Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by viLky, Aug 29, 2008.

  1. viLky

    viLky ykLiv

    Source: Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war - CNN.com

    Just when you think things are finally starting to cool off Putin says this. What is your take on it?

    I just see it as him making himself look good for his people while blaming somebody else.

  2. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    Well it's true that this conflict was not just a "Russian aggression". It's hard to tell who started it, because both sides, Russia as much as Georgia, are in full propaganda mode.

    But as I remember it, it all started when Georgia invaded South Ossetia. Russia then took advantage of this and used it as an excuse to invade both South Ossetia and Abkhasia "to protect the people there", who symapthize with Russia.

    So I'd say both sides have their fair share of responsibility for the escalation. And there are also clues pointing in the direction that the US encouraged Georgia to start the attack.

    At any rate, the Russian's argumentation is very similar to the one the US/the West used, when they invaded Kosovo and finally pushed for its independence from Serbia. Why shouldn't Russia be allowed to do what we do too?

    At any rate, it's hard to tell how all this started. In war, truth dies first.
  3. manuel

    manuel Registered Member

    I think that what is going on is that Russia is trying to make a comeback into global politic and Putin is an astute politician, vilky’s take on it, is spot on, I don’t know if the American people can counter this new attempt to go back to the influential past of Russians politic, you seem so divided and your presidential campaign does not help one little bit, whatever happen to your bipartisan stand against your enemies? This was what made you into a great nation, when you used to say My country right or wrong, now it seems that having a political winning score is more important.
  4. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    The problem is, Russia wants to be accepted as an equal partner, but the US simply don't allow that. Bush's imperial foreign policies, on the contrary, have been a policy of "rolling back" Russia and pushing it whereever they can.

    They have fueled the pro-Western "colored revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia, are pushing for regime changes in other countries in Russia's backyard and even support Putin's opposition in Russia too, with the goal of toppling Putin. For that goal, America is investing a lot of money.

    Neocons like Robert Kagan (now McCain's advisor) even compare Russia to Nazi Germany, demand a containment policy and a new Cold War.

    So it shouldn't take wonder Medvedyev and Putin are pissed, since the only two options America leaves them is either unconditionally accepting American superiority and bowing down, or arming up and trying to stand against America.

    These American policies are most dangerous, IMHO. We've had one Cold War already, and only survived it because of a good dose of luck. Another one may end deadly.
  5. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

  6. MenInTights

    MenInTights not a plastic bag

    agree with Bananas...

    This is painful to admit, but you gotta look at the role the US played in aggravating Russia.

    I haven't done my homework on it, but trying to get the border countries into NATO, building the shield, war gaming, aggressive talk by Condi and others... its like we were poking a the dog and then one day the dog woke up and starting biting.
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
  7. manuel

    manuel Registered Member

    Questions: Is the rise of the Socio-Empire a threat to the US?
    Should the Americans support Russia’s re-assemble? What is their backyard? As I remember they financed revolutions and anti-Americanism all over the globe.
    How important is the fact that Medvedyev and Putin are pissed at who the US support? Should US just leave the field to the Russian?
    I thought that people elect governments and gives them a mandate to protect them from their enemies, those that are bent on destroy them. But it seems that I have been wrong for along time, what is your reason for electing a Government?
  8. Sim

    Sim Registered Member

    What "Socio-Empire" are you talking about?

    If you mean Russia, nope, they don't have the economic capacities to "finance anti-Americanism all over the globe". It was only the US financing anti-Russianism all over the globe in the past 7 years.

    Before 9/11, Bush still followed a so called "realist" foreign policy towards Russia, which means he supports American interests, checks what Russia's interests are, and on fields where there is a convergence of interests, there will be cooperation.

    When neoconservative interventionists took over, America's foreign policy became "imperial liberal intervetionism". That means top priority for America now has regime change abroad, in order to establish pro-Western regimes. If possible, also in Russia.

    That's why America put a shitload of money into supporting pro-Western regime changes in Russia's backyard -- and even for the anti-Putin opposition within Russia. No wonder Russia is pissed.

    Can you please explain a little further? I don't see how this question is connected to the problem of Russian-American relations.
  9. manuel

    manuel Registered Member

    It just that for a long time I thought that people elects governments to protect their Nation from their enemies, this is done at all level and the Cold War was one of the cases, financing counter revolution, propaganda, espionage, technological warfare, comercial warfare etc. are others, these are all measures to protect one own country, but it seem to me that there are even Americans that would like to see their country defeated, the re-assembling of the Soviet Union, allow them to recuperate their backyard would be a defeat.
  10. Gavik

    Gavik Registered Member

    I'm sorry to see that that's how you view government. If that was true, we would all be sheeple to managed by the all knowing and all seeing politicians. And since when do nations have enemies by default? Why can they only be dealt with through force?

    I would suggest that you check out the BBC's documentary The Power of Nightmares

    And you consider that Protection!? What you've listed are all offensive tactics used against the third world countries that Washington views as mere pawns.

    Where are you getting this? It was the US that gave the go ahead for Georgia to invade.

    Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    "It is worthy of note that Russia’s Air Force already prevented Georgia’s aggression against South Ossetia a month ago. The situation aggravated soon after Condoleezza Rice’s visit to Georgia. It is not ruled out that Ms. Rice okayed the beginning of the war in the region on behalf of the US administration."

    Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

    "But these statements are a sideshow. The Georgia debacle started on May 4, 2006, with a longer and more considered statement, by Vice President Cheney, in Vilnius, Lithuania. Cheney there threatened Russia with a new Cold War if Russia did not capitulate to American demands of cheap oil for Russia’s pro-American neighbors. "Russia has a choice," he said. The same curious locution, with its undertone of parental menace — the parent who stops payments and knows when to use the whip — was employed by President Bush addressing Iran in 2007. "Iran has a choice." Has a nation ever talked to another nation in this style? But then, has there ever been a nation that sees itself as America sees itself in the 21st century? "Russia has a choice" — the language of a man with his hand on his gun, very sure of his moral as well as physical superiority. This is the language of omnipotence, barely disguised. It is ill-adapted for the purposes of social intercourse, yet finely adapted to threats that have a quality at once intimate and public; threats, indeed, part of whose function is to abort diplomacy."

    Georgia is a dictatorship, plain and simple. There is no democracy to support, no communism to defend against and certainly no legitimate reason for the US to get involved. This is globalist neo-con ideology run wild.

Share This Page