Comments

There Are 81 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 16 August 2008:

   We were awaiting Dr. T’s comments with bated breath. He came through worthily.

   The neocons/Russophobes haven’t given up; they want a military response, or at least an effort to isolate Russia. McCain, advised by Scheunemann, who lobbied for Georgia, promptly began beating the war drums, though he’s now pulled back a tiny bit.

   The Commentary crowd and even the New York Times are intemperately using the events to call for a much more hostile approach to Russia

   The fact is that any further military adventures would require both conscription and further militarization of the U.S. economy. Neither will have any political traction unless the U.S. itself is attacked again. So we can’t and won’t keep our promises to the Georgias of the world. Instead of “Talk softly and carry a big stick,” it’s “Scream like a banshee and run like a rabbit.”

   Obama might nuance things differently, but he’s jabbering about NATO expansion and is advised by the likes of Brzezinski, a Pole to whom Russophobia comes naturally. We have a toothless Congress, an incompetent National Security State, and two aspirants to the Imperial Presidency, the one a callow rhetorician with left-wing antecedents but, it seems, the political principles of a chameleon, and the other an aged militarist whose uneven temperament is well-known and whose associations are downright scary.

2. 2 Comment by DJGB Popadich on 16 August 2008:

   A. J. P. T., Second Thoughts

   “I wrote this book to satisfy my historical curiosity; in the words of a more successful historian, ‘to understand what happened, and why it happened’. Historians often dislike what happened or wish that it had happened differently. They can do nothing about that. They have to state the truth as they see it without worrying whether this shocks or confirms existing prejudices. …”

   DJGBP
   (Aug. 16, 2008, 4:50 PM, end for now!)

3. 3 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 16 August 2008:

   Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.

4. 4 Comment by Alias Jacko on 16 August 2008:

   Special thanks, Mr. Trifkovic, for another cool, shrewd & realistic appraisal of world events — vitally necessary given the decades long virtual news blackout on all major American channels.

5. 5 Comment by Thomas Miller on 16 August 2008:

   “We have a toothless Congress, an incompetent National Security State, and two aspirants to the Imperial Presidency, the one a callow rhetorician with left-wing antecedents but, it seems, the political principles of a chameleon, and the other an aged militarist whose uneven temperament is well-known and whose associations are downright scary.”

   Thank you, Grumpy Old Man, for that glowing endorsement of Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin for President.

6. 6 Comment by Tom Piatak on 16 August 2008:

   Grumpy Old Man:

   “Scream like a banshee and run like a rabbit.” Brilliant!

7. 7 Comment by james on 16 August 2008:

   I think this is an historical event for the globalist empire.

   A foreign media and government conspiracy that can be proven that the international narrative of what happened to be false.

   RussiaToday did some great coverage of the conflict.

   I think Brezinski tried to do its use forces to massacre Ossetias get Russia bogged down in Georgia like in Chechnya in 94 or Afghanistan in 79 and conduct a guerrilla warfare campaign.

   Media would be used to proclaim Russia is acting like the Soviet Union and occupying a small defenceless country. The Ossetian massacres would be blamed on the Russian’s and Russia would be treated like the Serbs in the 90’s.

   Mercenaries have been captured by Russians from the US, Ukraine and the Baltic states who were shipped in by Ukraine to capture Abkhazia.

   I think they tried to capture Abkhazia so they can transport more oil into Europe when the price of oil skyrockets when they invade Iran.

   This is all apart of Brezinski’s Grand Chessboard strategy.

   He instigated the first Chechen war so he could use that as a proxy to invade and capture Dagestan so he can dominate the Caspian It’s no coincidence that after the first war Chechen militants run terrorist training camps in Dagestan. You only have to look at the map to see the countries bordering the Caspian Sea.

   The first Chechen war was pre planned after the first Chechen pres visited Harvard and Brezinski in 92 then with his blessing went to Bosnia trained militants there and make connections with Russian army personnel to smuggle weapons to Chechen militants back in Russia. In 94 the war was instigated when Chechen militants began an ethnic cleansing campaign of Grozny. Half the population was Russian.

   The western opinion pieces are saying that Putin pre-planned this and that Saakashvili’s all out assault was the pretext he could use to occupy Georgia and cut of the western pipeline.
   This is nonsense of course because:
   1) Russia dominates the territory were most of the Caspian oil reserves are westwards.

   2) Ludicrous to think that Georgia with a huge US military presence that Western powers would not intervene.

   3) The Georgian pipeline produces a fraction of what comes out of Russia to Europe and is on unstable geopolitical ground part of it runs through Kurdistan.

8. 8 Comment by Allen Wilson on 16 August 2008:

   Obviously, the tide had to turn sometime. After this, if anyone had their doubts that Russia was yet capable of successfully countering the big bully, or would be able to in the foreseeable future, those doubts can now be let go. Russia has proven itself, politically, economically, and militarily, to be a viable alternative to so-called ‘Pax Americana’ and visions of ‘globalism’. Modernisation of the armed forces will make this even more obvious, and this doubtlessly will be happening at the same time that the U.S. finds itself less and less capable of staying ahead in technology because it’s leaders stupidly wrecked it’s economy.

   Countries all over the world have begun to take notice of all this, and soon, if the fools in Foggy Bottom aren’t replaced with respectable statesmen capable of realism and respect for the rest of the world, the empire will be isolated in the same way they are trying to isolate Russia, because rather than isolating Russia, they are in fact helping create an alternative to themselves to which many countries doubtlessly will flock to escape the big Yankee’s arrogance, exploitation, and meddling in their internal affairs. I predict that Britain, perhaps belatedly, will finally realise the folly of supporting its spoilt child and jump ship.

9. 9 Comment by Rick F on 16 August 2008:

   Dr. Trifkovic,
   Most of us in the West have very little knowledge of Russian history (including all of the Eastern cultures who adopted the Orthodox religion). Would it be possible for you give us a brief historical synopsis of the emergence of Russia and its problematic relations with the West. I assume it could be done in a series of articles in Chronicles or on this website. I was surprised to hear that many conservatives in the West seem to be instinctively against any advancement amongst the Orthodox people. There seems to be a consensus that the Crimean War was justified because it prevented Russia from conquering the Ottomans and restoring Constantinople. Based upon on what hear, there is a saddening indifference about the West not honoring the Treaty of Severs after WWI, which resulted in the genocide of many Christians. I was told during the colonial competition between Russia and Britain (known as the Great Game) the Western interest hampered the Orthodox from proselytizing the people of Central Asia. Perhaps your articles could help remove some prejudices.

10. 10 Comment by james on 16 August 2008:

    @9Rick F

    Matthew Raphael Johnson website http://www.rusjournal.com/ has articles covering Russias history, culture and religion.

    I would like to know how Russia actually became communist.
    I know that foreign agitators tried to spark a anti-Czar revolution for 20 years, that the “revolution” was financied by international New York banker Jacob Shiff and most of the first communist government of Russia came form New York and that the Soviet Union was financed by the Federal Reserve.

11. 11 Comment by D Simmons on 16 August 2008:

    Or, that this whole episode is yet another jewish bungle. The arming and training of the army seems to mostly have fallen to Israeli contractors and mercs and the army failed spectacularly, a real clown show from top to bottom. As I read somewhere else the Georgian army seemed to be a laundering scheme to take US tax dollars and ultimately move them to Israel. As for the permission part I would say the Bush clan would like to see every zionist to line up pistol in hand, aim the pistol at the next person in line and on the count of three pull the trigger. Real money is to be made in the oil patch not promising the “end times” to religous fantatics.

12. 12 Comment by pablo H on 16 August 2008:

    There was nothing “Russian” about the leaders of the Russian Revolution. It should be noted that every head of the Soviet Cheka-NKVD-GPU was a non Russian. Peters, Beria, Yagoda, Dzerzhinski, Menzhinski, Yezhov. Yezhov is counted as a Russian but the man was actually half Lithuanian and was married to a Polish Jew. The same is true of the Soviet (Not Russian) leadership. Look at the 7 Politburo members after Lenin’s death in 1924, 1 Ukrainian jew, 1 Polish Jew, 1 Russian Jew, 1 Georgian, 2 Russians married to Jews (nationality unknown) and 1 Russian national Tomsky who may have been married to a Russian Orthodox. Most of the “Russians” were internationalists who had no loyalty to Russia at all.

    In any case, our enemy during the Cold War wasn’t “Russia”. It was the USSR – a communist dictatorship. We have never had any conflict with “Russia”. Of course, the neo-cons and the international busy bodies need an enemy, so they’ll have to manufacture one.

13. 13 Comment by james on 17 August 2008:

    Good point. You’re right of course communism wasn’t Russian and it wasn’t a revolution but an invasion.

    The same high percentage of Jews that were in the Russian government can be found in the post WW2 soviet satellite states.

    Russia only really became the enemy during the Cold war after the USSR stiffed the Arabs during the 67 war and to keep trade relations vital to keeping the Soviet economy afloat broke of relations with Israel.

    There has been a venomous campaign against Russia in the West the latest being the Ukrainian famine. When the Ukrainian government finally release a list of those involved there was barely a Russian on it most were Jews and Lithuanians.

    Modern times with regards to Chechnya the Chechens pre-planned and started the first war. Images of the bombed out capital which was due to ground fighting and half the population was Russian are constantly use to give the impression Russia blitzed the region never mentioning international terror organisations operating there against Russia there crimes and the “moderates” connection to them are never scrutinised.

    “Genocide” stories are just as bogus as in the Balkans against the Serbs, in fact the same people are involved. Carpet bombing of Grozny, Vacum bombs used to wipe out whole villages, mass rapes, etc. are all bogus.

    Unfortunately people still view Russians as Soviet barbarians from reading posts on this latest conflict on other webblogs just check out RussiaToday. Russia will always be branded like this no matter what the situation.

    Also “Russian” mafia not Russian.

14. 14 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 17 August 2008:

    Thank you, Dr. Trifkovic, for this very thorough analysis. Your point about the influence of American military advisors belies Washington’s denials that it was behind this Georgian attempted aggression.

15. 15 Pingback by Beska droppar » Ryssland, Georgien och Sydossetien on 17 August 2008:

    [...] Trifkovics artikel, “Caucasian Games: The Score”. Wayne Allensworths artikel, “The State of the Game: The U.S., Russia, and the South Ossetian [...]

16. 16 Comment by Iliya Pavlovich on 17 August 2008:

    If I am not mistaken the old communist state of Georgia was created by Dzugashvili (Stalin) and his right hand man Lavrenti Beria (Jewish) who later got appointed as the head of NKVD and was insturmental in establishing gulags, Lubyanka and other brutalities that we all easily harp on – whenever we attack Russia.

    A strong sense of Russo-phobia permeates most of American press, therefore the attacks go unabated.

    The two points above are enough to complete encircling Russia (launching ramps in Poland; radars in Czech Republic, alliance with Georgia – partnership for peace – NATO’s doorway, The Ukranian Orange Circus) – and Russians are not stupid to ignore such signs of overt hostilities in spite of tepid and glib speaches from the West. I don’t think that Georgia is the the only pawn to fall in the ensuing years. Ukraine is equally close – much of Crimea is ethnically Russian, Abhkazia is (and was Russian till Stalin made it a part of Georgia, Osetians are ethnically Russian as well.

    There is bound to be more unrest in the old Russian zone of influence. The largest question “qui bono” remains unanswered, who benefits from all this bloodshead?

17. 17 Comment by pablo H on 17 August 2008:

    IP @15,

    What is your evidence and source that Beria was “Jewish”? Everything I’ve read states he was a Mingrelian.

18. 18 Comment by james on 17 August 2008:

    @16pablo H

    As far as I know Beria was not Jewish but ethnic Georgian.

    One of Stalin’s wives and his infamous father in law Kaganovich (The actual biggest mass murderer in human history and architect of the 5 year plan) was Jewish.

    I’m not sure but I think that all of the Soviet leaders except from Gorbecheav had Jewish wives.

19. 19 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 17 August 2008:

    It was the Germans, wanting to disrupt Russia’s war effort, who shipped Lenin to Russia from Switzerland in a sealed car. The ploy proved successful when the Bolsheviks accepted a punishing peace at Brest-Litovsk.

    Ossetians and Abkhazians have been given Russian passports, but they are separate ethnic groups. Ossetian is an Iranian language, and Abkhazian North Caucasian.

    Deracinated ethnic Jews were overrepresented among the Bolshevik leadership, but most Russian Jews who were involved in politics at the time supported the Bund, a very different party from the Bolsheviks.

    History might be easier to understand if there were one simple key to understanding everything, but it is wiser to get used to the fact that it really can be, and almost always is, complicated.

20. 20 Comment by pablo H on 17 August 2008:

    @17 James

    I’ve found no evidence that Stalin married Kaganovich’s sister but if you have a source or reference please provide. Stalin did have Jewish mistresses after his wife’s death. (source: The Court of the Red Tsar).

    Nor do I think Khrushchev’s wife was Jewish. To be repetitive the non-Russian influence around Stalin was immense. Molotov, Voroshilov, Kalinin, BuKharin, Rykov, and Kirov all had Jewish wives. Mikoyan was Armenian, Ordzhonikidze aka “Sergo” was another Georgian, Koisser and Chubar were both Poles. Stalin’s main assistant (and member of his inner circle) Mekhilis was Jewish. Pauker head of Kremlin Security until 1938 was IRC a Romanian Jew. Litinov who ran USSR foreign policy was almost 15 years (1924-1939) was a Polish Jew.

    When you look at those people around Stalin Until 1946 its hard to many Russian Peasants and workers.

21. 21 Comment by Mladen Andrijasevic on 17 August 2008:

    Serge, any comments on Walid Phares’s “South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war? ”
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/south_ossetia_the_perfect_wron.html

    Excerpts:

    Since 1999, the outcome of the Western campaign in Kosovo brought about a parallel status quo to the one established in South Ossetia and in Abkhasia. In short, NATO had created an autonomous area for the ethnic Albanians inside a sovereign country, Serbia; while Russia and the CIS have insured autonomous status for South Ossetians and Abkhasians inside another sovereign state, Georgia.
    …

    But for Russia to actively arm Iran and Syria, this is a feature of cold war, inconsistent with present the international consensus against Terrorism. The Tehran-Damascus “axis” is in an active campaign to support Jihadi terror forces in the region and armed groups involved in the killing of US and Coalition personnel. It would be the equivalent of having the US arming and providing technology to Wahabi Chechen Terrorists operating against Russian cities and military. Hence, while Americans are as anti-terrorist as Russia is when it comes to the al-Qaeda Salafi threat, Russians are still feeding anti-Western forces in the Middle East. Hence there is a difference between Russian discomfort with NATO growth around the CIS and US concerns about Russia’s protection of Iranian-Syrian efforts in the region. Moscow is backing a party at war with the US Coalition while Americans aren’t assisting parties at War with Russia
    …

    To be crude: Liberal democracies have no interest in over-pressuring Russia in the course of strategic gaming while they are at full war with the Global Jihadists. Such a move will push the Russians away from converging with the West against the “common enemy.” Instead of consolidating a Western-Russian entente against both Salafists and Khomeinists, Russia and the US are confronting the Wahabis separately and in most cases unsuccessfully while the Russians have befriended the Khomeinists who are harassing the Americans. The Russo-American competition is not helping either side, but one other side does win: the Global Jihadists.
    …

    The Kosovo affair was concluded with sourness that came back to haunt the international community in South Ossetia. That is the first lesson to learn from it. The military clashes between Russia and Georgia told us that new conflicts would collapse all that the international community has tried to achieve for the last seven years. That is the second lesson. Third and last, without going back to the blame game, the South Ossetia war was a wrong war that should have been avoided: It was a perfect wrong War.

22. 22 Comment by Marko K. on 17 August 2008:

    I don’t think that American leadership see this as a win-win situation. I struggle to see any positives for the US, in a situation where it is helplessly watching the most pro-American regime in a key geostrategic region get defeated, which is what they should have anticipated in a Russian attack.

    I highly doubt that America would give this green light to Georgia, without some assurances from Russian leadership, just as they received before Kosovo’s declaration of independence, that they would do little to prevent this. From a recent New York times article, this suspicion can be confirmed. From anonymous high-level sources, they called this a “foreign policy catastrophe” and that they got “everything wrong.” They said up to the Wednesday night before the conflict started, Russia was playing a “constructive role.” These comments are consistent with Russia’s behaviour before the conflict, which gave no indication it was about to intervene.

    So knowing all this, and assuming it to be true, who is it in Russia that overruled Putin and his inner circle’s decision to do nothing? Was it someone in the military or some other influential figure we don’t know about? What caused this change?

    I think that’s the questions we should be asking. I don’t think the US would push Georgia into this without some assurances. Let’s not forget both Putin and Bush were in personal contact in Beijing at the time.

23. 23 Comment by james on 17 August 2008:

    @20Mladen Andrijasevic

    Western intelligence has been training and financing Chechen terrorism since 92 in Bosnia.

    The international Islamic threat is a fraud Kosovo, Bosnia and the Panski Gorge in Georgia is where they operate areas were there’s a heavy US presence.

    Russia’s sale of weapons to Syria and Iran are large scale army weapons nothing Hezbollah or any Islamic militant group could use.

    @21Marko K.

    Wasn’t it in the last Trifkovic article you were complaining Russia was not defending the Ossetians? Well?

    A week or less before Russia submitted a UN resolution for a peace agreement regarding the two regions but Georgia turned it down. Now we know why.

    Russia media reports Russian forces have captured foreign mercs including Americans and a map on how to capture Abkhazia so it was obviously pre-planned.

24. 24 Comment by DaveP on 17 August 2008:

    The forced separation of Kosovo from Serbia has indeed set a modern precedent, and many have commentators been writing the same in papers around the world. It was hypocrisy of the first order when Pres Bush requested that Russia respect the territorial integrity of Georgia.

    What I find difficult to understand is that Georgia took the decision to force the issue with Russia by sending in their troops. Considering the dangers in such a move, I would have thought restraint was the best option.

    So was Ossetia given a “deniable” green light by someone in the State department or elsewhere? Did the president of Ossetia believe that he would have the support of the USA for such a move, given that Georgia had significant number of troops (relative to Ossetia’s population) in Iraq?

    Why would America do such a thing? It is clear that Russia’s is no longer the impotent giant that it was in Yeltsin’s era (its nuclear arsenal has always been there). It is therefore not in America’s or NATO’s interest, that countries such as Georgia and Ukraine become full NATO members in this new era. Given that these countries are on Russia’s borders, and have large Russian populations within them, the chance of NATO getting into a serious confrontation with Russia, due to a miscalculation by these countries, is high. Russia has also made it abundantly clear that it will act if any policy adversely affects Russians in these countries. Such a confrontation is certainly not to NATO’s liking.

    What I see in the future is that the US and the UK, having committed themselves in the previous era, will continue to work strenuously for the entry of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO, but they will do so in the happy confidence that Germany and France will veto any such entry.

    I have a feeling that a decision has been made that NATO has just about reached its limit, as far its size is concerned, and this event is a marker.

25. 25 Comment by Marko K. on 17 August 2008:

    @ 22 james

    I’m very happy with the developments in Georgia. It’s good to see Russia finally stand up to the US. The world is tired of American bullying and needs someone to say “enough is enough.”

    If you remember, I said to you that Russia is completely capable of defending its interests without the US thinking twice about reacting. This was proven in Georgia and it’s exactly what’s frustrated me with Russian policy.

    A lot of people are happy with Putin’s policy. I’m not one of those and I believe Russia is capable of so much more. For those who said Russia’s hands are tied, this is a wake up call. The US needs Russia far, far more than Russia needs the US. I’m hoping this is the beginning of a new, more assertive Russia, one that will better defend its interests in Ukraine and Serbia, which is also in the interests of those people.

26. 26 Comment by Alex Ryu on 17 August 2008:

    What I find particularly interesting about the participants in this discussion, including the esteemed Dr. Trifkovic, is their lack of outrage against a blatant violation of international law, given their attitudes in the Kosovo affair. Their hypocrisy is just as stunning as that of the international media and Washington – only polarized differently.
    [quote]
    Kosovo did establish a precedent, after all, the one that Mosow will exploit to its advantage while making Washington sound hypocritical when invoking “international law” and the respect for territorial integrity of states.
    [/quote]
    How terribly amusing.

27. 27 Comment by james on 17 August 2008:

    @19pablo H

    You’re probably right there’s a lot of disinformation on the net like Stalin was Jewish because the translation of his real name to English they say is “Son of a Jew” although he was brought up as an orthodox Christian.

    Michael A. Hoffman II listed senior Jewish communist in the soviet regime.
    http://www.russians.org/communist.html

    @24Marko K.

    But the international media, politicians and majority consensus are still portraying Russia as the aggressor and Georgia the victim with the opposite being true.

    The media has gone to great lengths to paint Russia as Neo-USSR and discussing ways to “punish” her for what she has done in Georgia although Georgia launched the assault killing most civilians in the first 24 hours.

    I think they were going for the same media narrative as in Kosovo of greater Serbia.

    Poland has signed an agreement on the missile defence shield and Ukraine has threatened to blockage Russia’s black sea navy fleet.

    Does no one else think with all that has gone on over the years that they might be preparing to invade Russia in the future, similar to how they did it in the Balkans?

28. 28 Pingback by Saakashvili’s Fatal Gamble « Typicon Man’s blog on 17 August 2008:

    [...] South Ossetia coverage:  Dr. Trifkovic for analysis and Wayne Allensworth for some more background [...]

29. 29 Comment by Matt on 18 August 2008:

    It reaaly has come to this! Chronicles, ostensibly one of the few remaining strongholds of the conservative old guard, has turned unashamedly cowardly with the writings by its staff of Russian apologists.

    Mr. Trifkovic is right in his assesments of Mr. Saakashvili’s stupidity, but he poses a hypotheses — U.S. foreknowledge of Georgian intentions — that he fails to develop with even circumstantial evidence (other than the presence of relatively low-level military advisers) and is wrong in his assesment of the aftermath of the conflagration. If anything, one will see an acceleration of calls to expand the alliance or its dissolution and replacement (the latter outcome being preferable, though not mecessarily more likely). Ukraine will almost surely be invited to join NATO in the not-too-distant future. Moreover, the dispatch of Secretary Rice to Tblisi and U.S. troops to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgian airfields and seaports at that particular time and under the particular circumstances (including the present deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan) sent a clear message that the Bush administration would stand by its principals even if it lacked the immediate military capacity and political will to face down the Russian invaders. The message was clear that a Russian failure to withdraw would have serious consequences. And in the end, Putin/Medvedev blinked.

    As for the following passage, Mr. Trifkovic should be ashamed of himself:

    “The outcome is a blessing in disguise for those of us who believe that America should not be “engaged” in each nook and cranny around the world, and who advocate a sane, give-and-take relationship with Moscow based on the acceptance that Russia has legitimate interests in her near-abroad.”

    “Near-abroad”? You’ve got to be kidding!

30. 30 Comment by TJF on 18 August 2008:

    William Pfaff, whom I do not especially admire, made a valid point yesterday on NPR–rather to the disgust of the interviewer–when he said that Georgia should not be invited into NATO and that the US should not be taking sides in the civil war going on in Georgia. (Would that he had taken that position in the Balkans). He added that we should no more be encouraging democracy in Georgia than the Russians should be encouraging it in Puerto Rico.

    For well over a decade, US governments have been playing risky games. Only our wealth and preponderance of power have saved us from the consequences of our incompetence and arrogance. Since Yeltsin’s day, well-informed Russians have been convinced that US economic and political interests have been scheming to divide Russia, hem it in, and loot her resources. However paranoiac this may have sounded when I first heard it, a quick glance at the directors and advisors of major multi-nationals doing business in the former USSR should be sufficient to convince even a hardened skeptic. Among the names you will find most recent secretaries of state, treasury, etc.

    Indeed, the Russians must have been planning this little number for some time, and so they should. Putin et cie simply cannot permit the US to take over, one by one, its former dependencies on the pretext that we are building democracy in the Ukraine, Georgia, etc. On the whole, the world may well be a safer place when Russia reestablishes its regional hegemony. Power monopolies, as the US has tried to be, tend to collapse rapidly. Does this mean we should favor the Russians at the expense of our own country? Of course not. But there is no point to studying politics, domestic or foreign, unless the study is done from a Machiavellian point of view. Leave the rest to the liars who make politics their profession and to the poor unbalanced souls who think their political opinions actually mean something. Otherwise we find ourselves becoming a bit emotional, telling people to be ashamed of themselves, when they are merely doing their best to figure out what is going on.

    I have said this so often that I know you will think I have been a cranky old man, but I do not see the point of having a website at all, if it is going to encourage irrational and rude comments. One person commenting on Wayne Allensworth’s piece began with “garbage.” Then people were surprised that WA was annoyed. Really. I would like to see one of them pull this on Mr. Allensworth in person. Like all of us, he is not getting any younger, but he is one big Texan, and a sensible man who had ever met him would know enough to mind his manners. But that is precisely the problem with the internet. Since no one knows anyone except “virtually,” some people feel perfectly free to lie, slander, and insult. Shame on those who cry shame, and those who denigrate as “garbage” the argument of a serious man who has spent his adult life studying Russia and commenting honestly on Russian affairs reduce themselves to garbage. Apologies are in order, both to the writers and to the many decent intelligent people who take part in these discussions

31. 31 Comment by Sean Scallon on 18 August 2008:

    I feel Russia had no choice but to respond to Georgia’s brutal invasion of South Ossetia. Not doing so would have wrecked everything Putin had been trying to build in his nation for the past 10 years and distablized the government. Yet it is with sadness to see this situation developing as it is because of the neocon clique that rules Tblisi. Many Christians have died needlessly because of one man’s madness. The bitterness that’s been created will take years if not a century to get rid of.

    Hoperfully Russia’s response defending those under its protection would discourage other would be Misha’s in Ukraine, Moldova, and in the Baltic states to realize the reality of having large minorities of Russian speakers within their borders and that living in peace with one’s neighbor’s is a lot better than whipping up nationalistic hatred that only lead to conflicts as we’ve seen in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Having said this, I hope Russian troops withdraw soon from Georgia outside of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The Russian are only overplaying their hand and are causing sympathy for a government that does not deserve any. Georgians should be booting Misha and gang out of the country and instead they rally to him because the Russians are in the countryside. They need to leave so that true Georgia see the ruin Misha’s dreams of martial glory has left them so can respond accordingly.

32. 32 Comment by james on 18 August 2008:

    @29Matt

    So Russia should let them bomb Ossetian civilians and peacekeepers, breaking the ceasefire agreement?

    Georgia attacked South Ossetia first killing most of the civilians in the war in the first 24 hours and deliberately targeting civilian areas to get a response from Russia.

    The fact that Russia probably had some info on what the Georgians were planning and when Georgians acted strategically bombed military installation outside South Ossetia to not get bogged down in a long and protractive war.

    US and foreign mercenaries have been captured by the Russians and Russian intelligence officials have capture a Georgian intelligence officer planning terror acts in Sochi, Russia and planning to organise cells of militants to attack Russians in Ingushetia.

    Russia is far more justified and handled the crisis better than Israel’s war on Lebanon.

33. 33 Comment by Mladen Andrijasevic on 18 August 2008:

    @ 23 james
    “The international Islamic threat is a fraud”

    Fraud? Here is the list of every one of the 11671 Islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Are they just a figment of Bush’s imagination?
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2008.htm
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2007.htm
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2001-2003.htm

34. 34 Comment by Matt on 18 August 2008:

    To the esteemed TJF:

    First, I’d like to impress upon you and Mr. Trifkovic that no personal offense was intended in my post. That said, when your writers express their views as passionately as they do about certain matters of world affairs (Mr. Trifkovic on the Georgian incident, for example), they must understand that some of us, including your long-standing readers, feel invited to express their disagreement in an equally passionate tone without any shame whatsoever.

    While Chronicles generally espouses a particular ideological perspective, some of us (such as me) that espouse a distinct perspective nevertheless turn to your publication for insightful analysis devoid of leftist drivel for an ocassional sober check on our own initial instincts. Several of your writers have disparaged public figures and intellectuals for espousing views that they held to be contrary to the national interest. Surely, such men won’t cower when they themselves are accused of doing the same thing! Which brings me back to Mr. Trifkovic’s analysis implying clearly that the United States should allow Russia to exercise a free hand throughout its “near abroad” — I would very much like to hear how this can be viewed as being in the American national interest. I would genuinely like to understand why allowing a resurgent power with strategic interests that are clearly distinct to those of the United States reassert itself in mineral-rich or strategically located nations that have, over the past two decades, gravitated toward the American sphere of influence, all the while undermining American credibility, is in our national interest.

    Well-informed analysts on all sides understand that having one’s options and influence restricted by one’s potential rival is never a good thing. Yet Mr. Trifkovic and yourself seem more preoccupied in this case with Russian perceptions than with American ones. That American unipolarity has been mismanaged is a fair but distinct issue. That that unipolarity presents opportunities that could improve our security and quality of life should be a matter of greater concern and interest to well-informed Americans, at least from a strictly Machiavellian point of view. Russian interests are certainly legitimate, insofar as anyone cares. But American interests in keeping the Russians on the defensive are more legitimate, at least to this American. I am surprised that you would imply otherwise, for I would hate for the editors of Chronicles to be accused of being idealistic internationalists!

35. 35 Pingback by New World Order: Bosnia, Kosovo, Georgia [Part 2] « What Do You Believe? on 18 August 2008:

    [...] The Conservative, Anti-Jihadi perspective: [...]

36. 36 Comment by TJF on 18 August 2008:

    Matt (and James) still do not understand that it is not a question of ideas but of manners. Saying no offense was intended, when you cry shame, is to compound the offense. It is also deeply insulting to speak of Chronicles as having an “ideological perspective.” I leave such nonsense to Marxists, libertarians, and nationalists. An ideology is either a sealed system of ideas that prevents rational discussion–say, like Marxism or Misesism, or, as Marx said early on, a system of “ideas” projected to disguise and advance the interests of a class. I don’t have any Ossetian or Georgian friends and cannot imagine a reason to be passionate about such people. I do know a few people in Russia, but I scarcely care more about their interests than I do about those of my family and friends and neighbors. To speak passionately on either side of such a case would be very foolish, indeed.

    I do not speak for Srdja Trifkovic or Wayne Allensworth–two men, who by the way, disagree to some extent on Russia–any more than they speak for me. There is certainly room for reasonable debate on how to approach Russia, but if you are unable to understand the extent to which a powerful elite class in this country is driving us into a conflict in which they gain a great deal and we have little or nothing to gain, then I do not know what you have been reading, but it is not Chronicles.

    You say that I am “more preoccupied in this case with Russian perceptions than with American ones.” I have no idea what this means, and my bewilderment is aggravated by the fact that my observations had to do a) with your bad manners in telling a grown man to be ashamed of himself, as if you were a schoolmarm lecturing a naughty boy, and b) pointing out that there are legitimate reasons for the Russian leadership–gangsters though they be–to view the US as a hostile power. As people as wise as George Kennan and John Lukacs realized long ago, America’s long range interests lie in developing a good relationship with a powerful nation with whom we share a good deal and making a common front against both the Islamic world and against China. That James Baker and Mad Albright would oppose such a strategy that threatens their economic interests is perfectly understandable, but to cry shame on those who believe (rightly or not) that it is our interest is difficult to justify or even understand in one who claims to be a reader of Chronicles. Finally, those who seek an open and democratic form in which error and illogic and bad manners are valued as much as truth, sweet reason, and courtesy have come to the wrong place. They should go somewhere where it is believed that everyone has a right to his own opinion, a more nonsensical proposition than which (to imitate the late WFB) I cannot imagine

    I hope I have made myself clear and can return quietly to my dogmatic (or should I say ideological?) slumbers.

37. 37 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 18 August 2008:

    #32 Matt

    You and I probably have different perspectives on just what the American national interest is in general, but the differences might not matter in this case. As to the Georgian-Ossetian crisis, the facts are disputed, our armed forces are overstretched, the geopolitics are unfavorable, the exchequer depleted, and the American people unwilling to support an adventure in the Caucasus.

    It also seems that Russia, after a bit of bluster and having made her point, is limiting her position. When it comes to Russia’s near abroad, we ought to limit ours, at least to the point of not appearing to make commitments we are unable and willing to carry out.

38. 38 Comment by Guru on 18 August 2008:

    In order to understand Russia’s response to Georgia’s attack on Ossetia it has to be noted that Vladimir Puting was in Beijing at the same as G. W. Bush. The Georgian atatck started in peacekeeping baracks where they opened fire on Russian soldiers that have spent some time with them. There was 16 hours gap before Russian troops started movement. Putin did met Bush and asked him to stop Saakashvilli and aparently Bush laughed and showed his finger. Not surprisingly after mocking Medvedev at G8 summit in Japan, Bush belived that he can do the same with Putin.

    The rest is well known. Apparently georgian soldiers expected NATO troups to show up, not Russian. Their surprise and fear was at such extent that they dropped their arms and fled in order to avoid to be captured in uniform and punsihed for what they did in Ossetia.

    Saakashvilli is probably polishing his CV and emailing it to his “friends” in american banks looking for a new job. His latest work experience as a president who spends billions on arms and looses it 48 hours. Georgia has no military power any more. We will see the outcome.

    US does fear Russia, enormously. Not the Russian army and nuclear arsenal. They fear russian economic policy that will drop petro dollar and create local reserve currency forcing europe to buy it in order to purchase russian energy. If Iran and former Soviet republics follow the suit, it dangerous for US. The end of petro dollar is end of american hegemony and economic power.

    Vladimir Putin has spent 10 years in Germany analysing Western economic system and he did it well. Global bankers are russian enemies, not american or georgian people. He knows it very well and it can explain his and his team behaviour. Russia is no threat to any country in particular, just to “New World Order”.

39. 39 Comment by Cinik on 18 August 2008:

    Construing in the aftermath of this (not exactly yet finished) conflict as the most intriguing question the one about Mikheil Saakashvili’s motivation may not be sufficiently prudent when analyzing these sorts of things. Given the experience of, for example, Bosnia (e.g., the Markale bloody spectacle, that in the end it turns out neither Muslims nor Serbs perpetrated) and many other banana “republics” (like Croatia in 1995, hence operation Storm that began with brief bombing runs by American planes, or current Serbia, etc.) where US has thousands of its agents (openly or covertly), it is really a stretch to assume that it must have been Saakashvili who actually gave the marching (or better to say rockets launching) orders that leveled the capital of S. Osetia where no military targets existed, killing scores of civilians. It is quite possible that the so called puppet Saakashvili in fact was completely in the dark as the US “trainers” mounted the attack that he had no choice (as his life is at stake) but to own as his idea. What remains to be seen is what actual cost he will have to pay in the end. Is he going to be another Djindjic?

40. 40 Comment by Allen Wilson on 19 August 2008:

    It should be clear as a bell to Georgians and anyone else with a long term perspective that Georgia, as well as Armenia and even Azerbaijan, being small countries located in a very strategic area, surrounded by large and powerful Iran and Turkey, to say nothing of a large collection of Central Asian Muslim countries who may not be powerful now but may well be in future, need either to band together in mutual self-defence or to find a powerful ally. Georgia and Armenia, with religions very close to that of Russia, and on Russia’s doorstep, obviously should be courting Russia.

    That’s their best option for long-term security and stability. It likely would have become reality in the next few years had it not been for the U.S. interfering with it’s nefarious schemes and messing everything up. Once again the U.S. has thrown natural political and historical development off course.

41. 41 Pingback by Conservative Heritage Times » Some articles for your consideration…. on 19 August 2008:

    [...] Srdja Trifkovic explains the updated score in the Caucus crisis over at [...]

42. 42 Comment by Johnnie on 19 August 2008:

    Well, looks like Georgia will be getting NATO membership with Germany’s objection dropped, Ukraine has offered missle sites to NATO, and anti-Russian leaders of Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic States, all previous victims of Russia have united behind Georgia. Looks like you don’t have so much to be happy about. I find it amusing that someone who defends the territorial integrity of Serbia is now attacking Georgia for defending its territorial integrity. You have even spread lies about Georgian “atrocities” just as your enemies spread lies about Serbia’s “atrocities.” While at the same time Russia is destroying railroad bridges and other infrastructure. You can certainly say this is not the U.S.’s fight, but don’t defend Russian barbarism.

43. 43 Comment by skopros on 19 August 2008:

    having read the lively blog ripostes to Trifkovic’s article, I wld like to propose a decidedly lateral approach to some of these view–pls download the podcast/MP3 file of Bill Moyer’s 8-15 interview with Andrew Bacevich, a man with a disinct and distinguished military background (Vietnam), whose soldier son was killed in Iraq, and whose new book “The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism” offers an excellent antidote to what purports to be in the best interests of the USA (in media, government, military circles), whether by the least-principled Realpolitik or supposed “ethical” cooperation in a “global” community.

    I think anyone who hears his views will see how directly they relate to our imperial ambitions, our disaster economic outlook and the puling posturing of our presidential candidates and Congress, almost to a man/woman.

    It’s an oblique suggestion, I warrant, but it pays the time spent well.

44. 44 Comment by james on 19 August 2008:

    The fact that the international media and politicians support and sponsor the former oligarchs that ruled Russia nearly killing the country who control every aspect of it industry, media, politicians, who are linked to organised crime and there support for Kosovo bring into question there credibility of making Russia “democratic”.

    Western powers and media supported the Bolsheviks like Lenin, Trotsky, etc because the Czar was not democratic and look how that turned out.

    Perhaps “democracy” is a smoke screen for interfering and destabilising countries that are powerful and threaten western hegemony.
    That’s why the constant assault on Germany before WW2 and support of the over through of the Czar.

    The thesis of Brezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard” would support this theory as regard to Russia today.

45. 45 Comment by DaveP on 19 August 2008:

    Allen Wilson

    I agree that Islam is the main enemy we face. Russia may be a political enemy for the moment, though it need not be, but the threat we face and Russia face from Islam, is an existential one, and has lasted for 1400 years.

    I also feel that Georgia and Armenia, Kafir nations both, are under threat from Islam. If that ever comes about, the USA, given its historic record on this, is far more likely to assist Muslims, backed as they will be by Saudi Arabia and the OIC, then Russia.

46. 46 Comment by james on 19 August 2008:

    @33Mladen Andrijasevic

    Yes a fraud those attacks listed are from conflict areas were Jihadists operate no threat to mainland Europe or the US.

    All the major attacks in Europe and the US were off shoots of groups conscripted to fight in Chechnya or previous and current ties to Bosnia or Kosovo.

    Which include 9/11, Madrid train bombing, Casablanca, Turkey blasts, Saudi attacks, Hamburg Xmas market plot.

    Although hardly mentioned in the press French Muslim recruited to fight Russians in Chechnya trained in making chemical weapons in Afghan camps were planning to attack Russian interests in France with chemical weapons before the were caught by French intelligence.

    Another terror plot disrupted by French intelligence was militants planned to shot down airplanes at Lyon airport using shoulder rockets through An Algerian-Chechen network.

    It’s in Paul Murphy’s book “Wolves of Islam”.

    The explosives used in the London bombings were from explosives from an old Chinese missile warhead smuggled in from Kosovo that British intelligence let recruit and operate to fight Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo.

47. 47 Comment by james on 19 August 2008:

    @45DaveP

    The US already back Turkey and Azerbajin over Armenia.

48. 48 Comment by Marko K. on 19 August 2008:

    Here is an interesting article that supports my view on this whole situation:

    http://www.tol.cz/look/TOL/article.tpl?IdLanguage=1&IdPublication=4&NrIssue=282&NrSection=2&NrArticle=19867

49. 49 Comment by Akira on 20 August 2008:

    Why should Americans and Brits only die for Iraqis, Afghanis and Albanians?

    What’s wrong with Georgians?

    Are they not worth dying for too?

50. 50 Comment by Michael Averko on 20 August 2008:

    TJF

    Fair enough comments of yours regarding Mr. Allensworth’s piece.

    I kept those thoughts in mind when expressing my second guessing of sources like Socor and Felgenhauer.

    - If Saakashvili was “setup,” then this is a further example of his inept leadership skills.

    - Contrary to that view, is his having a calculated notion of how the Russians would respond and what the Western neo-lib/neo-con reply would be.

    He seems to like appearing on CNN repeating ad nauseum:

    Hungary

    Czechoslovakia

    Afghanistan

    Chechnya

    Freedom

    Totalitarianism

51. 51 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 20 August 2008:

    I find numerous similarities between Kosovo and South Ossetia. Ossetians and Kosovar Albanians were both granted autonomy by the Communists. In both cases a nation’s soveriegn territory has been violated by a great power, for the sake of allegedly defending people from ethnic cleansing. Georgia did what Serbia dare not do – attempt to take back its own territory by force after years of fruitless negotiations. Just as in the case of Kosovo, initial reports about civilian casualties in the invader’s media seem to have been greatly exagerated. The South Ossetians are now doing to the Georgians what the Albanians had been doing to Serbian civilians following NATO’s invasion of Yugoslavia.

    If Kosovo is wrong – and I believe it is – then so is Russia’s action in South Ossetia. Saakashvili may have been a fool, or not a nice man, but this no more justifies the land grab of Georgia than does Milosevic’s unsavoriness excuse the theft of Serb territory. Or do two wrongs make a right?

    Incidentally, this action seems to confirm that Russia has written off Kosovo.

52. 52 Comment by Akira on 20 August 2008:

    Re: “Saakashvili seems to like appearing on CNN repeating ad nauseum: Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, Chechnya, Freedom, Totalitarianism”

    Spot any Russians here?:

    Stalin, Feliks Edmundowicz Dzierżyński, Grigoriy Konstantinovich Ordzhonikidze, Gaioz Devdariani, Eduard Shevardnadze, Panteleimon and Igor Giorgadze, Lev Davidovich Bronstein [Leon Trotsky], Ovsei-Gershon Aronovich Radomyslsky [Gregory Yevseevich Zinoviev], Karol Sobelsohn [Karl Berngardovich Radek], Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchov, Leonid Ilyich Brezhnev, Nikolai Ivanovich Ryzhkov, Nikolai Aleksandrovich Tikhonov, Vladimir Antonovich Ivashko, Anastas Hovhannesi Mikoyan, Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov, Andrei Andreyevich Gromyko, Matvei Konstantinovich Muranov, Dmitry Manuilsky, Chinghiz Aitmatov, Emma Goldmann, Berthold Brecht, Alexander Berkman, Johannes Vares, Angelica Balabanoff , Hovhannes Khachatury Bagramyan, Ferenc Gyurcsány, Mir Cəfər Abbas oğlu Bağırov, Jaan Anvelt [Eessaare Aadu, Jaan Holm, Jaan Hulmu, Kaarel Maatamees, Onkel Kaak], Boriss Karlovich Pugo, Absamat Masaliyevich Masaliyev, Apas Jumagulov, Absamat Masaliyev, Askar Akayevt, Maksim Ammosov, Aleksey Vagov, Nikolay Bogolyubov, Iskhak Razzakov, Turdakun Usubaliyev, Jumgalbek Amanbayev, Askar Akayevich Akayev, Petro Mykolayovich Symonenko, Vladimir Nicolae Voronin, Zinaida Greceanîi, Nursultan Abishuly Nazarbayev, Pinches Borutsch [Pavel Borisovich Axelrod], Sultan Ibraimov, Dinmukhamed (Dimash) Akhmeduly Konayev, Vincas Kudirka, Mumin Khojaev, Ali Shervoni, Shirinsho Shotemur, Mirzo Dovud Guseinov, Grigory Broydo, Suren Shadunz, Dmitry Protopopov, Bobojon Ghafurov, Tursun Uljabaev, Jabor Rasulov, Leszek Kołakowski, Aleksander Kwaśniewski, Rahmon Nabiyev, Qahhor Mahkamov. Christian Rakovsky, Georgy Maximilianovich Malenkov, Ruben Tovmasyan, Mirza Davud, Grigory Kaminsky, Sergey Kirov, Levon Mirzoyan, Nikolay Gikalo, Vladimir Polonsky, Emil Bodnăraş, Ruben Rubenov (Mkrtchyan), Elena Ceauşescu, Mir Jafar Baghirov , Mir Teimur Yakubov, Imam Mustafayev, Veli Akhundov, Heidar Aliyev, Kyamran Bagirov, Abdulrahman Vezirov, György Pálffy, Gábor Péter, Ayaz Mütallibov, Abülfaz Elçibay, Dimitar Blagoev, Vulko Chervenkov, Georgi Dimitrov, Adrian Păunescu, Iosif Roitman [Iosif Chişinevschi], Alexandru Sahia, Urunboi Ushturov, Tsola Dragoicheva, Traicho Kostov, Imre Nagy, Aleksandur Lilov, Andrey Lukanov, Petar Mladenov, Alexander Paunov, Stanko Todorov, Anton Yugov, Todor Zhivkov, Rudolf Barák, Edvard Beneš, Oldřich Černík, Bohuslav Chňoupek, Vladimír Clementis, Alexander Dubček, Zdeněk Fierlinger, Jan Frankel, Michał Rola-Żymierski, Yoldosh Akhunbabayev, Chinor Emomov, Julius Fučík, Klement Gottwald, Jiří Hájek, Vladimír Holan, Gustáv Husák, Antonín Janoušek, Arnošt Kolman, Karel Kosík, Antonín Novotný, Ivan Olbracht, Radovan Richta, Viliam Široký, Rudolf Slánský, Bohumír Šmeral, Lubomír Štrougal, Jan Šverma, Ludvík Svoboda, Antonín Zápotocký, József Attila, Mihály Biró, Tibor Déry, István Dobi, István Eörsi, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Mihály Farkas, Rudolf Földvári, Ernő Gerő, Károly Grósz, Zygmunt Bauman, András Hegedűs, Ágnes Heller, Béla Illés, János Kádár, László Kardos, Mihály Károlyi, Lajos Kassák, Anna Kéthly, Béla Kun, Pál Losonczi, Géza Losonczy, Vasile Luca [László Luka], Georg Lukács, Jindřich Zelený, Tamás Major, Pál Maléter, György Marosán, Péter Medgyessy, Ernő Mihályfi, Aladár Mód, Tamás Nagy, Vasil Kolarov, László Piros, Karl Polanyi, Georges Politzer, László Rajk, Mátyás Rákosi, József Révai, Endre Ságvári, Erwin Szabó, Árpád Szakasits, András Szalai, Tibor Szamuely, Béla Szász, Sándor Szerényi, József Szilágyi, István Szirmai, Tibor Szőnyi, Imre Vajda, Eugen Varga, Zoltán Vas, Sándor Zöld, Mordechaj Anielewicz, Bolesław Bierut, Stanisław Brzozowski, Józef Cyrankiewicz, Ignacy Daszyński, Isaac Deutscher, Marek Edelman, Israel Epstein, Edward Gierek, Władysław Gomułka, Ludwik Hass, Piotr Ikonowicz, Piotr Jaroszewicz, Wojciech Jaruzelski, Leo Jogiches, Michał Kalecki, Stanisław Kania, Kazimierz Kelles-Krauz, Oskar Lange, Abraham Léon, Julian Marchlewski, Kazimierz Mijal, Leszek Miller, Edward Ochab, Stefan Piekarczyk, Daniel Podrzycki, Stanisław Radkiewicz, Adam Rapacki, Konstanty Rokossowski, Irena Sendler, Daniel Singer, Marian Spychalski, Maria Szyszkowska, Józef Unszlicht, Adolf Warski, Ludwik Waryński, Wanda Wasilewska, Aleksander Zawadzki, Gheorghe Apostol, Ecaterina Arbore, Silviu Brucan, Gheorghe Cristescu, Alexandru Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Constantin Dobrogeanu-Gherea, Alexandru Drăghici, Teohari Georgescu, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Max Goldstein, Vitali Holostenco, Panait Istrati, Elek Köblös, Gheorghe Gaston Marin, Petru Groza, Ion Iliescu, David Korner, Vasile Luca, Corneliu Mănescu, Ion Gheorghe Maurer, Vasile Milea, Adrian Năstase, Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu, Hannah Rabinsohn [Ana Pauker], Marcel Pauker, Isaac Deutscher, Tristan Tzara, Ilie Verdeţ

53. 53 Comment by Akira on 20 August 2008:

    Andrei Vidal:

    “Similarities between Kosovo and South Ossetia. … In both cases a nation’s soveriegn territory has been violated by a great power … If Kosovo is wrong…then so is Russia’s action in South Ossetia. … This action seems to confirm that Russia has written off Kosovo.”

    1. Russia borders South Ossatia, Georgia and Abkhazia. All four territories were formerly in the same state. What connection is there between the U.S. and Yugoslavia, Serbia, Kosovo, Bosnia, or Croatia?

    2. South Ossetia and Abkhazia being or becoming independent, or even electing to become Russian provinces would have no bearing on the status of Kosovo.

    For anyone who follows the U.N. Charter, these Caucasian regions are entitled to invoke the right to self-determination. Other UN states are free to recognize Abkazia and/or South Ossetia as independent or not.

    “Kosovo” can also do that, but UN members are forbidden to recognize Kosovo as independent from Serbia, because the U.N. Security Council [Res. 1244] specifically obliged UN members to respect Yugoslavian territorial integrity, and Serbia is the legal successor to Yugoslavia.

54. 54 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 20 August 2008:

    In response to Akira,

    Although Yugoslavia/Serbia doesn’t border the USA it obviously borders several NATO members. The invasion was a NATO action. I do not think that violating another nation’s sovereign territory becomes more acceptable depending on the geographic distance of the violator. Was the Soviet occupation of Latvia better than the occupation of Prague?

    While legally Ossetia has no bearing on Kosovo (or vice versa) Russia has often linked the two together. The fact that Moscow seems to be now be pursuing a policy of actively supporting Ossetia’s and Abkhasia’s separation from Georgia seems to clearly indicate that Kosovo has been written off as a lost cause by Serbia’s principal backer. As Serbia loses, Russia wins. In the spirit of alliance and support of Kosovo, Russia gained Serbia’s gas network at a relatively low cost. When Kosovo was lost anyways, Russia followed NATO’s precedent and then grabbed territory for itself. Sometimes you can have your cake and eat it, too.

55. 55 Comment by Akira on 20 August 2008:

    Andrei,

    “Yugoslavia/Serbia…borders several NATO members.”

    Was Serbia a threat to Romania?

    “I do not think that violating another nation’s sovereign territory becomes more acceptable depending on the geographic distance of the violator.”

    It’s not about distance. It’s about history.

    The Falklands are British.

    Afghanistan effectively attacked the US, so German troops are in Afghanistan because they’re both NATO members.

    Kosovo had NOTHING to do with NATO.

    Georgia’s attack on South Ossetia and the Russian peacekeepers there was an attack on Russia. Georgia is not an ally of NATO. Georgia was rejected by NATO. On the other hand, the US has been determined to get Georgia into NATO, which is openly antagonistic towards Russia, so if the Georgians are stupid enough to give the Russians a reason to take action both to retaliate against Georgia and also to make the Georgia even less attractive to sensible NATO members, then who’s fault is that?

    “While legally Ossetia has no bearing on Kosovo (or vice versa) Russia has often linked the two together. The fact that Moscow seems to be now be pursuing a policy of actively supporting Ossetia’s and Abkhasia’s separation from Georgia seems to clearly indicate that Kosovo has been written off as a lost cause by Serbia’s principal backer.”

    No. Russia can easily recognize A&SO w/o it affecting Russia’s position on Kosovo.

    “Russia followed NATO’s precedent and then grabbed territory for itself.”

    Is everything in your mind equivalent to everything else?

    How is NATO making Kosovo of all places a protectorate in any way the equivalent of Russia’s actions in territories that it has 200 years of interaction and joint citizenship and family ties with?

    The only NATO member with a history in Kosovo is Turkey.

    Is that US policy now? To re-establish Ottoman sovereignty in the Balkans?

56. 56 Comment by Akira on 20 August 2008:

    Further to:

    “The fact that Moscow seems to be now be pursuing a policy of actively supporting Ossetia’s and Abkhasia’s separation from Georgia seems to clearly indicate that Kosovo has been written off as a lost cause”

    Actually, I don’t see any reason now for Russia to “recognize A & SO. They might do so, but actually they have less reason to now than before. Russia’s main goal was to detach them from Georgia. Now that has been accomplished, all Russia needs to do is establish permanent bases there. The longer they are de facto separate, the less anyone will care about Georgia’s claims.

    The US is obsessed with Kosovo being “recognized” because, as Solzhenytsin said in 1978, the US is dangerously legalistic in it’s thinking. The Russians couldn’t care about the status of A or SO, as long as Russia has actual power there.

    Also, the Russians don’t really encourage separatism, because they want to preserve Russia’s territorial integrity.

57. 57 Comment by Michael Averko on 21 August 2008:

    “… the US is dangerously legalistic in it’s thinking.”

    ****

    Depends.

    UNSCR 1244 contradicts the way the US government pushed Kosovo’s independence.

    For good reason, some see the Western dominated (include the US) ICTY as a mockery of the belief in law.

58. 58 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 21 August 2008:

    Akira,

    I in no way defend the NATO invasion of Yugoslavia. I merely pointed out that it is inconsistant to, on the one hand, oppose that invasion while supporting the invasion of Georgia or on the other hand support Kosovo’s detachment from Serbia while opposing SO’s detachment from Georgia. If 70,000 Ossetians living on ancient Georgian territory in the middle of Georgia have the right to secede, why not 1 million Albanains on ancient Serb territory?

    In my opinion, both Serbia and Georgia have the right to defend their territories and to keep their territories intact. Georgia offered autonomy to South Ossetia (as did Serbia to Kosovo), but after years of stalled negotiations, Georgia took matters into its own hands. Whether or not it is in America’s interests to get invovled is an entirely different matter than whether or not Georgia or Russia had the right to do what they did.

    The Kosovo-South Ossetia parallels grow. It turn out, for example, that the reports of civilian casualties were vastly exagerated in South Osssetia as they were in Kosovo. And roving criminal bands of Ossetians are now terrorizing the Georgians of South Osssetia (they once made up 30% of that region, as compares to a Serb population in Kosovo of 10%) in much the same way as Albanians had been doing to Serbs.

59. 59 Comment by Akira on 21 August 2008:

    Michael,

    Re:

    Me: “… the US is dangerously legalistic in it’s thinking.”

    You: “UNSCR 1244 contradicts the way the US government pushed Kosovo’s independence.”

    Yes, but the US need to push other nations to recognize “Kosovo” shows their fear of being viewed as acting outside “the law”.

    Legalism doesn’t mean The Rule of Law. It means an obsession with having the cover of law.

    I hope you have time to read Solzhenytsin’s complete speech in order to apprecite his argument:

    http://brianakira.wordpress.com/2008/08/05/aleksandr-isayevich-solzhenitsyn-rest-in-peace/

60. 60 Comment by Akira on 21 August 2008:

    Andrei,

    You write, “Whether or not it is in America’s interests to get invovled is an entirely different matter”

    But that is my main concern.

    The US has an interest in what happens in Mexico or Canada. They have some interest in their allies borders too.

    Russia and Georgia both have interests in SO & A.

    But what the hell did Bosnia and Kosovo have to do with the US?!

    [I'm shouting at the universe, not you]

    And this is why Georgia should NOT be in NATO; because then the Georgian-Russian border will be the US’s concern too. [That's already the case in Poland, Lithuania etc, but I can't imagine the Estonians attacking Russians like Loonie Saakashvili did.]

61. 61 Comment by james on 21 August 2008:

    @58Andrei Vidal

    If Greece bombed Northern Cyprus, shelling its capital would the Turkish military have a right to respond?

    Serbia went on the defence against KLA attacks it was the Albanians who attacks Serb outposts and civilians just as Georgia did.

    Georgian troops levelled the capital to get the Ossetians to flee it was obviously going to spark a response from Russia.

    It was Human Rights Watch that gave a low estimate which is affiliated with Carnegie Endowment but international Red Cross said different.

    http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13304

    “roving criminal bands of Ossetians are now terrorizing the Georgians of South Osssetia”

    I doubt this is true like reports that Gori is in ruins or markets were bombed by low flying jets.

    “Serb population in Kosovo of 10%”

    It is 10% now it wasn’t always 10%. At one time they were the majority but due to a gradually ethnic cleansing campaign especially the pre planned pogrom against the Serbs in Kosovo in 2004.

62. 62 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 21 August 2008:

    To Akira and James,

    I agree with you Akira that it would probably be unwise for America to link itself with Georgia. But there’s a difference between saying that doing so would be unpragmatic, “none of our business” , and so on – and stating that Russia is right in this case and Georgia wrong.

    To James, I’m not familiar enough with the case of Cyprus to comment on your analogy. However, if Serbia chose to shell Kosovo and its NATO invader/peacekeepers in order to try to regain it, I would consider it completely justified in doing so (the stupidy of such a suicidal act is a much different matter). I do not trust Raimondo’s view, which seems to be based exclusively on Ossetian testimony, because I recall that Albanian eyewitness accounts led to estimates of 100,000 Albanians dead in Kosovo (the actual confirmed number was in the single digit thousands).

    As for the Serb population in Kosovo, it was 10% prior to the NATO-sponsored Albanian takeover. After the subsequent Albanian ethnic cleansing of Serbs, it is currently down to 5% or so. The Serb proprotion of the population had been diminishing for decades, due to Albanian immigration and high birth rates.

    Thanks to Russia’s invasion, the ancient Georgian territory of South Ossetia will probably also see a decrease of its formerly 30% Georgian population.

63. 63 Comment by Michael Averko on 22 August 2008:

    “The Serb proprotion of the population had been diminishing for decades, due to Albanian immigration and high birth rates.”

    ***

    And ethnic cleansing campaigns against Serbs.

64. 64 Comment by james on 22 August 2008:

    @62Andrei Vidal

    The majority of Kosovo’s ethnic Albanian populations are not indigenous to the Kosovo region there mostly due to illegal immigration from Albania during the 90’s.
    Ossetians have always been indigenous to the region.

    I don’t see how you can compare the actions of the KLA Islamic mafia to the Ossetians.

    Russian peacekeepers were part of an international brokered peacekeeping force agreed by Georgia and Russia.
    At the time of the assault were Georgia and Russia were brokering a ceasefire agreement.

    The two regions initially didn’t go for independence it’s when there autonomous status was cancelled by the Georgian leader then sent in troops to gain control of the regions in 92.
    After the ensuing war they then voted for independence.

    Georgian population isn’t being ethnically cleansed by Ossetians in fact it’s the exact opposite Georgian troops tried to ethnically cleanse the Ossetian population in this latest assault.

    Russia wants to create a buffer zone so Georgian forces don’t attack the regions again which they have repeatedly done for over a decade.
    Nothing to do with occupying Georgia or trying to control its oil pipeline.

    Justin quoted the International Red Cross an independent aid group not affiliated with Russia or Ossetia.

65. 65 Comment by Allen Wilson on 22 August 2008:

    Though there is similarity between Kosovo and South Ossetia, it is only a surface similarity and not too much should be made of it. It is simply stupid and dishonest to accuse people of hypocrisy if they oppose Kosovo and support South Ossetia, or vice versa. The two situations and histories are quite different and unique, and thus opposite conclusions may be quite appropriate.

    Even so, it sure seems hypocritical of the U.S. to claim that Kosovo has the right to secede but South Ossetia does not. U.S. government hypocrisy regarding secession, usually ‘justified’ with lies and whitewashing, is long standing, however, and therefore no attention should be paid to any U.S. government blathering on that issue.

    One thing some people seem to be missing is that both in regard to the Kosovo land grab and the Georgian attack on South Ossetia, there was a thinly vieled, nefarious U.S. operation making it happen. Take the U.S. out of the picture, and both situations would be far less violent and destructive than they have been.

    The focus here should be on the nefarious schemes of the U.S., causing trouble where it is not only completely unnecessary, but insane to do so.

66. 66 Pingback by Russian Weakness Exposed on 23 August 2008:

    [...] the States There are some interesting articles in chronicles. Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism Caucasian Games:… Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture | Your Home for Traditional Conservatism The State of [...]

67. 67 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 23 August 2008:

    In response to Michael Averko #63:

    “The Serb proprotion of the population had been diminishing for decades, due to Albanian immigration and high birth rates.”

    ***

    And ethnic cleansing campaigns against Serbs.

    Yes, this is what reduced the Serb population from 10% prior to the recent war to 5%. Now the Osssetians are doing the same to the native Georgian inhabitants.

68. 68 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 23 August 2008:

    In response to james #64 and Allen Wilson #65.

    James, if you read the history of Kosovo you will see that Albanians became the largest ethnic group in that ancient Serb land by the end of the nineteenth century (in one estimate, 48% Albanian verus 44% Serb in 1899). According to the Yugoslav census of 1921, by that time Albanian-speakers were 65% and Serb-speakers 26% of Kosovo’s population. Albanians sided with the Nazis during Word War II, resulting in a further boost in their percentage due to the slaughter of many Serbs there during that time. By 1981, Albania was 77% Albanians, 13% Serb.

    Ossetians have not “always” been indigenous to Georgia. An Iranic people originally from the steppes of southern Russia and Ukraine (look up “Sarmatians” sometime), they were given shelter in and settled within Georgia in the Middle Ages. By the 21st century made up 70% of the population of the region they inhabit. Georgians are indigenous to the Caucuses region (indeed, like the Basques, among the most ancient peoples in Europe), not Ossetians.

    Yes, the KLA are more brutal than Ossetians. The Ossetian leadership is infamous for smuggling goods and black-marketeering rather than terrorism, heroin, and sex slavery as in the case of the KLA. The KLA are worse. But their cause is no more nor less legitimate from the standpoint of territorial integrity and respect for the continuation of traditional lands. And both are ethnically cleansing the natives. South Ossetia’s leader has already stated that the Georgians will not be able to come back to their homes.

    Mr. Wilson, I suggest you be more civil in your comments.

69. 69 Comment by Allen Wilson on 24 August 2008:

    Mr Vidal, I myself have been insulted, misrepresented, and accused of hypocrisy by others in regard to this issue, and in any case my post was not directed at you or any one else in particular and no incivility was intended. It was aimed more at the combative and boisterous nature of many of the posts made by some, who appear to be more partisan on the issue than they are willing to admit. As for your suggestion that I be more ‘civil’ in my comments, I have noticed that your own posts can have a quite aggressive tone from time to time, so I suggest you take your own advice.

70. 70 Comment by james on 24 August 2008:

    @66Andrei Vidal

    The Georgians are the ones who attacked under a ceasefires agreement with a massive bombardment of the capital to get the Ossetian population to flee.
    It’s the Georgians who are engaged in a policy of ethnic cleansing of the native South Ossetian population.

    Georgians over the years have repeatedly tried to enter the regions despite the internationally recognised peacekeeping force.

71. 71 Comment by Ilija on 24 August 2008:

    Andrei Vidal,

    are you saying that the Ossetians also have a high birth rate amongst their population? And do you also know whether the Orthodox Church of both respective states can help heal the wounds of history? I’d personally like for there to be some sort of reintegration, as I realise the issue is rather complex, but if there’s anything i’m sure of it is that Saakashvilli has to be ousted, because he is so obviously a warmongering neocon puppet, and that can’t be a good thing for anyone..

72. 72 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 24 August 2008:

    Mr. Wilson, in post # 65 you wrote that “It is simply stupid and dishonest to accuse people of hypocrisy if they oppose Kosovo and support South Ossetia, or vice versa.”, which is rather rude. However upon reflection I concede that hypcritical was too strong a word on my part because it implies conscious double-standards or dishonesy, which is not what I intended to convey. Self-contradictory is a better term which I should have used.

    I outlined the reasons for the self-contradiction of opposing Kosovo but supporting South Ossetia and appreciate a civil dialogue. Other than my use of the word “hypocrisy”, however, what has been “aggressive” in my tone?

73. 73 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 24 August 2008:

    In response to James,

    While it is undeniable that Georgia attacked (perhaps after having been provoked – this part is questionable) there is no evidence other than Russian claims (which should be taken with a grain of salt) that the Georgians targeted civilian areas and engaged in ethnic cleansing. On the other hand, South Ossetia’s president has already publically declared that the region’s Georgians will not be allowed to return. Sure, during the Georgian bombardment apartment buildings in South Ossetia were hit (as they were all over Georgia – is Russia also engaging in ethnic cleansing too, then?) but the reports from the ground show that government buildings in South Ossetia were worse hit than were residential areas, suggesting that those were the principle targets. If indeed the Georgians were truly trying to slaughter the South Ossetians then Russia or anybody would be justified in preventing this. But as in the case of Serbia in Kosovo, it looks like an attempt to gain political control.

    Ossetia was within Georgia’s borders, negotiations were dragged out for years despite all sorts of concessions for autonomy etc. from the Georgian side, suggesting that the issues would never be resolved and that de facto there would be a non-Georgian territory of 70,000 S. Ossetions in the middle of Georgia within a few miles and striking distance of Georgia’s principle east-west highway. After several years of no progress, Georgia eventually took matters into its own hands with respect to this Georgian territory. To add to the Kosovo analogy, it would be as if Serbia, having come to the realization after years that Kosovo’s Albanians and their NATO backers would never negotiate in good faith or return Kosovo to Serbia despite Serb offers of total autonomy, decided to try to retake the territory by force. Suicidal, in both the case of Serbia hypothetically and Georgia in reality, but not unjustified.

74. 74 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 24 August 2008:

    Ilija,

    I’m not sure about Ossetian vs. Georgian birth rates. With respect to the Orthodox Churches, Georgian priests were blessing Georgian troops on their way to attacking South Ossetia. This is sadly not new – Orthodox Churches have a history of unfortunate nationalism. Look at the conflict between Russian and Ukrainian Orthodox.

75. 75 Comment by Michael Averko on 24 August 2008:

    Re: Andre #66

    I was referring to that and other more distant ethnic cleansing campaigns against the Serbs (like WW II and the period between 1974-89).

76. 76 Comment by james on 25 August 2008:

    @72Andrei Vidal

    No one dispute’s it was the Georgians attacked first with an aerial bombardment of the capital of South Ossetia that’s fact not Kremlins version of the story.

    Georgian claims have already been debunked like market bombing in Gori or that Gori is in ruins.

    Despite agreements Georgia has repeatedly tried to retake the area by force.

    Nearby Georgian villages are used as cover for Georgian forces to fire on Russian peacekeepers and Ossetian border guards.

    All attempts for a peaceful settlement between the regions and Georgia have been blocked by Georgia because they know they can retake the regions and dispel the local populations of the area hostile to Georgia with US/UK backing and military hardware.

77. 77 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 25 August 2008:

    James,

    Although noone, including me, disputes that the all-out assault initiated form the Georgian side, there is evidence of provocations from the Russian/Ossetian side preceding Georgia’s attack – increasing mortar fire from S. Ossetia into Georgia, overflights of Georgian territory by Russian planes, etc. The evidence suggests that Saak was baited and foolishly went for the bait. Nobody disputes the fact that civilian areas in Gori and and elsewhere were hit by Russian bombs or looted by Ossetian irregulars. This does not mean all of Georgia is in ruins, but neither is all of South Ossetia in ruins as the Russian media initially claimed.

    As for Georgia blocking peace offers – Georgia proposed for years, full autonomy for South Ossetia and offered to invest heavily in it.. It was South Ossetia, confidant of Russia’s backing, that refused to compromise. Again, reminiscent of Kosovo’s stance towards negotiating with Serbia.

    From the Russian News and Information Agency Novosti website:

    “On January 2005 Mikheil Saakashvili announced peace initiatives with regard to South Ossetia at a PACE meeting in Strasbourg. South Ossetia was offered broad autonomy as part of the single Georgian state. President George W. Bush in a telephone conversation on February 15 backed Saakashvili’s initiatives. South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity, commenting on Saakashvili’s initiatives, said that “South Ossetia has long been an independent republic” and there could be no question of creating a common state with Georgia.”

    Which is just like the KLA government’s attitude towards proposals from Serbia.

78. 78 Comment by Ilija on 25 August 2008:

    Andrei Vidal,

    I just find it upsetting that 2 Orthodox nations are at war with each other, at a point in history where this should have been made obsolete, especially where same believing Orthodox Christians are concerned. At least us Serbians are at war with an entirely alien, backward, primitively tribal Islamic group of people that do not operate by any consistent norms or laws of civillisation. Again, I strongly emphasise (and am in particular agreement with Allen Wilson on this point) that US machinations are making the existing problems get entirely out of hand, and when one acknowledges that fact then it becomes quite difficult to blame Russia for much in all this.

    Where Russia and Ukraina are concerned, the implications are more or less the same. Inherent local rivalries are exploited by machiavellian neocon warmongers from the west and made 100 times worse by their schemes, which if weren’t effected, might actually lead to some sort of lasting peace between both sides, a completely appropriate settelement for 2 Orthodox nations.

    I think that when Eduard Kokoity said what he said in 2005, he really meant that there could not be much negotiation with a regime which was effectively a puppet of the US-led NATO, that did not give much regard to the interests of the Ossetians (or international law for that matter) whatsoever. Again, if that US-sponsored ‘rose revolution’ (not made out of any real love or affinity towards the wellbeing of the Georgian nation either) never took place, then relations between Georgia and Ossetia might now have been substantially improved. Is it unreasonable to assume so?

    Andrei, I might agree with you (although the history is indeed complex and requires thorough investigation), that Georgia had a right to take its territory back however unreasonable given the circumstances, but I am adamant that this right or privelege should not have in any way been granted to Mihail Saakashvilli to execute, a man so obviously motivated by self interest rather than the organic interests of his nation.

79. 79 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 25 August 2008:

    Ilija,

    I generally agree with what you have written. The debate about what kind of a person or leader Saakashvili is, is entirely different than whether or not Georgia has a right to its own territory. Just as Kosovo is a part of Serbia whether or not Serbia’s leaders happen to be jerks, or somebody’s puppet, etc. I think that a similar case applies to South Ossetia.

    I agree with you with respect to your description of the role of neocon machinations; at the same time it ought to be recognized that people do have free will and not everything can be attributed to money spent or plots successfully carried through. And also, focussing on neocons may cause us to lose sight of the fact that they are not the only ones attempted to manipulate situations for their own purposes – Russia is certainly doing so as well. Speaking of Ukraine, unfortunately the Russian Orthodox Church has historically and today proven to be no less tainted by nationalism than its local schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox rival, as the two fight over control in Ukraine. Which is quite sad, because the real enemy ought to be aggressive Western secularism/materialism (in this, I find the Catholic-Orthodox rivalry also tragic) and to a lesser extent Islam (which is more of a threat to the secularized West than to the Orthodox countries, with the obvious exception of Kosovo which the Serbs would have easily handled on their own if not for Western interference).

80. 80 Comment by Andrei Vidal on 25 August 2008:

    Well, the Moscow Times confirms that a Chechen warlord wanted for murder was used by Moscow in Georgia. Undoubtedly he and his men behaved like perfect gentlemen:

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/1010/42/370386.htm

81. 81 Comment by Allen Wilson on 25 August 2008:

    Mr Vidal, I do not consider ’stupid and dishonest’ to be any more rude than ‘hypocritical’. It was this usage of yours that made your later arguments seem more aggressive than you may have intended them to be. I think we both appreciate civil discussion, and both you and Akira have made good points.

    What I am more concerned with now is the fact that we can argue details on both sides all we wish, but none of us have inside information on what went on, behind the scenes. The whole thing was a flash in the much larger geopolitical and strategic confrontation between the U.S. and Russia. Did the Russians bait the Georgians? Did the U.S. simply put the Georgians up to attack Ossetia? We really cant know for sure and it may take years for the truth to come out if it ever does.