Georgia's South Ossetia Conflict - Political Commentary

[kaur]

Lie in Russian official news broadcast. Just one of those many ones (tonight they started to talk about Baltic/Ukrainian mercenarys like during Chechen wars fightin in Georgian side). But this one is really BIG lie.
Mikhail Leontyev is Kremlin's loudspeaker and he is citing to Statfor think tank. Maybe someone understands the text that starts 4.50 in this clip. ... or show it to Russian-speaking colleagues. Clip ends with direct threathening of neighbours.

http://rutube.ru/tracks/917658.html?...5f977bb5a09f46

[kaur]

The catch is that Russia cannot maintain its ambivalent stance of supporting the secessionist quasi-states and acknowledging that they remain parts of Georgia; nor can it keep pretending that it is not a party to the conflict but merely the guarantor of a non-existent peace process. Prior to the war, Moscow had been very irritated by Eduard Kokoity’s corrupt regime, but now to all intents and purposes it owns South Ossetia and has not only to provide aid but to resolve the status issue (Ezhednevny zhurnal, August 8). Medvedev is forced to make decisions that he is very uncomfortable with and to place them in a new strategic line for the Caucasus that he is not really qualified to draw, while Putin takes charge over practical matters like distributing money and resources. Spoils from this “victory” would hasten Russia’s drift from democracy, worsen its investment climate, and add more tension to relations with the West and with Ukraine. Diplomats may contemplate a return to the status quo ante, but Russia has changed in the course of this entirely unnecessary war, and the damage cannot be undone.

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373302

Several other observers predicted that the Russian-Georgian war would give Russia’s siloviki hardliners the upper hand in the country’s domestic politics. “Even a short ‘peace-keeping’ war will not only provoke a growth in enmity toward Russia on the part of Western countries, but also--and this is more important for us--will confirm [Russian] society in the opinion that over there, in the West, there are not only arrogant, rather stupid pindosy [a derogatory term for Americans], but an enemy who will not yield,” wrote Dmitry Volkov. “There are no real doubts about how Western countries will view the Russian attack. This will allow President Medvedev to be put in the unambiguous position of a ‘strong national leader’ completely dependent on the power structures” (www.gazeta.ru, August 9).

If Russia “gets involved in a war” with Georgia, this will solidify “what the Russian siloviki have achieved [over] the last several months,” wrote the commentator Yulia Latynina. “At the same time, it is completely unimportant who wins this war and who will be its victims. The very fact of such a war means that control over Russia will be retained by the siloviki, the special services, and Putin. The siloviki [would] even profit from the disgrace of Russia; in that case, there will be a bigger outcry, hysteria and money” (www.ej.ru, August 8).

http://www.jamestown.org/edm/article...cle_id=2373303

[Ron Humphrey]

How the Chinese may percieve this major distraction from their coming out party?

Also consider that should this end badly in the long run for Russia and they once again be sidelined to pariah status they may have to look towards becoming almost a client state to China in really being able to continue selling those exports upon which they have built their resurging economy.

Probably way out in left field but what the hay, worth looking at


AND RA: Thanks for the link its interesting reading and I am looking at it. The one problem I have with WIKI is that it is completely user created and when a large section of the posting is without sourcing and other parts are based on information from sources which may or may not carry a bias it really has to be taken for face value and with a ton of salt

[walrus]

I note with interest that the hate site "Blackfive.net" is already blaming "spineless politicians" - meaning Democrats, as is Mr. Kristol repeating the lie that it was the German politicians who were responsible for the treaty of Versailles and making comparisons.

Just for the record, we have had Seven years of a "Unitary Executive", presided over by a "Commander In Chief", and the buck stops with him.

Now let's get back to Georgia. What are Putin's intentions? Regime change? Control of the BTC pipeline? What else?

[Ken White]

...What are Putin's intentions? ... What else?

Replacement of Kevin Rudd with Peter Costello.(Gratutitous and pointless political comment with no pertinence to the issue - no charge, no applause necessary)

Now let's get back to Georgia.

[walrus]

It's not gratuitous political comment if we allow the same processes and personalities and agendas that got us into Iraq to inform our stance on Georgia.

...And the same mouthpieces are already hard at work, and should not be listened to if a sensible decision is to be made.

What are Putin's intentions and what are the available American and European options?

[Ken White]

both fringes are blathering. Saying little to nothing of import as usual but just trying to stir up hate and discontent. I keep swearing I'll ignore them like most but alas, I fear that I'm addicted to pointing out how silly they are. It's a terrible burden...

As to your germane questions, I have answers:

We don't know but there's a lot of guessing going on mostly based on fragmentary information, misinformation and disinformation.

Few.

[Rank amateur]

AND RA: Thanks for the link its interesting reading and I am looking at it. The one problem I have with WIKI is that it is completely user created and when a large section of the posting is without sourcing and other parts are based on information from sources which may or may not carry a bias it really has to be taken for face value and with a ton of salt

True. Google "velvet divorce" for some different sources. Here's one from a Czech radio station's web site

"After 12 years of living apart the prevalent opinion in both countries is that the divorce was the right thing to do. At the time more people were against the break-up than in favour, but today people have accepted it and most of them say that, with hindsight, it was the right decision."