Girl on Fox News Frustrates Neocon Portrayals

[AllieBaba]

I was of the impression that Ossetia is a Georgian province, and as such, what the hell is Russia doing fighting Georgians there?
That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

It's a land grab by the Russians and they will follow it up with more. I'd bet my second computer monitor on it.

 

[mightypeon]

A problem with understanding?
That major powers are duplicious is a completely common occurence.
In general, nations to often support break away provinces (breaking away from perceive enemies), providing they are not breaking away from themselves.

Note that I did bring up Tschetschenia in order to explain what the Russians think and why they act like they do. This does not have any relevance on the Casus Bellis either Russia or Georgia posses.

Example: Imagine you are on a Holiday in Europe. Unfortunatly your car crashes into the cars of both Jürgen S. Schulze, a fairly normal person who wants a monetary compensation, and Mohammed S. Mamud, a sociopathic fundamentalist nutcase who cannot decide if he hates you more for beeing A) American B) Christian or C) a fairly independent woman.
However, under the law, both would be entitled to the same compensation.

OT considering Tschetschenia:
While Tschetschenia and South Ossetia have some similarities, there are differences.
Something equivalent to the Sochi agreement also existed in Tschetschenia, however, the Tschetschenieans broke it first by storming a russian military hospital in Dagestan and killing the wounded Soldiers. I would have a different view on Georgias actions if they could prove that South Ossetia commited atrocities on Georgian Soil prior to Georgias invasion.
Secondly, noone in South Ossetia wants to create a islamistic/christian/atheistic/flying-spagetti-monsteristic whatever Caucasus by force. Also I am not aware of South Ossetians doing things like
-blowing up apartment blocks in Tiflis
-taking an entire school hostage and killing many children
-taking a muscial Hostage and starting to kill the audience

Also considering Tschetschenia:
Lets check if the USA have any reasons for intervening there:
Has the US mediated and or guaranteed the peace deal after the first Tschetschen war?
No.
Where US soldiers operating under a UNO mandate shot by Russian troops while Russia reinvaded Tschetschenia?
No.
Are the majority of the Tschetschenians sporting American passports?
No.
Did Russia commit war crimes?
Propably yes.
Is that unusual in a civil war?
Sadly not.


If you want to argue about Tschetschenia I would suppose to move that towards another thread.

 

[AllieBaba]

I wasn't aware that Georgia was a major power. I was under the impression that it is a small country, which has struggled to become a democracy despite crushing oppression from Russia.

If Ossetia is Georgian, RUSSIA HAS NO RIGHT FIGHTING GEORGIANS at the behest of Ossetia, and implementing a civil war.

 

[mightypeon]

I was of the impression that Ossetia is a Georgian province, and as such, what the hell is Russia doing fighting Georgians there?
That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

It's a land grab by the Russians and they will follow it up with more. I'd bet my second computer monitor on it.

A) it is a province of Georgia, and Georgia signed a peace deal with that province, Russian troops were overlooking that peace deal as a member of that peace deal.
B) These Russian troops were shot by Georgian troops when Georgia was breaking that peace deal
C) The majority of the South Ossetians sport Russian passports
D) Georgia allgedly commited war crimes while trying to retake the province.

Compared to Kosovo, Russia can claim 4 reasons to be in South Ossetia (Nato could only claim Reason D).
According to Natos Kosovo interpretation, Reason D would allow to attack Georgia, while Reason B and C would also allow Russia to remove a threat that attacked its Soldiers and/or citizens. Reason A would allow Russia to take steps neccesary to return to the Status Quo.
Russia is predominantly quoting Reason B as their Casus Belli.

What could follow is a something similiar to the "landgrab" by the Kosovo-Albanians. Due to the Kosovo war, the number of ethnic Serbs in Kosovo significantly decreased, giving the Kosovo-Albanians much more land/control inside their region. Something similiar will likely happen with the (up to now significant) Georgian villages in South Ossetia which are unlikely to stay Georgian.

I doubt that Russia will formally annex any Georgian territory at the conclusion of hostilities. That the "independent Republic of South Ossetia" may "voluntarily" join Russia in some 10 to 15 years is completely possible though.

Russia is big enough, they want influence not land.
The creation of fairly big "security zones" is quite possible though in an effort to a) reduce the threat of another Georgian attack and b) daily show the Georgian population where S-Vilis policy brought them. Removing this security zones will likely by the main incentive for Georgia to form a more pro Russian Gouverment, since Russia is now unable/completly unwilling to offer Abkhazia/South Ossetia to the Georgians.

Considering the Russian aims, this seems to be the most rational strategy the Russian can employ.

However, do not forget that Georgia is in this situation because they suprise attacked South Ossetia.

 

[AllieBaba]

And wasn't S. Ossetia attempting to secede and join with Russia?

 

[Charles_Main]

I was of the impression that Ossetia is a Georgian province, and as such, what the hell is Russia doing fighting Georgians there?
That's what it comes down to, isn't it?

It's a land grab by the Russians and they will follow it up with more. I'd bet my second computer monitor on it.

While I do not support what Russia is doing. I have to point out that the population of Ossetia Is predominately Russian and has expressed the desire to be part of Russia. I think that is part of what is motivating Russia here.

That said the rest of what is motivating Russia is a desire to control the oil and gas pipe line, and to keep Georgia out of NATO.

This conflict is just a warm up, the real one will be over Ukraine.

 

[AllieBaba]

I agree. And I maintain Russia has no business there, it doesn't matter what the people want....unless there's something in their treaty with Georgia that says that if Ossetia wants to leave and join Russia, it will be allowed.

Which of course there isn't.

I also have an inherent abhorrence of any communist or tyrannical government thinking they have the right to invade a democratic country.

 

[Ravi]

I also have an inherent abhorrence of any communist or tyrannical government thinking they have the right to invade a democratic country.

Does that mean you are disappointed they once went to war with Germany?

 

[Charles_Main]

Does that mean you are disappointed they once went to war with Germany?

You make it sound like they had a choice, and that Germany was a democracy.

Hmmm

Hitler may have been elected democratically buy he made changes to the government afterwards that made Germany no longer a Democracy in anything buy name only.

Germany Invaded Russia remember. Before that Russia was busy invading Poland and the Baltic Nations, and Finland. Russia only invaded Germany after their Buddies turned on them.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, History Girl. Germany was a dictatorship, which was rapidly consuming everything it touched. If Germany had gained Russia, we'd all be speaking some form of Ruskie-German now.

 

[editec]

Yup, isn't it amazing how all you liberals have NO problem letting Russia run all over a democratically elected and free Government.

The liberals? the Liberals??!

Honest to god, you are a one trick pony, and you don't even do that trick well.

The liberals?!

Get a ******* clue, trooper.

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, I was sort of thinking the same thing.

 

[wihosa]

Does that mean you are disappointed they once went to war with Germany?

You do know that Putin was democratically elected, right?

 

[mightypeon]

You do know that Putin was democratically elected, right?

Actually, we could turn this into a funny agreement concerning whose last elections were less democratic, Putins or S-Vilis. S-Vili did beat up the opposition before, during and after the election. Parts of his cabinet left him (read ran away and sought asylum in other countries) and made accusation of him ordering murders. In light of this, I do not see the big difference between S-Vili and Putin.

About some anti S-Vili riots
End of the Rose Revolution as riot police are sent in to quell protests - Times Online

Interestingly, Georgia did not have a single peacefull transfer of power.
Georgias first president Zviad Gamndschuria was ousted violently, he was followed by Schevadnaze who was ousted by S-Vili as S-Vilis supported stormed the presidential buildings.


Hitler was "democratically elected", Aggressive dictators are suprisingly popular inside their own country, as long as they are successfull. Holds true for both Stalin and Hitler.
As a German, my guess as that Hitler could have been reelected all the way up to when things started beeing Ugly in Barbarossa


The treaty had something that meant:
"All side will strive to resort to peacefull measures."
Noone can argue that the Georgian measures were peacefull.
If Georgia would have pulled out of that treaty, the Russian would have been (theoretically, wether they would have done so in practice is not clear) forced to remove their peacekeeping forces from South Ossetia. If there would have been no Russian peace keeping forces, Casus Belli number 2(Georgians killed Russians operating under a UNO mandate) would no longer be valid, as would Casus Belli number one(Maintaining Sochi agreement). Since Russia Could still claim that either
A) Georgians are killing everyone (Nato Kosovo argumentation) and
B) Georgians are killing Russians (since South Ossetians tend to have Russian passports), they would still had reasons to go to war, although less than they have at the moment.

In light of this, Georgia apparently decided that it will try to gain speed/success chances while sacrificing legtimacy by launching a sneak attack while Putin was in Beijing. This propably increased their chances with the operation (still failed though) but gave Russia a hard as nails reason to intervene as his troops killed Russian peacekeepers.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Actually, we could turn this into a funny agreement concerning whose last elections were less democratic, Putins or S-Vilis. S-Vili did beat up the opposition before, during and after the election. Parts of his cabinet left him (read ran away and sought asylum in other countries) and made accusation of him ordering murders. In light of this, I do not see the big difference between S-Vili and Putin.

About some anti S-Vili riots
End of the Rose Revolution as riot police are sent in to quell protests - Times Online

Interestingly, Georgia did not have a single peacefull transfer of power.
Georgias first president Zviad Gamndschuria was ousted violently, he was followed by Schevadnaze who was ousted by S-Vili as S-Vilis supported stormed the presidential buildings.


Hitler was "democratically elected", Aggressive dictators are suprisingly popular inside their own country, as long as they are successfull. Holds true for both Stalin and Hitler.
As a German, my guess as that Hitler could have been reelected all the way up to when things started beeing Ugly in Barbarossa


The treaty had something that meant:
"All side will strive to resort to peacefull measures."
Noone can argue that the Georgian measures were peacefull.
If Georgia would have pulled out of that treaty, the Russian would have been (theoretically, wether they would have done so in practice is not clear) forced to remove their peacekeeping forces from South Ossetia. If there would have been no Russian peace keeping forces, Casus Belli number 2(Georgians killed Russians operating under a UNO mandate) would no longer be valid, as would Casus Belli number one(Maintaining Sochi agreement). Since Russia Could still claim that either
A) Georgians are killing everyone (Nato Kosovo argumentation) and
B) Georgians are killing Russians (since South Ossetians tend to have Russian passports), they would still had reasons to go to war, although less than they have at the moment.

In light of this, Georgia apparently decided that it will try to gain speed/success chances while sacrificing legtimacy by launching a sneak attack while Putin was in Beijing. This propably increased their chances with the operation (still failed though) but gave Russia a hard as nails reason to intervene as his troops killed Russian peacekeepers.

As a German, you should recognize that this did not start on Aug. 7th. That the Russians have been engaged in an active campaign over the last several years and especially since last April to undermine the government of Georgia. This has included baiting the Georgian military. For the last 4 Augusts, Russian "peacekeepers" have allowed South Ossetians to fire over the border toward Georgia. This most recent incident being the most serious.

This is straight out of Hilter's playbook circa 1938-1939. I will grant you that Georgia playing right into Russia's hands didn't help there case, but make no mistake, this is a situation and circumstance of Russian design.

 

[editec]

But we haven't been "bombarded" with the Russian/South Ossetian side of it, only the Georgian side. If you look at the neocon spinners, they are all saying Russia bad, Georgia good.

We will be.

Eventually, as with so many other issues, we will end up having to choose a side based on our FAITH about the credibility of the people we listen to.

My instincts tell me that this is nothing more than a squabble over power, that there are no good guys, only perps and victims of perps.

I do think the West is attempting to intimidate Russia, but I am highly dubious that South Ossetia separatists are motivated by nationalistic or ethnic pride, either.

I think this is nothing more than a play for power and influence.

I also think the USA should stay the **** out of it but of course they won't since to some extent, the American foreign policy bear-baiting is part of the cause of this particular problem.

 

[Care4all]

Let me help you. The girl was a plant. She came on with an agenda. It was to try to convince Americans that the Russians were the nice guys. The only question is who told her to say that.

yep, appears so.

 

[Tech_Esq]

We will be.

Eventually, as with so many other issues, we will end up having to choose a side based on our FAITH about the credibility of the people we listen to.

My instincts tell me that this is nothing more than a squabble over power, that there are no good guys, only perps and victims of perps.

I do think the West is attempting to intimidate Russia, but I am highly dubious that South Ossetia separatists are motivated by nationalistic or ethnic pride, either.

I think this is nothing more than a play for power and influence.

I also think the USA should stay the **** out of it but of course they won't since to some extent, the American foreign policy bear-baiting is part of the cause of this particular problem.

I must say, I'm loving your cynicism.

I agree in whole or in part with what you say, even the US should stay out of it part. Except that a reinvigorated Russian foreign policy will not be able to be long ignored by the US. The US is left with a choice to make: Is it in the US's interest for Russia to be strong and exerting (sometimes apparently, militarily) its influence over at least close neighbors. Or, would it be in the US's interest to use some influence to keep Russia relatively weak and pursue a policy that tends to have corrosive effect on Russian foreign power in the "near abroad"?

The US for its part usually cuts and runs when democracy is at stake. We have a long and tainted history of it. We hung the Hungarians out to dry in 1956, we did the same to the Czechs in 1968, the Iraqi Shiites in 1991 and I'm sure I'm missing a good half dozen examples. So getting involved in saving a democracy just isn't what we do. We also have no stated interest in this part of the world. We have the Carter Doctrine (for better or worse) in the Persian Gulf region so we at least have a stated interest in that region.

But regardless of our "interest" in the area, we will have to deal with a resurgent Russia if we do nothing. What should be done to effectuate either policy alternative is another question. But I think we need to answer the primary question first. Nobody should be confused, we don't get to decide whether Russia is strong or weak, but we get to decide on whether our policies tend to assist Russia or tend to hinder Russia.

 

[editec]

Let's be honest here.

Oh, crap. that means you're going to expect us to think deeply about the issue, isn't it? that's not much fun. That means we might very well have to give up the opportunity to take a side, and feel morally superior to everyone else.

The argument that Saakashvili is automatically the good guy who can possibly do no harm simply because he is democratically elected is a bit ironic when coming from the US media.

American propaganda ironic? Say it ain't so. To understand how ironic one needs to be able to remember what was said in the past.

American foreign policy has a history of backing whoever best suits American interests, be it democratic or authoritaran.

That's putting it mildly.

Let me go a step further and suggest that often we do is not so much what is in AMERICA'S interests, but rather what is in the best interests of whomsoever has captured the AMERICAN GOVERNMENT at the moment

The paradigm that America leads a so-called "free world" and that all democracies are allies of the United States is a myth constructed by psy-ops strategists aimed at manufacturing American public support and consent (or better yet, ignorance) for their government's foreign policy.

Possibly, but will an evaluation of American foreign policy so nuanced that that will sell in Peoria?

Sadly, if in international politics, if one credits national motives more complexly than a Star Wars plot, your argument,is going to lose 90% of the audience, I fear.

Most people understand White Hats v black Hats. Gray hats mystify them.

What they want to know is who is right and who is wrong.

Which is what makes it hilarious when American journalists with little knowledge on international affairs -let alone amateur political analysts on internet message boards- cry foul when Russia "invades a democratic country".

It takes a lot to laugh. It takes a gravy train leaving the station without you on it, to cry.

Bob Dylan would have said that... had he thought of it before I did.

As editic correctly noted, we really do not know what exactly happened and who started it, although mightypeon does offer a very convincing argument, far more convincing than that article posted by kathianne.

I know who started it..men seeking power behind some noble sounding rationalization for doing evil...on BOTH sides!

More specific than that I cannot be.

But I PROMISE YOU, if we ever can get the truth of this matter, that is likely going to be the first conclusion you'll reach, too.

The former gives us a detailed moment by moment account of how things escalated to where they are now, while the latter simply provides a vague conspiracy theory based on speculation and some factual events.

Moment by moment accounts are history (assuming we can ever figure them out)

Understanding what caused those events is political science.

For anyone who has studied literature, journalism, public relations, or other literary and communications disciplines, what the American press has been doing, regarding the Russian invasion of Georgia, is blatantly obvious, and is -in fact- a millenia-old gimmick.

They've got spurs that JINGO-JANGO-JINGO

To illustrate this point, just remember back to watching Disney's Cinderella as a kid. I'm not sure how much the 20th century film has corrupted the original, ancient folk tale, but just by watching the film, it is quite obvious who the filmmaker wants us to dislike and who the filmmaker wants us to sympathize with. In order to do this, Disney relies on characterizations: the step-sisters, who we're supposed to hate, are portrayed as very unattractive, while Cinderella and even the Prince (a minor character) are both attractive. This visual characterization of antagonists and protagonists -highly common in Disney films from Snow White to the Lion King- is a very simple yet highly effective way of getting children to support the protagonist of the story and to dislike the antagonist.

I think the step sisters were unfairly portrayed, personally. Cindy was obvious a gold-digging, social-climbing slut.

Similarly, the US media relies on characterizations in order to create an antagonist and a protagonist in the current Russia-Georgia conflict.

I'm surprised we are NOT being told that Russia is run by liberals, to be frank. We've poisoned the meaning of that word, well enough.

Often times, near the beginning of a news article, it is emphasized that Georgia is either "democratic" or "pro-Western" (or both), immediately identifying the protagonist of the story.

You can see this quite clearly in the article posted by kathianne: just in the first sentence, Georgia is introduced as the democratic country in the conflict, thus the protagonist of the story.

Oh-oh! The jig's up! People are starting to deconstruct the pap we've been passing off as the NEWS.

Time to take off the silk glove and give them a taste of the iron hand underneath it, I think.

Further into the article, the protagonist is developed more fully (a country that overcame obstacles, became democratic, and so on). Russia, on the other hand, is given various characterizations in the US media in order to create an antagonist; these characterizations frequently compose a bully looking to regain its former sphere of influence. While constructing this antagonist character, the characterization of Russia fails to provide precise insight relevant specifically to this conflict (let alone the Russian perspective), and instead attempts to tie the Ossetia conflict into a broader theme of Russia bullying and controlling its neighbors.

All kidding aside, the fact that Russia has such a long history of being a bully makes tagging them as such NOW, rather easy, doesn't it?

These characterizations of the conflict's antagonist and protagonist are reinforced by the simplified narration of a complex international deveopment.

YUP! If you want to confuse the issue completely ..simply simplify simplify!

It is very clear that the US media want and need the American public to support the Georgian side in this conflict. The irony is that most Americans are completely oblivious to the similarities that the 2008 Ossetian conflict shares with the Kosovo conflict of 1999 except that the United States and Russia have switched roles.

Not to worry.

The vast majority of people capable of remembering history are so marginalized in this society that very few people pay attention to what they say, anyway.

The publc is also ignorant of the fact that Georgia hosts the only two pipelines that bypass enemy territory (ie Russia, Iran) to bring Central Asian and Caspian crude oil to the sea and onwards to the "West" and the United States, thus having immense geostrategic importance to Washington.

Isn't it about time somebody call you a conspiracy theorist for suggesting that American motives might not be quite so pure as our simply defending Democracy?

Among other things not mentioned by most US media: the United States has been Georgia's closest ally since Saakashvili came to power; there were [curiously] over 100 American military advisors in the country months before the Russian invasion, and -according to Texas-based private intelligence firm StratFor- it's highly unlikely that the Georgians acted on South Ossetia without approval from Washington (perhaps because possible Russian counteraction was underestimated). Washingon, on the other hand, maintains that it advised Saakashvili against this move.

Nice post.

I am still unconvinced that Russian motives are pure.

But as to you analysis of how the news is being slanted to make us supporters of Georgia's position?

Spot on.

 

[editec]

As a German, you should recognize that this did not start on Aug. 7th. That the Russians have been engaged in an active campaign over the last several years and especially since last April to undermine the government of Georgia. This has included baiting the Georgian military. For the last 4 Augusts, Russian "peacekeepers" have allowed South Ossetians to fire over the border toward Georgia. This most recent incident being the most serious.

This is straight out of Hilter's playbook circa 1938-1939. I will grant you that Georgia playing right into Russia's hands didn't help there case, but make no mistake, this is a situation and circumstance of Russian design.

One is reminded of the Sudetenland when one hears the Russians speaking of having to protecting a national minority doesn't one?