Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Kikomom]

South Ossetia is also at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.

[ersatzredux]

[caniff]

Seems that Saakashvili, et al., bit off quite a bit more than they could chew after succumbing to both domestic pressure to solidify Georgian 'national integrity' combined with American (read: Bush Admin) promises that 'the West' (NATO) would have their back.

From accounts I have read, both European governments as well as Washington were telling the Georgian government to calm the *beep* down prior to the run-up to this conflict. Assuming this was the case, why would you think it would be in American or Israeli interests to have a Russian response that would obviously entail a further stranglehold on pipelines running through that region?

Russia has reportedly already blown up major Caspian Sea pipelines. BP has shut down others fearing more to come. I can't see how this benefits 'Western' interests. Could you expand a bit?

[Ya-ta Boy]

[arjuna]

A Path to Peace in the Caucasus

By Mikhail Gorbachev
Tuesday, August 12, 2008; A13

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20493.htm

MOSCOW -- The past week's events in South Ossetia are bound to shock and pain anyone. Already, thousands of people have died, tens of thousands have been turned into refugees, and towns and villages lie in ruins. Nothing can justify this loss of life and destruction. It is a warning to all.

The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse. New wounds aggravated old injuries.

Nevertheless, it was still possible to find a political solution. For some time, relative calm was maintained in South Ossetia. The peacekeeping force composed of Russians, Georgians and Ossetians fulfilled its mission, and ordinary Ossetians and Georgians, who live close to each other, found at least some common ground.

Through all these years, Russia has continued to recognize Georgia's territorial integrity. Clearly, the only way to solve the South Ossetian problem on that basis is through peaceful means. Indeed, in a civilized world, there is no other way.

The Georgian leadership flouted this key principle.

What happened on the night of Aug. 7 is beyond comprehension. The Georgian military attacked the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali with multiple rocket launchers designed to devastate large areas. Russia had to respond. To accuse it of aggression against "small, defenseless Georgia" is not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity.

Mounting a military assault against innocents was a reckless decision whose tragic consequences, for thousands of people of different nationalities, are now clear. The Georgian leadership could do this only with the perceived support and encouragement of a much more powerful force. Georgian armed forces were trained by hundreds of U.S. instructors, and its sophisticated military equipment was bought in a number of countries. This, coupled with the promise of NATO membership, emboldened Georgian leaders into thinking that they could get away with a "blitzkrieg" in South Ossetia.

In other words, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was expecting unconditional support from the West, and the West had given him reason to think he would have it. Now that the Georgian military assault has been routed, both the Georgian government and its supporters should rethink their position.

Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims -- the humanitarian catastrophe, regretfully, received very little coverage in Western media this weekend -- and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages. It is equally important to start thinking about ways to solve the underlying problem, which is among the most painful and challenging issues in the Caucasus -- a region that should be approached with the greatest care.

When the problems of South Ossetia and Abkhazia first flared up, I proposed that they be settled through a federation that would grant broad autonomy to the two republics. This idea was dismissed, particularly by the Georgians. Attitudes gradually shifted, but after last week, it will be much more difficult to strike a deal even on such a basis.

Old grievances are a heavy burden. Healing is a long process that requires patience and dialogue, with non-use of force an indispensable precondition. It took decades to bring to an end similar conflicts in Europe and elsewhere, and other long-standing issues are still smoldering. In addition to patience, this situation requires wisdom.

Small nations of the Caucasus do have a history of living together. It has been demonstrated that a lasting peace is possible, that tolerance and cooperation can create conditions for normal life and development. Nothing is more important than that.

The region's political leaders need to realize this. Instead of flexing military muscle, they should devote their efforts to building the groundwork for durable peace.

Over the past few days, some Western nations have taken positions, particularly in the U.N. Security Council, that have been far from balanced. As a result, the Security Council was not able to act effectively from the very start of this conflict. By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its "national interest," the United States made a serious blunder. Of course, peace in the Caucasus is in everyone's interest. But it is simply common sense to recognize that Russia is rooted there by common geography and centuries of history. Russia is not seeking territorial expansion, but it has legitimate interests in this region.

The international community's long-term aim could be to create a sub-regional system of security and cooperation that would make any provocation, and the very possibility of crises such as this one, impossible. Building this type of system would be challenging and could only be accomplished with the cooperation of the region's countries themselves. Nations outside the region could perhaps help, too -- but only if they take a fair and objective stance. A lesson from recent events is that geopolitical games are dangerous anywhere, not just in the Caucasus.

The writer was the last president of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and is president of the Gorbachev Foundation, a Moscow think tank. A version of this article, in Russian, will be published in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper tomorrow.

[arjuna]

The Reality Behind Western Propaganda Regarding War In Georgia

By Damian Lataan

http://lataan.blogspot.com/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20495.htm

12/08/08 "ICH" -- - For many the war in Georgia may have seemed as though it came from nowhere; as if it just suddenly erupted without any warning. And, if one were to believe what the pro-western mainstream media are telling us, one could be forgiven for believing that it did. The US and their western allies have taken full advantage of this anomaly and turned it to their advantage for propaganda purposes. They have been busy telling the world that the Georgians have been overwhelmed by the Russian �bully boys� to their north when in reality the Russians were and are merely reacting to the murderous bully boy tactics of the Georgian army and their supporting band of US and Israeli mercenary thugs that ruthlessly attacked the civilian population of south Ossetia in an effort to force them to give up their demands for autonomy.

In fact the tensions in and around Georgia, once part of the Soviet Union, have been simmering for years.

The Georgian state is made up of many ethnic groupings many of whom feel more comfortable being part of Russia than having to be subservient to Georgia. Over the years, since the collapse of the Soviet Union and the birth of present day Georgia in 1991, two regions of Georgia in particular, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, have evolved, against the wishes of the central Georgian government, into semi-autonomous regions whose status has been protected and supported by Russia. This has caused massive resentment from the Georgians who insist that these regions come entirely under Georgian control.

[...]

Georgia has recently been making strong moves to become part of NATO and has ambitions to become part of the EU. Russia is not very keen, and, given that the US would like to put their anti-missile shield system into NATO countries to protect them from the so-called threat of Iranian nuclear weapons, understandably so, to limit the number of NATO nations it has on its doorstep. As a result of Georgian aspirations about becoming part of NATO, the Georgians have become close allies of the US and the West and also of Israel who have ties to the small but influential Jewish community in Georgia with some of those members having close links to Israel being in the Georgian government including Georgia�s Integration Minister Temur Yakobashvili.

It was because of their strong relationship with the US that the Georgians considered it safe to have another go at asserting its will over the breakaway regions in the belief that the Russians wouldn�t dare to counter any Georgian moves against South Ossetia with Russian military action and, if they did, the US and the West would immediately come to their aid in the event of a Russian backlash against Georgian moves into South Ossetia. Certainly, Georgia would not have made any such move into South Ossetia without the backing of the US. It now seems, though, that both the US and Georgia have badly misjudged the Russian reaction and the US are unable to move. If they do, it will be the first time that the US and Russia have ever directly confronted each other in face to face open warfare � and we all know where that would eventually lead. As it is, American �advisors� (mercenaries), have in all likelihood been in combat with Russian troops in this conflict as have Israeli �instructors� (mercenaries).

The US and, to a lesser extent, the Israelis have painted themselves into a corner. Neither can afford to upset the Russians too much because they need Russian support over their stance on Iran�s so-called nuclear weapons program. Open hostility toward Russia, a veto-wielding power in the UN Security Council, would mean the end of UN support for any moves toward a UN endorsement of further sanctions against Iran. While Israel could pre-emptively attack Iran and would get support from the US in doing so, without UN supported sanctions in place there could be no reasonable casus belli for such an attack. (With sanctions in place, Israel could always claim that sanctions aren�t working and attack anyway.)But if the UN were to deny sanctions because of a Russian veto this would be tantamount to the Russians saying it does not believe the Iranians need to have sanctions against them because they do not have a weapons program and, since nobody would know better than the Russians about what programs the Iranians do have in place, they are, after all, the main suppliers of the Iranian nuclear equipment, then bang goes any casus belli the Israelis might feel they can use.

The geo-political reality, as we can see, is a far cry from the propaganda and rhetoric the US and their western allies are trying to put out in the mainstream media. And in this day and age of blogs and the internet which is often nowadays keeping one step ahead of the mainstream media, the propaganda and rhetoric is becoming increasingly more transparent in its blatancy.

Damian Lataan is an aeronautical Engineer and Historian. http://lataan.blogspot.com/

[Jandar]

[Captain Corea]

[Kuros]

[monkinwonderland]

Perhaps this issue has been raised, and I'm not implying that I favor either side in this conflict.

But does anyone else see any irony in the US criticising Russia for unilaterally invading a sovereign nation?

[monkinwonderland]

[Gopher]

Monkinwonderland: no irony at all. Perhaps some. Moscow used very much the same line as America in Georgia today -- only not "democracy" but rather "socialism" in Latin America -- when it justified an earlier intervention in U.S.-Cuban relations -- particularly its placing nuclear weapons on the island by fall 1962.

[Big_Bird]

[fiveeagles]

It's the perfect time to elect/accept Ukraine into NATO.

[Ya-ta Boy]