My CSM piece on the big-picture implications of Georgia
I worked pretty intensively on this earlier this week. It's here.
President Bush has recognized these facts. He has wisely refrained from doing anything there that might lead to a shooting war with Russia.
I don’t call this more than no options for him it’s the time leave the WH in peace for Bush.
Wisdom do not come suddenly to some one specially he runs two term in WH seriously and madly with lies flying high from and around WH and US, how that man turn to be wise I doubt it. Some thing changes in people inside make them writing different view now from five years ago. It’s not the sudden wisdom fallen on GWB.
Oh Helena, you pretty much frustrated me here.
"Russia invaded neighboring Georgia"
Russia did no such thing and you know it. Why are you writing such nonsense? Russian peacekeepers, who had official OSCE recognition, were killed by Georgian troops. A town under protection of those peacekeepers was attacked with "area denial" weapons, imprecise massive rocket fire.
Russia sent in additional troops to prevent further atrocities. That is NOT an invasion.
Then you go on "Georgia was certainly not blameless." God dammit - Georgia started the whole shit. And you know it. Why do you write such ****?
"global challenges: nuclear proliferation (especially in Iran),"
When where what nuclear thing has Iran EVER proliferated??? Iran is building a civil enrichment capability independent of foreign energy sources. Something you demand the U.S. to do too itself.
Sorry that was a very bad short piece. What took you long to write that?
I understand that you need to make a living and write for those who pay for it, but this seems to go too far for me.
Sorry, but the piece is that bad.
B-- dealing with tight space constraints and complex negotiations with editors over just about every word was what took most of the time. Re the former, writing shorter is always much harder than writing longer. I get spoiled on the blog. Re the latter, let's just say they were exhausting.
Oh dear, Helena wrote another article for the MSM, and it took its toll, again, as it is apparently wont to do. (I love that expression.) Anyhow, let's move on.
A continuing challenge to strategic thinkers and writers is how to measure national power. Sure, the US economy is greater than the next three countries combined and its military power is gigantic, but do these two elements constitute the whole of national power, and if not what other elements are in play?
And national power isn't the only power. A guy in a cave in Pakistan (the story goes) has the US fighting expensive wars, spending billions on hhomeland defense, clamping down on constitutional rights and threatening human rights (torture).
Then there's the hard-to-measure psychological component of world opinion, which is certainly a factor, and corporate power, diplomatic capability, web power, and media power. The list goes on, and the existence of all these factors does tend to make us more interdependent and increase the need to work together, despite the common fallacy that the US is all-powerful because of its economy and its military.
PS: I notice with regret that H. didn't mention JWN in the biographical footnote. You don't like us any more? It's probably some of that stuff Frank wrote. (There I go again.)
I applaud your optimism that the world's increasing interdependency will make big wars unthinkable. Unfortunately, it didn't work last time around, as Paul Krugman points out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/15/opinion/15krugman.html?hp
Fading superpowers, who feel cornered or the need to keep up appearances, can do stupid things, particularly when they're heavily armed and dangerous.
When US citizens killed in Somalia or in Iraq US run to crash cites and towns like in Falujha when two Backwaters mercenaries killed by Iraqi hand on their land all that in name this are terrorist the hate our freedom and democracy!!
But when Russians run to save their citizens from Georgian they are aggressors so who are truthful in his claims?
I understand that you need to make a living and write for those who pay for it, but this seems to go too far for me.
Certainly they are, just like all Americans who running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan just for their living not more....deepend where he/she are.
A British oil company which once employed senior Tory Alan Duncan as a consultant paid $1 million to the Serbian war criminal Arkan to settle a score over a secret oil deal to supply Slobodan Milosevic's Serbia with fuel.
Vitol's involvement with Arkan came to light as a result of a £122 million court case involving a controversial oil deal in Iran. British businessman Kaveh Moussavi accuses Vitol of cutting him out of a deal to transport millions of gallons of oil from the Caspian Sea in the north of the country to the Gulf in the south.Laura Rozen
Bernhard:
-- so all the South Ossetian shelling of Georgian towns, which the Russian peacekeepers did damn-all to stop, doesn't count as "starting it?" I'll go with what Helena said - "Georgia isn't blameless" - but Saakashvili's invasion wasn't exactly the start of the conflict. There were a lot of incidents on both sides before, with the Ossetians pushing the envelope in the days leading up to the invasion.
-- Russia _may_ have had a case to send troops into South Ossetia to preserve the status quo, but going beyond that into Georgia proper - that was an invasion. Helena's right again.
-- and I should add that the atrocity stories that Russia used to justify the war were, in great part, a fabrication. The Russians just revised the civilian casualty count downward from 2000 to what, about 130?
I should add that the atrocity stories that Russia used to justify the war were, in great part, a fabrication.
They are not a lone in this fabrication, history tells us more of it its just same and same forever, but humans loses their life whatever the case civilians from other nations killed tortured they are not more that rabbles, insurgences terrorists, and so and so. While yours heroes and sacrifices their bloods and big long walls hold their names, some came forward as presidential candidate proud been POW in hand of poor nation when unforgettable atrocity made by aggresses stories on the “enemy” land he is now proud as a hero of war of aggressors
I'm shocked, simply shocked that a great nation would use false claims of atrocities, massacre, and genocide as a justification for attacking a sovereign nation.
Now, which sovereign nation are we talking about being attacked here--Serbia or Georgia?
As usual, the US thinks that international law applies to everyone but itself. Like McCain said, "in the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations" (only hegemons do).
An alternative view (from theRealNewsNetwork):
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2091
This link seems to work: http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=2091&updaterx=2008-08-21+18%3A59%3A59
John H, you're absolutely correct - if it was bad for Russia to start a war based on exaggerated atrocity stories, then it was bad for America. But Bernhard seems to think it was good for Russia, so I guess he's OK with America - or Israel - doing the same thing.
My, this splendid little war is bringing out the hypocrites on all sides, isn't it? McCain, Bernhard. Bernhard, McCain.
"Meanwhile, 4,000 miles away, Russia invaded neighboring Georgia"
Wow. I give up, the Emperor sure is dressed fine and dandy today, isn't he.
Azazel, I'm happy to see someone has some perspective. Russia had some 100 000 troops battle ready in So. Ossetia. Consider how long it takes to gather 100 000 troops and the necessary arms and supplies and then hold the force in a battle-ready state. Remember some months ago when Russia started bringing in "railway workers" and repairing the So. Ossetian railways? The shelling of Georgian villages, among other provocations, had been taking place for some time, it had lately intensified. The invasion of Georgian territory would have taken place sooner or later.
So. Ossetia has a mixed population. Only about 30% are Ossetians, about 20% Georgians, a good number of Russians , and others. Human Rights Watch has reported the burning of Georgian villages there. The So.Ossetian leadership made the statement that no Georgians would be allowed to return to their homes. Sounds like ethnic cleansing to me.
Russia has a much bigger propaganda machine than does Georgia. And it uses it well.
What surprises me is that the same people who consider an independent Palestine a legitimate right are not willing to grant the same right to Georgia, but believe that it should stay in ex-Soviet Russia's "shpere of influence".
Perhaps Helena might like to comment on the US destroyer in Batumi.
I have read Stratfor's take on the news but will allow others to pitch in with ntheir views.
The only thing I will note is that while there are ships from the EU who were taking part in an exercise off Bulgaria, they havent moved to the other side of the Black Sea.
Lebanonwire picked up Helena's piece as an Editors Choice
We should not in all the fuss in the Black Sea overlook two small blockade runners in the Mediterranean.
Somebody seems determined to stir up trouble during the Democratic convention.
http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2.html?NewsID=13006300&PageNum=0
Another voice of Reason.
And the Voice of Unreason
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/world/europe/26russia.html?hp