myata

Persistent bs can only be met with equally persistent (though potentially very boring) response. Please address yourself to the posted links to Georgian officials very only boasting claims of capturing Ossetia, before Russian troops even moved in. No matter how much they'd want to believe (or, somehow, make others to believe) it did not happen, the signal's out. Can't stop it now, as they say. Somebody should have thought better (ie considered this possibility) on the night of the 8th. But in one aspect you're correct indeed. Our mass media do get things wrong for us. Speaking e.g of universal support of one side and, accordingly, condemnation of another. Threats of isolation and grave consequences. Please examine this information carefully: Wikipedia: international reaction to South Ossetia's crisis. Note that outside NATO and its satellites (aka the "West" - not to ignore a few discenting voices in the West itself), that universal condemnation thing simply doesn't exist. It's a nonsense, myth, that only exists in the West own, hyper inflated ego. Not unlike the myths that undemocratic controlled media of authoritarian Russia are so known for. And that's it, folks. No matter how much of that self righteous, reassuring, convincingly sounding (mostly for ourself) media stuff we'll release into the atmosphere, everybody who's not directly in the take, sees it for bs it is. And they won't care (forget democratic coalitions against...) and why should they? In the times of old, missing one of the two dominant clubs came with a clear and present danger. The times have changed. There're at least three more centers of power. So than two of the big pals have gotten themselves into a little misunderstanding, it's just not as scary anymore. And maybe, it's better this way. We had our two decades of virtually unchallenged supremacy in the world, and what do we have to show for it? We have: Iraq, Afghanistan and Kosovo. We haven't: credible international law and security framework; global programs to address poverty; global initiatives to adress global issues; and so on. Well looks like our clock's up and we're in for a new and unknown future. Somebody else will have to take on the burden.

Another unwelcome development: Russia recognizes independence of breakaway provinces. What started as a little surprise Olympic night "constitutional order" operation, is turning into a major incident that may influence the development of international politics for many years to come. Possible fallouts: - paralyzed UN security mechanism; - build up of international political blocks and block politics; - even more accentuated drift of Russia away from Western style democracy toward more authoritarian rule and international allegiances; - new arms race and increased military spending around the globe Who's to benefit from all this? Other than little pres Saakashville, who shot to the international celebrity status in a matter of weeks, and through no accomplishment of his own, I can see these obvious ones: - US republicans; - Russia's authoritarians; - "Bad" regimes of the world (i.e those of them who's out of favour with the US) - Big oil; How good, "progressive", is it for the rest? I'm much less sure. One more time, our self gratitude, moral "superiority", brazen insistence to make rule for ourselves vs others held the best of us. If we, the West, have stood a principled position in the early hours of the conflict, as it has been discussed in the Security Council, the affair may have been avoided. Once again, the game is played out by the script, while we can't do much but stand by and watch.

The point is that the NATO, and specifically, its "champions", should be worried lot more about the ideological foundations of the organization, than the arithmetics of the expansion. If numbers were any guarantee of success and continuous progress, we would be living in 2,000 years Rome. The West has been given a brief historical window in which it could share its ideas with the world in a free non confrontational environment. The ideas materialized as Afghanistan, Iraq, and Kosovo. So, in the words of somebody (in)famous, make no mistake. If NATO would have to come face to face with a serious opponent determined to stand their ground, the result would be far less than clear. Despite the expansion, or technical superiority. Afghanistan. Not that I'm cheering to see it happen, unlike some here. "defeated", indeed! And we all know by whom. Could it be the same modest, unassuming people who won us the WWII? Launched the first rocket into space? Found WMD in Iraq? To that I can only agree. It's certainly did a lot to undermine already fragile framework of international law and justice. Right to the point where it's about to deteriorate into a useless talking club. If you want to interpret that as a sign of progress and "success", it's in the eye of the beholder. Apologies, I haven't been clear enough. Most certainly they have full democratic right to sign agreements, break them, attack interests of a bigger pal, and have their a.. kicked in the process. At issue is our democratic obligation to cover their democratic ar... while they're involved in all of the above.

I like that confidence! But only for the record: how does it measure against the reality? I mean, the last time US military had met a real determined opponent? Other incidents when US military had to fight their match? - Germany (Ardennes) - Japan (nukes) - Korea - Vietnam Following this line of thought, I'm not sure if NATO in Georgia (or anywhere else) is really the answer to all our worries and concerns. Just look at the NATO in Afghanistan; or (some of) the NATO in Iraq; NATO in Srebrentitsa. Etc.

Here's another fine example of our brazen, unapologetic hypocrisy: BBC: Afghan civilians killed in US operation More civilians perished in just one (out of countless) NATO operation than in the whole incident in Ossetia, on Georgia's side. And? Where's the indignation of the free world? Free nations standing in one voice to condemn and demand? Free democratic media sending hundreds of reporters to find out the truth? Think of it, did you even hear about it? This pretty much summarizes the whole affair (on the NATO, and specifically, Canada's, side) as a big, steaming, and stinking pile of hypocritical bs.

If you read a bit more on the background of the conflict, you'd find out (from a number of independent sources) that there's been a history of conflicts between Ossetia and Georgia, that it was never a province of Georgia (in modern times) and that Georgia had some 15 years to promote peaceful reintegration. Sure, like e.g Serbia, in Kosovo? Does safety of Georgia go over their obligation to observe the agreements they themselves have made? The principles we like to trumpet around (peace, democratic right to self determination)? Our own safety? Let's find out. Interesting times, indeed. My take is that NATO's claims to principles or impartiality in the international affairs now came out as complete hypocrisy (not that after Iraq, many were still in doubt). NATO showed itself as a pack, that will say and do whatever's in the pack's interests, regardless of standards or principles. Everybody better get busy building (or rebuilding) packs of their own. We may be in for a rerun (hopefully, in a softer mode) of the not so long and hardly forgotten past.

Because it's the only point you're making, I'm ready to concede it to you. The correct term is multiple rocket launcher (MRL). We could argue for a while whether concentration of ground forces, heavy artillery, tanks, aircraft and MRLs where the opposition is armed only with light arms, can be interpreted as "massive" build up. I'm not in the mood though, as you've accepted (by never challenging) the main points, that military build up on this scale, whether "massive" or not, could not have happened in a matter of few hours, that the attacks were launched from Georgia's side and maybe even that NATO's position in this incident is a complete and obvious pile of hypocrisy and bs.

Size itself has nothing to do with using the army against the civilians. In a peacekeeping zone. I'm getting tired of this old boring regurgitated cud. What about Germany's track record? Japan's? Israel's? And yeah, that one, too... Indeed, having nothing to say against the facts, the only honourable out is to keep a straight face and pretend nobody noticed.

Good luck and stay safe. We'll continue our discussions when you're back home. Hopefully, with no further missions (of this particular kind) in the plans.

No, only that if it's NATO's business to arm people with low trigger control ability, they'd have to shoulder some of the blame for their actions. Can have it both ways: arm those guys up to their teeth, then put on the angel wings of peace and justice. You must be kidding, right? Canada has what - 2,000 troops in Afghan, and it takes forever -months- to move it around. Georgia was reported to have up to 9,000 troops in the area of conflict, up to 2000 in the active combat, with aircraft, heavy artillery, tanks and massive missile launchers. Do you really have no clue what you're talking about? For the record (easy to find), Georgia's military stands at 28,000 personnel. Russia had up 10,000 troops in the area of this conflict. Correction: 37,000 (Wikipedia: Georgia's military); with another 100,000 reserve. To compare, Canada stands at 62,000 (active) with 25,000 reserve.

This needs to be proven first, you can't just be taken on word, can you? Which republics? Where were Russian troops directly involved in fighting on one side (WD - point taken on Chechnya, that was the second incident) - like e.g. NATO in Afghanistan; US in Iraq? And speaking of "behind the scenes" to "undermine", this opens whole new ground to be explored, slowly and carefully.. Perhaps, you are talking about US in e.g. Venezuela? Scores of other places around the world? To remind, in case of selective memory lapses: Russian peacekeepers were under direct attack, scores killed. Find pictures of peacekeepers H/Q on BBC. Russian citizens killed in the night assault on a populated city. Find pictures of the destroyed city in any number of media sources. Whenever this happens to us (Chad, Folklends, Lebanon), there response happens to be every bit as strong and disproportionate, and more. One can sure find records, pictures etc of fierce fighting in Ossetia and around it; if one's interested in any notion of reality as opposed to their own particular idea of it. I'll give them a credit for 1) standing up to NATO's b/s-tting, and defending their own; and 2) doing so with minimal, (compared to NATO's own track record) civilian casualties. For the record, this is in no way to excuse any of their previous acts, nor to write them out a blank check for the future. Each act should be judged on its own merit, and in this incident, they had a valid point, no matter what Western politicians would say for and off the record. And now there're reports that NATO pledging to help Georgia rebuild its defense capabilities. Talk about encouraging peace and non violent resolution of ethnic conflicts.

Well, for once, Russia (in its new incarnation) never claimed to be the universal champion of peace and justice; yet, in her new incarnation since 1990s, it has been its first serious military confrontation, much unlike US / NATO; Two, Russia actually had some grounds to go in Ossetia - much unlike e.g. US in Iraq; Three, civilian casualties caused by it in Ossetia are by far (orders of magnitude) less than the results of US operation in Iraq, Israel in Lebanon, or NATO in Kosovo. Four, they've been there a week, and in likelihood will be gone in another - of course, nothing ike US in Iraq, or NATO in Afghanistan. And one can continue. For the record, I don't apologise everything they did in Ossetia, and certainly not Chechnya. Just pointing out some essential differences.

No it doesn't. For once you haven't explained the exact meaning of that stretchy notion "terrorist", that somehow almost inveriably follows wherever "our enemy" can be found. Secondly, horrifying practices are also used by some of our allies (e.g Saudis practice public beheadings). Then, as already pointed out, it's not up to us to decide what's appropriate or not for other people to do in their land; Aghanis may interpret these acts as outrageous and turn away from Taleban; when they'll do it, we'll see it in the facts. You're repeating it as a mantra, in the hope that it'll make doubts, concerns, facts and numbers go away. It won't. If Taleban had no support in the general population, it would have been defeated by hugely superior NATO and hostile local population long time ago. On the contrary; I'm only trying to retain some rational view of this argument; because the only arguments you're using relate to the horrible nature of the enemy, I'm force to presume that it's the main argumentation for our being there. I.e change that part of population that does not want to accept our morals, standards, and ways of life, and change it by force. BTW other arguments used even by some allies ("sad necessity", "can't allow Taleban to retake") are at least more honest. One can argue whether a strategy of forced containment of opposition by outside power could be successful; one can't move one step if they're still unsure whether the opposition in fact exists.

Yeah, I can almost see folks and London chatting in that same key about their miscellaneous foreign conquests over a beer in the good old Queen Victoria times. Plus ca change...

No, ignorance of reality are these outrageous statements that massive military for an all out assault (which was ackonowledged even by Georgia itself in the meeting of UN security council) could be amassed in just a few hours between the ceasefire, and the launch of operation (on the night of Olympic opening). Of course, satellite records would make it extremely challenging to claim that e.g certain troop movements did not happen. And, there're BBC pictures of burned Georgian tanks in Ossetia's capital. And, the bodies of Georgian military in the city. And the damage to the city from missile launchers and artillery shelling. But nothing like a first hand source: (Georgia in control of Ossetia): I guess in the hindsight it could have been premature to spill the news? But the word's out, no squeezing it back. Yeah I know the only rational way these can be explained is the "hatred of the West".

No, nothing pretty about the picture you've drawn. But, when gory graphic emotional pictures are thrown as the last argument, it's sure time to ring the alarm bell. First of all, the problem with emotional arguments is that nobody knows where they stop. E.g if tomorrow we discover some lost tribes of cannibal savages, should NATO urgently equip reeducation mission (granted with military support, as savages may take in the ideas of peace and democracy at first sight); or, if somebody draws serious emotional discontent with practices of deliberate killing of convicts, would that give them the right to seek forced reeducation? But even more problematic is that it does not really explain or prove anything. We've already established here that NATO and government forces have enormous advantage over their opponents, in both numbers and technically. If the Afghanis themselves were as emotional as (some of) us about what's going on in their country, they would raise and add their forces to that of the government. And no, we aren't talking about abandoning homes, only the local militia to keep the militants at bay. With 10:1 NATO advantage, plus 20:1 local police, plus 2,000 adult males per 1 militant (that is, by the official story, that the numbers of militants are miniscule - otherwise we'll have to admit that we're taking sides in the local conflict), the current deteriorating security situation would be, plain and simple, logical impossibility. If the horrible stories like the one you cited (presuming it's recorded somewhere), would raise the blood of one out of ten locals, to make them take arms and defend - no, not even the government in Kabul, but their own homes - the numbers advantage would be something like 250:1. There would be no place for insurgents to go, outside of of some fringe areas (while as it appears they are spreading toward the capital). Small groups would be dealt with by local people; larger ones (of which there can't be many - again, by official numbers - there could be no more than 500 militans per "unstable" province = only a few large (~100) gangs per province) would be tracked and destroyed by local and NATO military and security forces. But none of the above seems to be happening. The only logical explanation to that is that the official story is incorrect; wrong. Taleban does enjoy certain support among the local population, and we're fighting in an internal conflict between weak government that we support, and opposition that we don't like. Which seems to be acknowledged even by some of NATO officials ("this war is a sad necessity"). Note, not a glorious one; not a "reconstruction" and "rebuilding". So, isn't it the time to take off those rosy glasses? We're in a war, in a remote part of the world, fighting on one side with no clear perspective in sight.

There're those funny little things called "satellites". They fly up in the sky, and observe (and record) what happens beneath. With resolution of 1m and less. It may go a long way to explain why even West has just accepted the story given by Russians. Oh yeah, and isn't their UN rep on record admitting that they started the action in Ossetia? But certainly, when we start ignoring facts to accommodate our moral expectations, nothing becomes impossible.

Exactly what we have now, isn't it? And on occasion, "major players" would have their own little disputes. The only answer that's been found so far is the system of justice. Founded on the notions of law; impartiality; and universality (ie. nobody is above the law). May worth a few pennies (of saved future conflicts) to invest in one. Let's see who's interested.

All good questions. Indeed, from the "moral" perspective, nobody in this conflict can claim high moral ground: Georgia, started the bloody mess; Russia, with its knee-jerk reaction of disproportionate proportions; And West, quietly encouraging (and later, covering up) the force solution, where otherwise it's given to preaching peace and democracy (but not when it'd apply to oneself, or "partners", apparently). The challenge for Russia is to maintain the middle path, between falling back into authoritarian past, where there's nothing to be found or gained for it, on one hand, and submitting to the hypocritical standards proclaimed (but not always followed) by the West. The former is a greater danger by far (for Russia itself, first of all), and West, with its position in this conflict hasn't made it any easier for the progressive part of Russia. One concise and clear statement of inacceptance of military force, on the first day of conflict, would have given strong momentum to a different, "alternative" development of situation. Perhaps, the defining momentum. Why it did not happen? Now, it's everybody's guess. The challenge for Georgia is, of course, to look for peaceful ways of dealing with its people. I.e exercise the same principles that are proclaimed as a cornerstone of free and democratic Europe (but apparently can be overlooked in need). The challenge for the West is to finally find a credible, principled position, standards, framework in the international matters. Continuation of the old "us against them", "because we can", "see no evil" policies, even in the new, "democratical" interpretation, would only lead to continuation of old problems. Which won't be good for anybody. BTW, won't you think that the message here should be more general than "invasion by A" of "B" is inacceptable"? Would it imply (given our talent with legalities of interpretations) what invasions of C,D,E by F are perfectly fine? Or, by A of N is also OK? I'd much prefer something like, maybe, "invasions are inacceptable as a mean of resolution of conflicts". How would that go? Then of course, the real challenge would be to abide by what's claimed.

I'm not sure what you are alluding to. But the comment you were replying to, referred to free and democratic expression of people's will to self determination. That sounds a bit paternalistic. But at least clear enough. From now on, our criteria, the objective standard of how good vs terrible certain particular event may be, would be .... no, not facts; not evidence; judicial consideration; but an opinion of some appointed (or self appointed, for that) individual(s). No need to waste time finding and analysing facts; verifying information; asking questions; trading arguments; all is fine and clear. This - good; them - bad. Because we say so. Really.... and it was supposed to be united single voice condemnation of the barbarians of 21 century by the free people of the world.

OK, the main issue, again, as so many times before, seems to come down to terminology: Taleban - who are they? Evil alien "terrorists"? Or representatives of that part of local population, that wants to be left alone and live by their customs and traditions, whatever they are? And assuming we can prove them being "terrorists", whatever interpretation of the word we use, would it still give us moral right to go into another land and fight them there? Taleban near Kabul: BBC

The West looks in the mirror of its media and will see what it wants to see. Only few will question the appearances against actual facts. This is so very familiar. If however, we think that our propaganda "victory" (i.e. take things for what they appear - or, we make them appear, not what they are), actually achieves anything positive, we may be deeply mistaken. For once, everybody else, but us, obviously, sees our complete, naked and uncovered hypocrisy. We'll use deadly force on a flimsiest of pretexts in a flick, then turn around and blame others for the same. We're also extremely good at whitewashing, and looking the other way when our buddy's doing something untoward. That lesson has not been lost on anybody, just check the world forums. Which could a fertile ground for suspicions and mistrust for a long time to come. The hope for a consistent set of international security and justice standards may be a thing of the past. Everybody who can, will do what they want, and find a way to justify it. And to continue to be able to do that, they'll have to invest very heavily, into, well, continuation of their capabilities. Everybody, prepare to shell in for a full blown missile defence program. In at least three variants, and around the world. Which wouldn't be a good climate at all to tackle the global challenges we're all going to face in the near future; such as the depletion of the environment resources; climate change; poverty; over production of arms and military equipment; and if we won't find the ways to rebuild trust and cooperate on these issues, it would be bad for everybody. Not just them, Russians. I like that emotional picture: little Georgia wanted her (even littlier, so to say) prize so badly, it did something ugly; the grumpy neighbour wasn't impressed and spanked her; now the daddy and the buddies are up in arms shouting and calling names. I wouldn't overdramatise the situation; happens all the time. Granted, it's a bit odd that, being a great lecturer of peace and justice, the daddy wouldn't restrain the kid playing with dangerous stuff near the neighbours' yard, but even that isn't uncommon. S... happens, the life goes on.

A team player in what, exactly? In self appointed moral superiority (which up to now haven't been backed up by a matching track record - see the facts section). Why exactly is it "entirely wrong"? Because you say so? Or on some rational, factual grounds? West barges into "sovereign" countries on the flimsiest of pretexts (e.g Iraq). Even in Kosovo, nothing like massive military attack on a civilian city has happened, yet West's justfication is never questioned. One more time, I'd like to understand the thought process by which we arrive at these decisions: this, good and justified, that, bad and disproportionate.. Maybe try better this time around. All what came out as comprehensible last time, was references to "50 millions". And finally, about annexation. I see that you have a valid concern here. It hasn't not happen yet, so it may be somewhat premature to speculate about "annexation". But, the concern is real, no denying that. So, two wars in less than two decades... What should everybody do about it? Fortunately, we have the example of Canada. Free and democratic will of people should be respected... (I have to reemphasize - to avoid any potential confusion - the stress on free and democratic, as a precondition to any consideration). But assuming that such free and democratic expression of will is made, what do you think should happen?

-n military hardware. We'll just never say the whole truth, would we? Kosovo Afghanistan Iraq .... while (to the best of my knowledge) this incident is Russia's first direct military conflict since breakup of Soviet empire. Ergo: keep saying it, and it'll be taken as truth. Rephrasing somebody, never let facts stand in the way of virtue.

There's no BBC stamp on it, not as far as I can see - the print is of CNN. And again, the accusation is coming from Georgia could not be independently confirmed. And there's no attack on Georgia's capital. It's night of 16th, and we'll check again in a couple of days. I'd expect Russian pullout to begin by then. In the mean time I won't be commenting on these reports that need further explanations and/or clarifications. There's enough of that from our media already.