow has pushed the Europeans towards Washington.
So far, I can only think of disadvantages, and not one single good consequence, of this move. I think it was a big mistake. Let’s see if the Kremlin knows something that I don’t.
I guess Russia realised that the West was not going to stop with Georgian membership in NATO. Even Merkel had converted now and began advocating Georgian membership. Russia will go to the end. Having recognised the independences Russia is going to build up strong military presence in the countries, so it will be a smoking gun. If that wouldn’t stop NATO than there was no any point to talk to them anyway. So NATO will get not just one new Palestine but two.
It seems to me that Russia decided to let Ukraine go, I doubt it would be able to handle two problems at once.
Russia doesn’t need other countries to recognise Abhasia and SO. It’s even better that way. That would mean Georgia still may not be accepted by NATO. And if it is accepted then Russia will still have Buffer zones.
But they must be really crazy if they still going to drag Georgia in NATO. Russia is determent to fight, it wasn’t sure that Georgia wouldn’t be backed by NATO when it struck. Russia knows about military treaty between Georgia and the USA, and Georgia and the UK, which were signed up back in 2005. And still Russia didn’t hesitate to strike Georgia. It all doesn’t look too good to me.
Do you think Russia is trying to send a message to Ukraine here? Russia presumably wants to keep its naval base at Sevastapol after 2017 and could threaten to encourage separatism in the Crimea. The nightmare scenario for Kiev would be a partition of Ukraine along the Dneiper with the pro Russian east joining the Russian Federation. Unthinkable no doubt but would this be any more outrageous than what was done to Yugoslavia?
Russia wants Georgia and Ukraine stay neutral that’s all. No problem with them joining the EU but not NATO. NATO can’t accept a country with disputed territorial conflicts. That was Russia’s point. It was going to destabilise the regions as long as it would take to keep these countries out of NATO.
Instead of acting smart by using both sides’ interests and get courted by the West and Russia and keep getting goodies from both hands Saakhashvili and Yushchenko turned out to be as dumb as it takes to drag their countries in conflicts they wouldn’t be able to control.
The West is just unbelievable. The whole problem is just overblown from nothing. Are they really going to fight Russia for Georgia? Do they realise that Russia is still a country that can wipe out the USA and the rest of the world. Do they understand that any conflict will make Russia richer, and Putin stronger?
Bush wants to get his name in school textbooks. I wonder who will be reading those books.
@Saker,
Is my post about reasons for the Caucasian war also deserves a comment you don’t want to make?
Nice post by the way. Have you noticed the meeting of Medvedev and Voronin, with discussion about Transdniester?
“If the semi-literate morons sitting in the White House had been exposed to even an introductory course in world history or dialectical philosophy they could have guessed that such imperial hubris would, sooner or later, generate a devastating response…”
Or if they had an ounce of common sense, or if they were not filled with a murderous hatred for Russians and Slavs in general, or even if they care a little about the American people whom they supposedly represent….
@Andrey: please forgive me for not commenting about your post earlier. Frankly, I am rather swamped with stuff which I need to do – I actually have a (busy) life besides the blog :-))
I have read your post and I fundamentally agree with its two key positions: a) what is going on is *not* in the interests of the USA at all and b) there is a supranational elite which is running the show behind the scenes (what Ivan Iliin call мировая закулиса). If anything, the elections of Clinton, Baby-Bush and the upcoming “election” of two fundamentally increasingly indistinguishable candidates Obama and McCain proves that the USA is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy run by a number of more or less hidden interest groups. Sadly, that can also be said about most, if not all, the rest of the western ‘democracies’ (although at very different degrees). I should add here that I think that when the Empire told its Georgian Gauleiter Saakashvili to attack South Ossetia (and, it appears, Abkhazia) the Imperial High Command made a major mistake. Remember that the Empire is big and powerful, but it is also amazingly inept, ignorant, arrogant and unimaginative and it makes many mistakes (think of the invasion of Iraq or the war against Lebanon in 2006).
Do you agree?
@qwerty: if they were not filled with a murderous hatred for Russians and Slavs in general
Oh I don’t think that they hate *Slavs* per se, that was Hitler. The Empire does not hate Poles, Croats or Bosnian Muslims. Is *Orthodox* Slavs which the West hates with a truly zoological hatred just like the West hates *any* Orthodox Christians.
I don’t believe that ethnicity or race play any role here, its truly a purely spiritual issue. From the times of Saint Photius the Great, to the Great Schism of 1054, to the sack of Constantinople during the 4th crusade, to the Teutonic Order’s attack on Russia ad majorem Dei gloriam , the Jesuit imposition of the Union of Brest, to the Swedish invasion of Russia, to Napoleon, to the grand “ecumenical coalition” with Muslims, Papists and Lutherans allied against Russia during the Crimean War, to WWI, to the promotion of the Bolshevik Revolution, and Hitler, of course.
The Soviet Union being a fundamentally anti-Christian regime was, in many way, an objective ally of Rome (just look at how the previous Pope Benedict – #VI – tried to court the Bolsheviks before being given the boot) and the rest of the West. Now that Russia is shedding this Soviet yoke, albeit very slowly, we are back no so much to the Cold War, but to the bad old days of anti-Russian Western imperialism. Hence all the talk about the “great dangers” of an “assertive Russia” and the rest of the Russophobic crap filling the corporate media in the West.
Basically the West wants to transform Russian into a Poland-like vassal state.
That is why Russia is now truly fighting for its very survival as a nation, a country and a culture.
In my opinion the US does want a gunfight. And I think the objective is quite simple-harass, intimidate, threaten, bully, bluster and if necessary-FALSE FLAG.
What does Cheney have to lose? He is a lame duck. The Empire cannot back down and continue to lose face. Moreover, both parties are pro-War so any shooting war with Russia is a benefit for the jingoists.
Watch, Georgia will attack once more and NATO will help.
Excellent analysis. My wife is from Kharkov Ukraine and I know her sentiments are with Russia. I can see Medvedev and Putin recognizing eastern Ukraine. I read where their “revolution” was the last straw for Putin after Bush promised not to meddle.
For me the overriding issue is that Bush is not in control. The neocons have held sway over policy and must have some “leverage” to keep him doing what he is doing. The neocons could care less if Americans get killed.
I vividly remember the neocons support for the Kosovo war was not popular with many Republicans. The Republicans used to be the “good guys” and now they have become the opposite. McCain is worse than Bush so we can expect more imperial hubris.
Can we expect a “Polish missile crisis” with the new more assertive Russia?
@ Saker
“Basically the West wants to transform Russian into a Poland-like vassal state. That is why Russia is now truly fighting for its very survival as a nation, a country and a culture.”
Hi,
Honey for my heart (to read this) – the essence of truth! :)
But pay attention to the events:
1) http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Analysis_Medvedevs_trip_to_the_West_999.html
Fitting because Medvedev, in his first visit to a A quote – “Western country since assuming the presidency, called for a broader Euro-Atlantic community that included Russia, instead of one that was driven exclusively by Washington and a few European capitals.”
2) Latest US – Polish mutual help was achieved **above** NATO levels and do not include NATO structures.
3) Mr Bush was at Beijing calmed if not relaxed. Like during 9/11 attack in school meeting. Mr Putin was coerced by events to go to Vladykavkaz, but Mr Bush patted dames’ buttocks at the same time during Olympics.
4) The whole picture has gotten, for me of course, second if not third bottom.
Now to conclusions:
Look at the map. The re are two wedges or political rift valleys in two geographical regions created by USA in recent years, both most important to Russia’s strategist interests:
1) East Europe Wedge (EEW) with Russophobic countries
2) Central Asia Wedge (CAW) with American bases in Kazakhstan
Ad.1) US distroyed prospective Euro-Russian Security Pact (ERSP). US hindered also German-Russian deal of mutual interests and “hidden” division of influences. Germany wants to regain politicaly and jurisdically her eastern provinces, Russia in return wwould gain a tacit partner in politics and economy.
Ad.2) US not only went to the north of Persian Gulf (including Turkey, perhaps Georgia as well, very soon) but “separated” Russia (not decisively yet but US is close to that) from China.
I coined the new US policy “US plate tectonics policy” (PTP) as the wedges are like rift valleys spreading apart in time and separating its both sides further from each other. Plate tectonics is responsible for earthquakes (local wars) and tsunami (Black Sea skirmishes). The only cure for PTP is to use the same tactics – destabilizing areas where the vital interest belongs to opponent, here USA.
I think Russia was pushed onto troubled waters by USA purposely. I wouldn’t underestimate American thinkers or strategists so much, they are intelligent as well.
I even think that this clash was won by USA. I wrote above why.
Regards
Correction
“A quote – ” at first point was wrongly placed. Beg your pardon.
VS,
Don’t know that it is just Orthodox Christians that the West (and more specifically, the neocons) hate. It seems like they have a deep loathing for the Poles as well. Makes me wonder if that isn’t the reason that the nuts are positioning the ABM missiles in Poland…just to watch them get nuked by Russia.
At any rate, it seems so very tragic to me that this century which could have been a time of such peace and plenty and prosperity for Americans, Russians, and Europeans has been turned into this bloody murderous mess with the loony-toons in Washington threatening everyone and their brother to kneel before them, as if they are masters of the world. WTF happened to our country?????
From World Socialist Website
US continues to ratchet up tensions with Russia
By Barry Grey
26 August 2008
Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author
The United States has continued to intensify its confrontation with Russia in the wake of Moscow’s withdrawal of troops from most of the Georgian territory it held following the five-day war provoked by the invasion of the breakaway province of South Ossetia by the US-backed government of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
On Sunday, the US guided missile destroyer USS McFaul docked at the Georgian port of Batumi as part of what President Bush and the Pentagon have called a “military humanitarian mission” to aid the former Soviet republic in the southern Caucasus.
The McFaul, an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, is outfitted with an array of weapons, including Tomahawk cruise missiles, which can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, and a sophisticated radar system. According to US Defense Department spokesman Bryan Whitman, the US Coast Guard cutter Dallas has also been dispatched to the Georgian coast, while a third vessel, the Navy command ship USS Mount Whitney, is being loaded in Italy.
Russian military officials on Monday denounced the US-led naval buildup, and hours later Russia’s flagship cruiser re-entered the Black Sea, ostensibly for weapons tests. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of the Russian military’s general staff, said, “The fact that there are nine Western warships in the Black Sea cannot but be cause for concern. They include two US warships, one each from Spain and Poland, and four from Turkey.”
Reuters cited unnamed sources in Russian military intelligence as saying the NATO ships in the Black Sea are carrying more than 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles, with more than 50 onboard the USS McFaul alone that could hit ground targets.
On the ground, the Georgian military has concentrated equipment and forces along the border with South Ossetia, near Russian troops that have set up checkpoints in a five-mile buffer zone around the pro-Russian enclave. The Georgian parliament voted on Saturday to prolong the official “state of war” with Russia until September 8.
Russian military officials this weekend vowed to boost their forces in the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in direct proportion to American military spending to rebuild the Georgian army.
In addition to its provocative military moves, Washington is stepping up its political and diplomatic offensive against Moscow. American officials continue to charge Russia with violating the terms of the cease-fire agreement brokered two weeks ago by French President Nokolas Sarkozy, acting in behalf of the European Union. Sarkozy currently holds the rotating presidency of the 27-member European alliance.
The Bush administration moreover announced that Vice President Dick Cheney would visit the Georgian capital of Tbilisi next week as part of a tour of former Soviet republics and Warsaw Pact nations that are now allied to the US and ruled by virulently nationalistic and anti-Russian governments. Cheney heads a faction within the Bush administration that has long pushed for an even more belligerent and aggressive policy toward Russia than that carried out by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Early in the five-day Georgia-Russia war, while Bush was still attending the Olympics in Beijing and issuing relatively muted statements on the conflict, Cheney telephoned Saakashvili and placed the blame for the fighting squarely on Moscow. His office issued a statement saying that Russian “aggression … must not go unpunished.” His visit to the -region indicates that his faction has gained the upper hand within the administration.
On Sunday, Sarkozy announced that he was calling an emergency EU summit for September 1 to consider the European Union’s relations with Russia and the provision of aid to Georgia. Sarkozy, who said he was calling the meeting at the request of “some EU governments,” last week threatened to call such a summit and warned of “serious consequences” if Russia failed to adhere to the cease-fire terms. He, along with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and British Foreign Minister David Milibank, are echoing US charges that Moscow continues to defy the agreement.
Russia on Friday withdrew almost all of the forces it had sent into Georgia to repel the attack on the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali, which, Moscow contends, killed over 2,000 civilians and leveled 70 percent of the buildings in the city. However, it is retaining over 500 troops within the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia and has established military checkpoints in what it calls a “security zone” around the two provinces.
Moscow insists that it is in compliance with the cease-fire, which includes a point allowing Russia to take unspecified “additional security measures” besides keeping peacekeepers in the disputed territories. Russia has maintained peacekeeping troops in the provinces since they ended effective control by Tbilisi in fighting that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. A subsequent agreement between Moscow and Tbilisi sanctioned the presence of Russian peacekeepers in the breakaway republics.
In a telephone conversation with Russian President Dimitry Medvedev over the weekend, Sarkozy said the agreement allowed Russian peacekeepers to “patrol” areas near the borders of the two republics, but not to set up checkpoints. He also demanded that Russia remove military checkpoints near the Georgian port of Poti and the air base at Senaki, which are outside the five-mile buffer zone around Abkhazia.
From the moment the cease-fire agreement was announced, Washington began accusing Russia of violating its terms. Both Georgia and the US have refused, in practice, to acknowledge the point allowing Russia leeway to station some forces beyond the borders of the disputed provinces.
The Financial Times reported Monday that “US diplomats have voiced their frustration at the terms of the subsequent ceasefire deal brokered by Nicolas Sarkozy, France’s president, which they consider too vague and too favourable to the Kremlin.” In a separate article based on an interview it conducted over the weekend with Saakashvili, the newspaper reported that “Saakashvili put the blame on the ‘vague’ ceasefire agreement.”
Divisions within the EU over how closely to adhere to the extremely provocative line of the US and how far to take the confrontation with Russia were reflected in a statement by French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, who ruled out EU sanctions against Russia at the upcoming summit.
However, Sarkozy’s announcement of the meeting reiterated the US mantra of support for the “independence and territorial integrity” of Georgia, a formula for rejecting demands of separatists in the two breakaway provinces, broadly supported by the local populations in the wake of the Georgian assault on South Ossetia, for independence from Georgia.
The question of independence for South Ossetia and Abkhazia is becoming the flashpoint for further conflict. On Monday, both houses of the Russian parliament—the upper Federation Council and the lower State Duma—voted unanimously in favor of a non-binding resolution calling on Medvedev to recognize the independence of the provinces.
The Russian parliament and the governments of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have cited as precedent American and European recognition of Kosovo, which last February, over vehement objections from Russia, declared itself independent of Serbia, a traditional ally of Moscow.
Intensifying the conflict, Abkhaz President Sergei Bagapsh called on Monday for a military cooperation agreement between an independent Abkhazia and Russia.
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin in an interview with Spiegel Online on Sunday attacked the US for its “deceitful role” and pointed out: “American was arming Georgia for five years, and Georgia tripled its military budget.”
Of Washington’s intense lobbying for Georgian admission to NATO, he said, “That would be very dangerous … It is a decision by all of NATO, a decision on what relations it wants with Russia in the future.”
The Russian government is incapable of responding to the aggressive and provocative policy of the US except by counterposing to Washington’s drive for hegemony in the Caucasus and the Eurasian continent its own Russian nationalism and militarism.
Resting as it does on the dominant factions of the new bourgeoisie that enriched itself from the plundering of the nationalized economy of the former Soviet Union, the Russian regime is incapable of making any appeal to the masses of former Soviet republics such as Georgia and Ukraine which are being lined up against it.
On Sunday, Ukraine held a large military parade in Kiev to mark the 17th anniversary of independence from the Soviet Union. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko gave a televised address in which he declared that only NATO membership and military rearmament could protect Ukraine from Russian domination.
Yushchenko published an op-ed column in Monday’s Washington Post in which he reiterated earlier threats to limit Russian naval access to the Black Sea port of Sevastopol. Russia and Ukraine agreed in 1997 to a 20-year renewable lease for the Russian naval base in the Crimean port.
Yushchenko went on to declare his support for the “territorial integrity” of Georgia and insist on Ukraine’s admission to NATO.
Indicative of the bipartisan support for the Bush administration’s reckless and belligerent policy toward Russia, with its ominous implications of a potential military clash between nuclear armed powers, is an interview with Saakashvili reported in Monday’s New York Times. The article notes that the Georgian president is convinced of unqualified US support for his drive to reassert control over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, saying he “spoke by phone with the presumptive Republican nominee for president, Senator John McCain, as often as twice a day, and that he was in regular contact with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., who has been picked to run for vice president on the Democratic ticket.”
Well, my words are again proved, this time by WSJ in the article VS pointed out in his following post “Neocon bellicose hysterics against Russia: the WSJ leads the charge”:
WSJ: Russia Is Dangerous But Weak
August 26, 2008; Page A19
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121971090058271261.html?mod=loomia&loomia_si=t0:a16:g2:r1:c0.24733
A quote – “With the exception of Robert Mugabe, no other leader has so completely fouled his own nest as Mr. Putin, or ***squandered so much international good will.*** In 2003, Mr. Putin formed, with Germany and France, a coalition of the unwilling to oppose the invasion of Iraq. It was a coalition he might have built on to consolidate Russia’s place in, and perhaps eventually atop, Europe. Even Condoleezza Rice seemed prepared to go along, with her reported inane comment that the U.S. should “forgive” Russia while “ignoring” Germany and “punishing” France.” (*** marked by P2O2)
Once more – US intervened to kill nascent Euro-Russian Security Pact.
Regards
I can’t seem to understand how US formed the decision to recognize Kosovo … I was never aware of any political discussion in the public space in the US regarding the strategic pro’s and con’s. The rest of western Europe went along …seemingly oblivious.
As far as I remember it was only Lind, Buchanan and some discussion over at the Agonist about it…
Vin- about Bush “stupidity” relating to Russia.
I don’t think Bush is a moron. It’s much worse. Zionists hate Russia because
1)they are partners with Iran and Syria,
2) because they are considered anti-Semitic based on what is allowed to be actually spoken and printed there,
3) based on the recent Russian Jews moving out of Russia, into Israel and the US, without a hearty “good luck” from their fellow Russians as you can imagine
4) Based on their desire to keep the Caspian sea oil under Russian/Iranian control, and the attempt by Israel/(“the west”) to defeat this via the alternative pipe through Georgia,
5)based on the Israeli /Western memory of the stinging rebuke suffered when Putin stopped the oligarchs from raping the country after the USSR was dissolved.
6)Based on the general world view conflating the identify of International Capitalism- The West- Israeli strategic interests-
and the vision of Russia as not kneeling -selling their media, disarming, and allowing this clique that runs “The West” to rub their face in the dirt.
So Bush has either submitted to fellow traveler status, or been bullied, or blackmailed, or levered like we do here in the US, into this anti-Russian posture, backed by the WSJ etc. There is probably not stupidity involved- maybe perfidy. maybe political or personal weakness when considering what it would take to buck this segment of his support, maybe a genuine tribal bond- (Haggee style) with Israel. If we got into a sub nuclear regional conflict with Russia over Iran, and at the end of the day, the US and Russia and Iran were exhausted, Israel would inherit the regional hegemony title if they could stay directly out if it. I think that’s what is going on. Nobody in press in the US anyway, could say or suggest such a thing and keep their job for long. That’s how we play the game here. “Poor little Georgia” Russia does not allow “free” press you know, if some foreign investor can’t buy it. See, that’s what “free” means now.
@ps: oh I really believe that Bush is a moron, a semi-literate ignorant ape really. But, more importantly, he is a puppet in the hands of his Neocon puppeteers so his brains really matter very little. As for his puppeteers, they are clearly much smarter than Dubya and they are, as you correctly point out, driven by a visceral hatred of everything Russian. But they also make huge mistakes because of their arrogance, their imperial hubris, the deeply held belief in their superiority and their blind hatred for most mankind. A key to seeing this is that ALL THEIR ‘SUCCESSES’ ARE ALWAYS SHORT TERM. That, in turn, results in a constant and never ending exercise in damage control, in calling in the wolves to chase away the dogs, and in seemingly ‘inexplicable’ ‘disasters’ which every time strike them as a highly unfair “blot out of the blue” catastrophe. Also, their response to any problem is “more of the same, more of the same, more of the same, more of the same”. Since they cannot accept the idea that they screwed up, and since they ‘know’ that they are superior they instinctively reject any notion of having brought that shit on themselves. This is also why they cannot build anything, only destroy. The sad irony is that as a result, they already get a real taste of hell here, on earth, as a foretaste if the real thing which inevitably will eventually befall them anyway…
Vin- Maybe you are right about the ‘it doesn’t matter’ part. I know you are right on the neocon judgement part, because every perceived threat is an existential threat to Israel, and there are no measures too extreme to be off the table under an “exestential” threat- there are no brakes on these guys. Most of their schemes are loaded with trap doors where they will not get the result they wanted, and most likely, get unplanned results much worse. The problem is that
1) no brakes on their wild schemes.
2) every threat is existential regarding Israel- explaining 1)
3) Most of what they do is in the shadows and they control the MSM spin. All we got are fringe press guys like vin.