FULL ARTICLE HERE The political game is all about having leverage. Russia, currently, is doing all it can to gain leverage against the American presence in Central Asia. This is a vital time to do so because the new US President has not yet established himself as a hardliner and has not made any bold foreign policy moves. The Bush administration fought hard on every level to keep anyone else from meddling in Washington’s affairs in the region. The US provided a lot of support for numerous former Soviet republics in Central Asia in order to secure their political dominance in the region.
One of the most important reasons for having friendly nations in Central Asia, especially Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan, was because they provided vital supply bases for US operations in Afghanistan. The majority of US personnel, ordnance, and supplies were channeled through the US Air Force base in Kyrgyzstan. Now, however, the United States has lost that base and Moscow has acted upon an opportunity to provide a counterweight to US policies abroad.
First, Kyrgyzstan stated that the US base that was virtually sold to Russia for $2 billion can be used to still transport humanitarian supplies to US forces in Afghanistan. However, it means that Washington will have to find another base to use for directing supplies to their forces fighting the Taliban. The strategic advantage of the base in Kyrgyzstan was that it was only 1,5 hours of flight time away from the US airfield in Bagram.
Second, Moscow recently offered NATO the opportunity to use their Air Force to transport supplies to US forces in Afghanistan, since they were close to Afghanistan and it would take the burden off NATO to maintain active bases in the region. For Russia this means a lesser NATO and American presence in the region. It also gives Moscow an opportunity to control the flow of supplies intended for the war in Afghanistan. This is the most important factor in the ordeal over Central Asia, having leverage against American policies abroad. If NATO agrees to use the Russian Air Force to bring …CONTINUE READING HERE
FULL ARTICLE HEREThe news of seven post-soviet nations creating a military rapid reaction force should come as no surprise, for it was only a matter of time before a military alliance of some former soviet republics was created. Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan are putting together a force whose central command will be in Moscow. The force will be able to dispatch a rapid reactionary force to any region in the post-soviet space.
This is actually very important because this news came out the same time that Kyrgyzstan announced that it will close a U.S. base on its territory. Most likely there was a struggle for influence between Moscow and Washington, and analysts may only guess why Kyrgyzstan chose Russia, but the fact remains that the US is not going to take this loss lightly. Trying to guess future reactions of these two powers would be a waste of time for there’s not enough information to do so. However, it is necessary to analyze why this step by these seven nations is important and what are further implications of this Rapid Reactionary Force (RRF).
Natural Resources
Every country except for Belarus is vital in its own way to protect Russia’s interest in the Caspian. Presence of Russian military bases and a joint military with these Central Asian countries gives Moscow an ability to secure their resource transit routes and the resources themselves from providing America an alternative to the Persian Gulf for oil.
It is a known fact that United States has spent a lot of time and money trying to increase their presence in the Caspian to lessen their dependence on oil coming from the Middle East. It only makes sense that Russia wants to close off this alternative for the United States. If this RRF is a successful endeavor, the United States will have to deal with another military alliance that truly does not want Washington to meddle in its affairs. The newly established RRF will also be able to react to any threat that would otherwise threaten the continuous flow of oil and gas through the pipelines and by ship to refineries in Russia and other nations of the RRF.
This military union is also a concern to Georgia and Azerbaijan as well. These two nations host foreign oil refineries and pipelines in Supsa and Baku. Especially after the recent war CONTINUE READING –>
The way wars are fought has changed over time, but the reason for the wars hasn’t. It is not about religion, it is not about simply acquiring new territory. It is about acquiring resources and protecting their flow into the nation that is currently controlling those resources. Currently, not all “takeovers” have been militarily achieved. Nations that risk too much in an open conflict will bend to the requests from more powerful nations in return for more wealth from those that are already in control. The more powerful nations or blocs are the US, China, Russia, and the EU. All the others that are on a less resource-based economic “diet” do not meddle in affairs of resource acquisition. At least not to the extent that the afore mentioned nations do.
However, armed conflicts are what this article will be about. Nations that are not developed, that are unstable, are the most probable targets for an invasion by more powerful countries in order to control the resources and vital trade routes. Most nations that are considered as developing already “willingly” share their resources. African nations, certain Middle Eastern… FULL ARTICLE HERE
The US suggestion that Kiev could bypass NATO’S membership rules and join the alliance anyway has shocked the world’s diplomatic community. Freelance writer Alexey Sazonov reports for RT on what’s behind the surprise move.
On December 1, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Ukraine and Georgia will eventually join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, but they have a “long road” ahead to meet the entry criteria.
The Bush administration has begun the final push to accomplish one of its most important goals in Europe, that of encircling Russia with NATO countries. According to the New York Times, “the United States has started an unexpected diplomatic initiative in Europe, urging NATO allies to offer … Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements.” Now, the question is whether it would make sense for NATO to take such an action, and would this produce a split in NATO.
Any measure to bypass the requirements through which all NATO countries had to go may cause an outrage in the ranks of the organisation as well as set a dangerous precedent.
NATO unity
The purpose of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is not to create a coalition and to wage war, but rather to avoid it. Condoleezza Rice’s proposal to accept Ukraine in NATO’s ranks seems to be putting the organization’s unity and the security of its members at risk. Article 10 of the North Atlantic Treat Organization signed in Washington D.C. in 1949 states the following on enlargement of the organisation: ”The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European state in a position to further the principles of this treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this treaty. (…)“
Ukraine’s involvement in the war in Georgia in August of 2008 has not helped Ukraine’s chances of getting the approval of top ranking European members of NATO. European nations, although condemning Russia’s actions, have stayed away from committing their forces to the conflict, and would like to avoid doing so if possible. In addition, Kiev’s outcry about a possible Russian attack on Crimea has made some members scratch their heads and ask themselves whether they really want to put themselves at risk of an open conflict with Russia.
Unlike the Western European nations, the Baltic States, along with Poland and the Czech Republic have expressed support for Washington’s…
Full article can be viewed on RussiaToday site and I would appreciate any comments to be made on this page.
Washington is holding on to everything it has in Georgia, and for a reason. It needs a platform of allies surrounding Russia, which is nothing new. In addition, the fact that has purposefully been overlooked in the mainstream media is that the U.S. is more interested in the economy of Georgia, which will ensure their alliance. The system that America uses to keep hold of Georgia and its President is an elaborate scheme that will ensure political cooperation of Georgia and big profits for U.S. companies.
Making the Rich Even Richer
United States’ “private” companies have long been working in favor of their government abroad. Their actions are commendable as they show patriotism and a belief in both the capitalist system and the American way of life. Nevertheless, working in favor of your country, more often than not, means making citizens of a country worse off than before the investments came into that country’s economy.
The system is fairly simple – bring in U.S. companies to build up energy production, infrastructure, and re-arm the military. The financing of the projects is done through loans made to Tbilisi by the World Bank or similar financial institutions. The loans are given in such large amounts that Georgia will most likely default in the near future. Defaulting will in turn mean that the U.S. will have a firm hold on Georgia’s politics and its system of government as a whole.
The projects that the loans will be issued for will make the rich that own the power plants, dams, and other industrial investments richer. These are the same individuals that sit in the Georgian parliament and run the country. The people, on the other hand, whose land is used for the projects and whose labor is used to make the whole industry work, will be getting a below-acceptable wage and most will likely be out of work as a whole.
Reports indicate that in Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi, the unemployment rate is close to 30%. In 1991, after gaining independence, Georgia reported a 17% unemployment rate. Today, although Georgia reports economic growth and higher per-capita income, people are actually worse off now than before America took an interest in the small Caucasus nation.
It is true that Georgia is growing economically, producing more power, and that more industries are working. However, most of the income earned from the industries goes to paying off the huge loans taken out for the projects. In addition, the wealth of the rich has grown, which produces a higher statistic for the country’s economy. It’s a case of simple math – the more overall wealth divided by the approximately the same number of people in the country produces a higher per-capita statistic.
Georgia Owes America
The people in the Georgian government owe their increase in wealth completely to America. If the U.S. had not offered to help build up the country and lend them the money, Georgia would’ve been struggling just as much today as it had in the 1990s. What does this mean for Washington? It means that they can utilize Georgia’s military, UN votes, WTO membership, and many other tools of politics in their favor.
Tbilisi owes Washington for setting up the Rose Revolution. It is a simple fact that no one in Georgia had the money to set up such a well-funded and well organized action. Not too surprising that in 1999, Georgia’s GDP grew at 3%. The following year, with the introduction of new investors from the West, their GDP grew at 2%, 4.5%, and 5% in 2000, 2001, and 2002 respectively. Right after the Rose Revolution, the GDP growth nearly doubled in 2003 to 8.3%.
In addition to investing in the Georgian political and economic welfare, America and a row of its allies invested heavily in rearming the Georgian military. It was a necessary measure in ensuring that the Georgian army is under their control. If Georgia would side with Russia once again, the project of reequipping the military again would be a costly affair. It is a headache which Tbilisi is not willing to go through again in the near future.
What’s Going to Happen Next?
America has a firm hold on Georgia. Tbilisi is bound by the “friendly” gesture of the Western states to be their allies and to side with America on its foreign policy. Georgia has already become a firm base for the American military. In case of an armed conflict with Russia, Georgia will provide a buffer zone that will be able to hold out for the necessary time needed to bring U.S. troops to the region.
Economically, it benefits the U.S. industries and the few that hold the wealth of Georgia. The U.S. and European companies reap good profits off the projects in the region. On the flip side, the Georgian elite get their share of income that keeps them out of meddling with U.S. interests. The platform has been prepared in case of a potential threat from the Russian Bear.
Georgia’s president Mikhail Saakashvili: “We strongly deny any accusation of war crimes”
President Mikhail Saakashvili has denied that Georgia’s armed forces committed war crimes during their attack on South Ossetia in August.
Evidence obtained by the BBC in the breakaway region suggests Georgia used indiscriminate force, and may have targeted civilians.
Witnesses said tanks had fired on an apartment block, and civilians were shot at as they fled the fighting.
UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has raised the issue with Tbilisi.
South Ossetia and another region, Abkhazia, broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s, in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Georgia’s attempt to re-conquer South Ossetia triggered a Russian invasion and the most serious crisis in relations between the Kremlin and the West since the Cold War.
Witness claims
The BBC recently undertook the first unrestricted visit to South Ossetia by a foreign news organisation since the conflict.
Marina Kochieva, a doctor in the regional capital Tskhinvali’s main hospital, told our reporters that she and three relatives were targeted by a Georgian tank as they were trying to escape by car from the town on the night of 9 August.
There were certainly war crimes committed, certainly not by us
She said the tank fired on her car and two other vehicles, leading them to crash into a ditch. The firing continued as she and her companions lay on the ground, she added.Georgy Tadtayev, a 21-year-old dental student, was one of the Ossetian civilians killed during the fighting.
His mother, Taya Sitnik, 45, told the BBC he bled to death in her arms on the morning of 9 August after a fragment from a Georgian tank shell hit him in the throat as they were both sheltering from artillery fire in the basement of her block of flats.
Mrs Sitnik said she subsequently saw the tank positioned a few metres from the building, firing shells into every floor. Extensive damage to the five-storey block appeared consistent with her version of events.
Mr Saakashvili said: “We strongly deny… accusation of war crimes – but of course, we are very open for any kind of comments, we are very open for any kind of investigation.
There is a high level of anger towards Georgians in South Ossetia
“We called indeed for international investigation into [the] conduct of this war, into conditions leading to this war, into circumstances leading to this invasion.”He added: “Those areas which were under Georgian control – and they were not Georgian villages, they were basically villages mostly predominantly populated by ethnic Ossetians but they were affiliated with the Georgian government – were 100% destroyed.
“So, you know, there were certainly war crimes committed, certainly not by us.”
‘Without favour’
Mr Miliband – normally a strong supporter of Georgia – told the BBC: “I think the Georgian action was reckless, I think the Russian response was disproportionate and wrong.
“And that is the series of events that have landed us where we are.
“On my visit to Tbilisi of course I raised at the highest level in Georgia, the questions that have been asked and raised about war crimes and other military actions by the Georgian authorities.
“We have acted in this without fear, without favour.”
The BBC visit also confirmed the systematic destruction of villages inside South Ossetia that were inhabited by ethnic Georgians.
Some homes appeared to have been not just burned by Ossetians, but also bulldozed by the territory’s Russian-backed authorities.
The recent events of the past month in Georgia become more complex everyday. This is especially due to information finally being unearthed.
Israel
Israel has banned all businessmen related its military industry to travel to the Caucasus region. Russia is known to protect its interests no matter what. So if Israel kept on dealing arms to Georgia, Russia in turn would start supplying Middle Eastern nations hostile to Tel-Aviv with modern weapons. To avoid risking this, Israel has decided to virtually halt its role as a Georgian ally and to avoid getting involved in the whole situation around Tbilisi. Iran being a closer Russian ally, Israel does not want to give Russia reason to deal modern weapons to Tehran.
Georgia
Saakashvili may resign his Presidency sometime before, or in the beginning of, this upcoming winter. The question of Saakashvili’s resignation has been discussed actively in Washington by the Georgian opposition. According to Alexander Chachia, leader of the opposition movement “Samegrelo”, M. Saakashvili “will be made an offer he cannot refuse.” He also added that the U.S. has been looking into the question of having Saakashvili resign in September, but it would mean admitting their own “human resource” mistake. Saakashvili’s predecessor is presumed to be his fellow of the “Rose revolution” Nino Burdzhanadze, who is an ex-speaker of the Georgian parliament and currently is part of the opposition. She has already visited Washington. Nonetheless, experts say that this change will not bring about much change into the relationship between Moscow and Tbilisi. “Moscow will have to speak with the masters, not the servants,” says Alexander Skakov, and expert at the Russian Institute of Strategic Research. He states that Tbilisi’s foreign policy will still be coming from Washington.
American media is now becoming split in condemning and supporting Georgia. Most of the critics of Saakashvili in the West say that his actions went against Western interests and were completely orchestrated by Saakashvili.
The way the situation is unfolding right now is exactly as I said on my very first post on August 8th, as Georgian artillery pounded Tskhinval:
United States will do one of the following: remove Saakashvili from power or wait for the conflict to end and then congratulate the victor. Saakashvili seems to think that he has brought Georgia to the global level, but no one really cares. It is as simple as that. Access to the Black Sea and a base near the Caucasus Mountains is not reason enough for the U.S. to go to war with another power. Full Article Here
U.S. Policy in the Caucasus
Russian officials have stated that by sending back Georgian military personnel from Iraq to Tbilisi on August 8th, 2008, Washington has provided military support to Tbilisi in its fight in South Ossetia. Colonel-General A. Nagovitsin, head of the military operations in South Ossetia stated that, “[Georgian] political and military officials have lost control of the situation [during the conflict], and Mikheil Saakashvili has gone as far as asking Americans to provide him with a plane in case he had to leave.” He added that the panic in the country was so great that when 50 Georgian tanks were retreating from Tkhinvali, they were mistaken by the media and the government for Russian tanks, which in turn made the West think that Russians were pushing through Georgia.
Again, as was stated in the first article at CloserView:
That in mind, why has the U.S. not stepped in to help Georgia? Simple – Saakashvili did not talk it over with the U.S. He is now officially making decisions for himself, and this is not a decision that Washington truly supports. They HAVE to condemn Russia’s actions because Russia and U.S. have never sided on the same side of any major issue.
The Conclusion
Russia knows that it lost the informational war. Now it was what it is best at – cornering its opponents into admitting their mistakes. It will throw all its resources not into playing the informational war, for it cannot be won. Is has already won it’s battle with Israel sending modern weapons and modifying Georgia equipment. Czech Republic has already indirectly admitted to U.S. missile-defenses and radars being directed against Russia.
Now, Moscow wants Poland to admit it’s decision for letting the U.S. set its missile defenses on its territory wrong.
Most important battle that the Kremlin is fighting right now is getting Washington to stop backing Saakashvili and becoming an alternative to the U.S. as an ally for countries. Medvedev has openly stated that Kremlin’s policy is getting the world to stop being a one-sided game in Washington. Implying that it will do its best to defend its interests and interests of others even if they go against U.S. foreign policy interests.
Avoiding a new cold War means Washington and Russian politicians to set things straight around Georgia and to have everyone do their own things. When everyone starts getting involved in one conflict, two sides emerge and start clashing heads. If the battle remains only between Washington and Moscow, and the rest of the world stays out of it, a new Cold War will be avoided.
U.S Congressmen HAVE to support Georgia, for U.S. holds responsibility for Saakashvili and his administration. This video was sent to me by a reader. It shows direct speeches of Ron Paul, Dana Rohrbacher, and (!!!) Hillary Clinton. No commentary is needed further. The evidence is there.
RBC, a trusted and well known news source in Russia and especially in the European business world has just released a story that is titled, “American Intelligence Confirms That Russia Is Right” relating to the war South Ossetia. Here’s the link to the permanent site of the story on RBC. If anyone reading this questions my translation, feel free to pop this into a translator, or find a person who reads Russian. I guarantee direct translation.
American Intelligence Confirms That Russia Is Right
American intelligence confirmed that Russia’s actions were correct during the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict. According to their data, recent military actions in South Ossetia were begun by Georgia, which is why Russia’s position is correct. Dana Rohrbacher (R – California) stated this on Tuesday’s hearing in Congress.
“All intelligence sources with whom I’ve talk – and I have talked to many during the summer [congressional] recess – confirm, that all recent military actions in Georgia and its separatist provinces were started by Georgia,” stressed Dana Rohrbacher, according to TV channel “Vesti-24″.
According to his words, “Georgia, not Russians, broke the ceasefire, and no talks about provocations and other things can change this fact.”
D. Rohrbacher said that all attempts to put all of the blame for the military actions on South Ossetia are a “fig-leaf”**. “Russians are right, we are not. Georgians started it, Russians finished it,” said the politician.
**A fig-leaf is the little leaf that covers the private parts of statues. This is a direct Russian translation and a “fig” here is not the fruit, but rather meant to express that it does not serve a lot of purpose, as the statue is naked already.
The Conclusion
This will NEVER be aired or written anywhere in America. A thorough Google, Yahoo!, etc search will not find anything even mentioning this in English language. Rohrbacher’s statements undermine the whole political stance of the West in the conflict. Even though American intelligence is the source of all of this, the politicians who have a lot at stake here will do all they can to make sure this does not get out into the Western newspapers and tabloids soon, if at all. U.S. will completely lose face if a story even slightly mentioning this is published anywhere in Europe, even more so if it is published in the States.
The leaders in Ukraine and Georgia – Yuschenko and Saakashvili respectively – seem to be losing hold of their governments and their public support is falling each day. News are coming out quite frequently hinting at tensions between the Presidents of the two countries and their governments. Oppositions are using this chance to bring forth their ideas and show what they have to offer their countrymen.
Ukraine
Newspapers from Russia and Ukraine are reporting that Yuschenko and the Rada (Verhovnaya Rada is Kiev’s Upper House) are more tense than ever. The Ukrainian parliamentariansare introducing a new bill that calls for renaming the Ukrainian Internal Forces to the National Ukrainian Guard. In essence, this gives the control of the military to the Rada, and takes it away from Yuschenko. Nikolai Dzhiga, a Ukrainian parliamentarian, pointed out that in this way, Yuschenko will not be able to use the military to pursue his political goals.
In 2007, during the Ukrainian political crisis, Yuschenko tried to issue an order for the military to step in when the special police units loyal to the head of the Ministry of Interior took control of the building of the Secretary of State’s building. No one followed the order as they did not agree with it and Ukrainian parliamentarians shot down the order, deeming it unconstitutional.
This shows, that Yuschenko is the only one who is backing his political goals. Ukraine is virtually split, the East and the South regions supporting Russia and pro-Russian parties, while the West and the North are supporting the complete opposites. It is important to note that one that thing that everyone in Ukraine has in common, is lack of support for Yuschenko.
Events around Yuliya Timoshenko, a leader of an opossition party to Yuschenko, has been the center of media attention for the past week.She has taken a pro-Russia stance, as Yuschenkoputs it, with repsect to Georgia and Crimea. Timoshenko said that Yuschenko is only putting the Ukrainian people in danger by tensing the situation in the Black Sea and supporting Georgia, events around which have become a political turmoil. Timoshenko also said that she has noticed a “tail” behind her wherever she goes. Most likely from the Ukrainian Secret Service at the request of Yuschenko. Because of her stance on Georgia and Crimea, she has been called a traitor to Ukraine by Yuschenko, however, no one else seems to echo his thoughts on the matter.
Georgia
Opposition leaders in Georgia are calling for Saakashvili’s resignation. The opposition leader of the party called “New Right” David Gemkrelidze said that is was “irresponsible of Saakashvili to bomb Tkhinvali, it was a trap, whichw as set for Georgia, against which the U.S., Europe, and the Georgia people have warned.” He also added, that now NATO does not know within which borders to accept Georgia into it’s organization. It is true, though, South Ossetian War has truly backed up Tbilisi’s attempts to join NATO.
The leader of the opposition also stated that he will meet with other opposition leaders to work out a plan of action of how to act in situations such as the one on hand. Soon, they will release their own, independent analysis of the short war in South Ossetia and will presented to the world.
Although the opposition is condemning Saakashvili, they are not taking a pro-Russia stance. Knowing, that the Georgian citizens have only been fed Saakashvili’s take on the war and read only the stories published by state controlled media, they have to take a stance which shows them as saying that this conflict was wrong and that the territorial sovereignty of Georgia has been destroyed. Nevertheless, they are not blaming Russia for the actions and are placing all of the blame on Saakashvili.
The Conclusion
United States is losing the grip on the “friends” in Tbilisi and Kiev. The oppositions in the countries are becoming more and more popular, as the current administrations do not give the Ukrainian and Georgian people what they want, and that is security (as seen in the South Ossetian War and the tensions in Crimea), and stable economies (spending a lot on military, while not paying attention to important domestic issues). It will be interesting to see how the elections in Ukraine and Georgia will be affected by the wave of current events, what role the U.S. will play.
closerview
to offer … Ukraine membership in the alliance without going through a lengthy process and fulfilling a long list of requirements.” Now, the question is whether it would make sense for NATO to take such an action, and would this produce a split in NATO.
There were certainly war crimes committed, certainly not by us 
