The amazing and tragic events in South Ossetia seem to baffle most Western experts. While a majority of them fall back on the ‘safe’ position of blaming Russia for everything others, in particularly on the Left, appear to be rather unsure of what to think of all this; many basically ignore the issue altogether. In contrast to the Leftist blogosphere or to the free and independent press, the corporate media immediately understood that this was, yet again, a perfect opportunity to prove to its political and corporate masters what a loyal propaganda tool it is. While CNN basically used an 24/7 ‘open mike’ policy towards Saakashvili, the rest of the US and European media uniformly bought into the US propaganda on the causes and effects of this conflict. This purely ideological approach to the unfolding crisis ended up blinding almost everyone to the real nature of what is going on.
Two speeches
The first sign that something radically new was happening could have been noticed in the tone, if not the words, of the TV address of President Medvedev to the Russian people on the day of the Georgian attack. Though his words were carefully chosen, and his statement short, one could clearly sense something new in the demeanor of this otherwise rather restrained, if not withdrawn, technocrat. What one could clearly perceive was Medvedev seething sense of deep anger.
The second, and even more amazing, speech which clearly showed what the Russians were thinking was the statement made by the Russian representative to the UN Security Council, Vitalii Churkin. His statement was an unscripted, spontaneous, and Churkin, while not agitated in any way, was clearly furious, disgusted and extremely determined. Against the background of the usually carefully scripted and mostly diplomatic (read: ambiguous) language of the UN, Churkin’s words were packing a punch which only a Russian speaker listening to the original audio or video could fully appreciate.
Something important, something absolutely crucial, became clear that evening. The Russians were truly outraged and they were going to do something about it.
Within minutes of Churkin’s speech the Russian blogosphere literally exploded with hundreds of posts expressing the same anger and the same resolve.
But why exactly were the Russian so outraged? Why did they sound far more angry about the death of 10 or 12 peacekeepers than over the death of far more many Russian soldiers in Chechnia? Why was Russia, who had been willing to let the Ukraine, the birthplace of the Russian nation, go without so much as firing a single gunshot, why was Russia so upset about South Ossetia being invaded by Georgians?
The answer is, of course, that this is not at all about South Ossetia – it was all about Russia.
What exactly is 21 century “Russia” anyway?
Russia, as it is today, is neither a continuation of the former Soviet Union nor, even less so, a continuation of the pre-1917 Orthodox Russia of Princes and Czars. Don’t ever listen to anyone using these kind of historical references which are always used with one sole purpose: to conceal the ignorance of the person making them. They make for good cliches but for bad analysis.
Post 1991 Russia is essentially a new phenomenon which did come out, with great difficulty, from the ashes of the Soviet Union after a decade or more of utter chaos and collapse. To make a long story short, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union by the Soviet elites (there never was a “collapse of Communism”) and the breakup of the “Soviet pie” into many little “cakes”, Russia found itself at the mercy of ruthless and totally corrupt leaders. The Eltsin era really marks the lowest moment in the history of the Russian nation; not even World War II heaped such chaos and destruction upon the Russian nation as 9 years of ‘democracy’: in a short time the former Soviet superpower was reduced to the state of a “failed nation”. Two closely allied forces played a key role in this process, one inside, the so-called ‘oligarchs’ and one outside: the USA.
The Great Betrayal
Does anybody still remember the late eighties? How the West promised Gorbachev that if the Soviets withdrew their armed forces from Europe NATO would not expand? How the Russians were told that if they agreed to let the Republics of the Soviet Union go the West would assist Russia economically and politically? Probably not, this is old history now, something which people in the West just don’t feel like reminiscing a lot about. It would be wrong to infer that, in contrast, the Russians spend their lives still fuming about these years and the lies they were told. In fact, they mostly don’t. It’s what followed the breakup of the Soviet Union which really bothers them.
Think about it. Not only did NATO expand to include almost all of Eastern Europe (one wonders what kind of contingencies still justify the existence of this alliance anyway?), but the West illegally attacked and dismembered the only country still friendly to Russia: Yugoslavia. US politicians love to say that they are “sending messages” and the bombing of Serbian enclaves in Croatia and Bosnia followed by the bombing of Kosovo, Serbia and Montenegro by NATO did “send a message” to Russia: “we hate your guts – screw you!”. The message was received, loud and clear.
Then there was the war in Chechnia during which the West strongly backed what can only be called a nasty gang of bloodthirsty and crazed Wahabis. Sure, September 11th brought a rather self-serving 180 degree reversal of this policy, but that was too little, too late.
And then there is all the rest of the long litany of ugly Western imperial policies: the radars and missiles in Eastern Europe, all the nonsense about the “KGB” killing Politkovskaia and Litvinenko, the whining about the “not-so-democratic” elections in Russia (nevermind that any idiot in Russia knows that Putin and Medvedev had no need to rig the elections at all) combined with the support for the electoral farce in Georgia, the systematic refusal to negotiate *anything* with Russia (this is politely referred to as “assertiveness” or “unilateralism”) and last, but not least, the obscene support for the aforementioned ‘oligarchs’ (who do you think paid for the Politkovskaia and Litvinenko propaganda campaigns?).
The Oligarchs can best be compared to “mercenary bloodsuckers” who, with the full support of the West, literally tried to bleed Russia dry of all its resources. And, for a while, they did a very good job. US political ‘advisers’ flooded Moscow and provided all the aide and expertise needed to help these ‘oligarchs’ (almost all of them Jewish) to plunder Russia as fast as possible. What only very few people realized at the time was that there was a force which was quite cynically letting all this happen and waiting for the best time to strike back.
The Hidden Power – the “Putin people”
While the pinnacle of power in the Soviet Union was formally in the hands of the Politburo’s Security Council, the real, deeper, power of the Soviet regime was in the hands of the Central Committee of the Soviet Union. Few people realize, even today, that the presumably almighty KGB had no rights whatsoever to even investigate a CC CPSU member. This created a paradoxical situation: while the intellectual elite of the Soviet Union was, without any doubt, concentrated in the KGB, the real political power was in the hands of the CPSU. This created a rift which greatly contributed to the so-called “stagnation” years under Brezhnev.
When the Soviet Union was dismembered in 1991 the KGB went down into something of a duck and cover mode, hunkering down while the political passions of the time, including a very real hatred of the KGB for its oppression of the Russian people, overwhelmed the political scene. Many KGB officers left the “Kantora” (nickname of the KBG among its employees) and joined the Russian mob and became “businessmen”. Some retired and some skillfully re-entered the political life as either “patriots” or “democrats” (or both). One group of younger KGB officials, however, managed to quietly regroup and reorganize itself behind the scenes.
This group, mostly based in Leningrad, realized that there was no way the KGB and what it represented could become popular again unless the situation in Russia became truly chaotic and desperate. These KGB officers, mostly from the First Main Directorate (PGU) which dealt with foreign intelligence rather than internal security, understood the West very well, and they knew who had put the Oligarchs into power after 1991. Still, unlike their mostly hapless colleagues from the “internal” KGB, these PGU officers sat and waited for the right moment to make their move. This moment came in 2000 when they literally conned the overconfident Oligarchs to accept Putin, a totally uncharismatic and dull bureaucrat, as a compromise candidate which would threaten nobody. The ploy worked and without firing a single shot the KGB men retook the reigns of power back into their hands. They immediately proceeded to purge the society from any and all oligarchs which would not immediately submit to their rule: some were jailed (Khodorkovskii), others were exiled (Berezovskii) and others were killed (Dudaev & Co.).
The Western Imperial Overlords rapidly understood what had happened, but there was nothing they could do about it. In a very real sense, Dubya “lost” Russia. The Brits, desperately frustrated at having their entire network in Russia quietly dismembered resorted to a rather futile propaganda campaign against the “KGB murders”. Predictably, it failed to interest, much less so impress, anybody in Russia. In contrast, Washington decided to step up, this time very overly, its international campaign to isolate and weaken Russia. More recently France, now headed by the Neocons Sarkozy and Kouchner, also joined into the anti-Russian chorus, but this had no more effect than the British efforts.
It is important to understand here that the KGB people which managed to seize the power away from the Oligarchs fully understood, from day one, that the Oligarchs were agents of the West and that these officers had absolutely no illusions whatsoever left about the West, its role, methods and objectives. For them the West had proved beyond any doubt that the old Soviet KGB had been correct in calling the West “the enemy number one”: the Oligarchs were not anti-Soviet – they were anti-Russian.
Another thing to keep in mind is that while it is not incorrect to speak of the importance of the the KGB (and, in particular of the PGU) in this struggle, it would be wrong to reduce it all to this one organization. There are plenty of signs that the much less known, but no less sophisticated and powerful, military intelligence agency, the GRU, has concluded a strategic alliance with the “Putin people” and that these formerly rather antagonistic organizations are now working together towards a common goal. The “Putin people” (and I refer to Putin himself not as a leader, but only as a symbol, a figurehead) are really composed of a mix younger generation of Russian intelligence officers from various services who joined forces with key personalities in the military industrial and petrochemical complexes. They represent a generational change even more than any one single corporate interest. And if there is one thing which must be understood about them is that they are genuinely immensely popular in Russia. How could that be otherwise since, after all, the “Putin people” performed nothing short of a miracle in the eight short years between 2000 and 2008.
Lastly, don’t get too upset about the ominous sounding “KGB” letters. Remember – its not your father’s KGB at all. It’s not about Stalin, the Gulag or dissidents (which were dealt with by only one Directorate, the 5th, of the KGB). Think of it more like something of a slightly militarized elite corporate club with alumni of the best Ivy League colleges, and let Hillary and McCaine spew the nonsense about the “coldness of Putin’s KGB eyes”
For all their bad aspects, of which there are quite a few, these new Russian rulers managed to bring Russia back, big time, and now they are in control.
The chicken coming home to roost
It is quiet amusing, at least for me, to hear how the US now threatens Russia with “long term damage” in their relationship. Think about it: is there anything, anything at all, short of a nuclear war, which the USA could do to Russia which it has not already done? One crackpot at the Heritage Foundation is now seriously suggesting that the West should prevent Russia from hosting the Olympic games. Some threat! A marginally more realistic option is for the West to implement some kind of economic sanctions except this idea overlooks two simple facts: first, Russia does not need the West, but the West needs Russia (think Iran, think North Korea, think oil) and second, this ignores the fact that most of the planet has no interest whatsoever in cutting down economic ties with Russia.
The US, having already lost the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, barely has the energy to contemplate a conflict with Iran, nevermind trying to take on Russia. The EU, for all the buffoonery of its leaders, is totally dependent on Russian gas and has no military means to intervene in the conflict. Worse, any crisis in a petrochemically-rich region (such as the Caucasus) only makes Russia richer and the West poorer. The Greenback is in free fall and the US economy is in a recession. Talk about a paper tiger…
In their seemingly incurable imperial hubris, the Imperial Overloards in the USA think that they can threaten Russia with a worsening of relations while in reality it is Russia which could threaten the West. The Russians won’t threaten though; there is a basic tenet of Russian hardball play which says that one should never threaten, never promise and only take direct action. This is exactly what happened in Ossetia
The Conflict in Ossetia: just the first battle in a much wider war
Russia and the USA are at war and they have been at war since 1991 – this is the ugly little secret which the Imperial rulers are trying hide and which most Russian understand. The conflict in Ossetia is just the first time Russia is actually “returning fire” not so much at the American puppets in Tbilissi or at the US and Israeli trained Georgian forces, but at the US Empire itself. The Russian response is a “message” to the West: “we will fight back!”
The initial Western response to Russia’s stance is predicable: the USA will step up its anti-Russian propaganda campaign, NATO will declare that it will incorporate the Ukraine and even possibly Georgia and Western politicians will solemnly declare that their military budgets need to go further up to deal with the “Russian threat to our friends and allies”.
Will Russia be deterred by such threats? Not at all.
As mentioned earlier, Russia has little to fear from the West on the economic front. Not only that, but Russia has nothing to fear from the Western military power. How is that possible?
Sure, the USA is spending more on “defense” (read: aggression) than the rest of the world combined, but that is explained by the fact that the USA seeks world domination. Russia, in contrast, has no such ambitions at all. At the most, Russia wants to be capable of fighting a war right across its border. That, and the capability to deter the USA with its nuclear forces. All in all, a cheap and eminently achievable objective and one which Russia does not need to strain too much to reach. The USA cannot match such a minimalist approach because if it did renounce world domination it would immediately collapse economically and become a “normal” country like any other i.e. a country which cannot take on Russia. Thus the USA is in a loose-loose situation: it cannot threaten Russia and seek world domination, but it cannot give up world domination and hope to be able to threaten Russia.
Paradoxically, Russia can afford an arms race with the USA precisely because the USA are already spending themselves into bankruptcy with their bloated, over-priced and under-performing armed forces.
So why are the Russians angry?
The Russians, both the people in the Kremlin and the general population are so angry at the West because they (correctly) feel that the West hates them and has being waging a unilateral war against everything Russian since 1991. They are angry because the double-standards and the hypocrisy of the West are simply too immense to fully comprehend. For example, it is mind boggling that the US Representative at the UNSC accused Russia of using “disproportionate” actions in Georgia when the USA found it legitimate to bomb all of Serbia and Montenegro during its aggression on Kosovo. Two decade of “we hate you” “messages” from the West have not fallen on deaf ears in Russia and now the feeling has become very mutual.
The current outraged Russian anger at the West is, I believe, of a comparable fundamental quality, if not magnitude, to the one the Russians felt against the Nazis in WWII. It is fueled by an acceptance that Russia itself is being attack by an uncompromising and evil foe which cannot be dealt with with anything other than force. Those of you who have seen Russian TV and movies recently can attest that they are literally filled with stories about WWII and how the Russian people had to accept the greatest of hardships to prevail; some will call it “propaganda”, which it is in many aspects, but it is also the expression of a popular mindset, of a mental mode which says that you have to fight to survive.
The ugly attack by Washington’s Georgian puppet on the Russian peacekeepers combined with the absolutely amazing hypocrisy of the Western media and politicians who all fully sided with the aggressor turned into something of a “last straw” for Russia. This seemingly marginal development, at least when assessed quantitatively (“what else is new?”) ended up making a huge qualitative difference: it brought up a new Russian resolve to deal with, to use a favorite Neocon expression, an existential threat represented by the Western Empire. It will take a long while for the West to realize what has really happened and the most obtuse of pundits and politicians will probably hang on to their usual self-righteous rhetoric forever, but historians will probably look back at the month of August 2008 as the moment when Russia decided to strike back at the Empire for the first time.
The Saker
While I have no argument against the fact that capitalism brought Russia to the brink of destruction in the 1990s, or that Russia feels keenly the NATO destruction of Yugoslavia and the recent “liberation” and NATO recognition of Kosovo, I can’t help but think that the events in South Ossetia, et al, is also part of the Great Game over regional energy resources.
For one thing, the independence of Kosovo is intimately linked to the AMBO pipeline and NATO’s Camp Bondsteel exists to assure the integrity of that pipeline. Of course, assuring the integrity of the AMBO pipeline is as effective as Turkey’s assuring the integrity of the Ceyhan leg of the BTC pipeline–which security was spectacularly breached last week.
To add to the thesis of a new Cold War over energy resources, Gazprom signed a major deal with Turkmenistan at the end of July which will ensure that Turkmenistani oil and gas travel through Russian pipelines for the foreseeable future.
Control of energy resources is why NATO, particularly the US along with its proxies (Georgia, Turkey, Israel, etc.) is meddling in the region anyway, and any discussion of “democracy” in this context is only so much bullshit.
Thanx for a succinct insight into Russian thinking. With regard to Iran, how do you see Russia’s actions affecting the thinking of policy makers in Washington? Bush has been talking tough about Russia. Do you think they are more inclined to husband their remaining power and influence (meaning forget about attacking Iran) to deal with what they should consider to be a far more potent adversary?
Or are they stubborn enough to think they can take on both at the same time?
VS,
Wow! Amazing analysis. Fascinating! I had no idea that Putin was initially viewed as pretty much a bland, ho-hum guy who wouldn’t rock the boat. Really interesting. He certainly fooled them. How did he manage to avoid revealing his allegiances?
Am I right in assuming that the Putin people, the PGU, are non-Jewish slavs? Are there any Jews among Putin’s inner circle? I am assuming that they would not be trusted at all.
Do you have the feeling that our Oligarchs (here in the States) are pretty much analogous to the Russian ones–loyal to themselves and their tribe? And pretty much nothing else? “The hell with the country” seems to be the attitude of our elite. After all, how can conflict with Russia be in the interest of ordinary Americans? They could be our best friends. The quest for global domination is looking more like global enslavement to me.
VS,
Is it fair to say that the assault on So. Ossetia was a “probing” attack on Russia by the US meant to discover military effectiveness, intelligence capabilities, and political response?
Hi qwerty,
Thanks for your kind words. It took my last drops of energy to write this analysis today and I am very happy that somebody appreciates it!
One should avoid two extremes in discussion the issue of Jews in Russia: the one of thinking that ethnicity is irrelevant and the one of thinking that ethnicity is all-important. Its really somewhere in the Middle.
Take Putin. He is not Jewish. But Medvedev is said to have some Jewish blood and he wife is Jewish too. And then there were *plenty* of Russians working with the oligarchs. Its not really a tribal thing, at least not only, it’s mainly a mix of clans and associations but these are often defined by ethnicities.
Think of the American mob and you will get a VERY good picture of the kind of people and mentality of the Oligarchs.
I hope that this answers your question. If not, let me know!
King regards,
VS
@Dear Mizgin,
Good to hear form you again! You are, as always, correct. There is definitely a oil component to all this. Ditto for the war in Chechnia which was primarily a disagreement between the Russian mob and the Chechen mob on to how to share the oil profits.
Serkeftin!
The Saker
@Lysander: how do you see Russia’s actions affecting the thinking of policy makers in Washington? (…) are they stubborn enough to think they can take on both at the same time?
Your guess is as good as mine, but my sense is that everybody in Washington knows that taking on Russia is impossible. Many still seem to think, or hope, that taking on Iran is a more doable thing. But fundamentally its all too late. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are lost, Somalia is going to hell, attacking Pakistan is insane, attacking Iran is insane and taking on Russia, in particular for the sake of Saakashvili, is just too much to even contemplate.
The US is going down the tubes. The only issue is how fast.
Cheers,
The Saker
Didn’t mean to sound racist, but for a long time I was under the illusion from years of education in American public schools that we are a nation of individuals and individual merit is all that counted, and ethnicity is immaterial. Well, it was to me, but clearly, ethnicity/religion is a defining factor in the motivations and identity of our elite. This realization has me frightened. With so many ethnicities, I fear that things could fall apart very quickly here, if the majority begin to realize that the country is being used pretty much like a rented mule.
@qwerty: your question did not sound racist at all! You asked an important and highly relevant question, in particular for a country like Russia which has always been multi-national and in which ethnicity always played an important role. Check out this article of mine and you will see that I am in now way minimizing the role of ethnicity in the history of Russia:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/04/acting-as-one-which-of-course-they-are.html
Kind regards & thanks for all your comments,
VS
A most impressive analysis, which tied together observations I have had but you tied it all together in a very illuminating analysis! Bravo!
Myself (Swedish Reserve officer residing in the US) have been quite dismayed/impressed by how the conflict is represented in US and UK media … (Yahoo: “Russia bombs Georgian cities, hundreds dead” – where if you read it the hundreds referred to the alleged and rather likely death of around 1500 civilians in Tskhinvali – by Georgian rocket artillery. )
And how the UK so quickly gives visas to the oglikarks with their soccer teams and mysterious millions.
Thank you
PS
Israel says it will stop military exports to Georgia – wonder what quid pro quo was arranged with the Russians.
@fkd: Israel says it will stop military exports to Georgia – wonder what quid pro quo was arranged with the Russians.
Not only did the Israelis arm the Georgians, they also trained them and now they are concerned that the Russians might retaliate and are backing off ASAP. I am not sure that a quid pro quo was made for the simple reason that neither Israeli weapons not Israeli training made one once of a difference once the Russians got directly involved. The Israelis are in no position to bargain, they are only in the position to run…
“The US is going down….”
Nope, we’re going to be here awhile. Been hearing that line since Korea, yet here we are. The United States adapts and endures, and with any luck the approaching Election will speed that process.
I’m amused you claim the US forces are ineffectual, it took 3 days for an entire Russian Class-A Army to push a far inferior Georgian force out of a city friendly to said army. And while the might of Russia will doubtless prevail, I wonder what the bottom line is like.
So, your country has as its new ruling class a militant version of Skull And Bones, and you brag about it? Worlds apart indeed.
Though it IS refreshing to see that completely baseless logic exists elsewhere other than just the Western Neocons.
Great writeup VS!
-AA
@warjen: yes, yes, the USA will prevail, these colors don’t run, united we stand, let freedom ring, support our troops, thank a veteran, etc. etc. etc.
I live in the US and I know the mindset, believe me…
As for the performance of the US Army think about this: the Soviet 40th Army which was mostly undertrained, underfed and under-equipped CONSCRIPTS manage to hold on to *every single city* in Afghanistan and to control most of the roads most of the time while fighting *all* the Afghan factions at the same time while having to put up with a safe heaven for the Afghans in Pakistan which they could not touch and billions of dollars of US covert aid to the guerrillas.
The PROFESSIONAL US armed forces, supported by the Tadjiks, the Uzbeks and the Hazaras, with the help of NATO countries, without anyone organizing a massive covert program to support the Talibans, with a friendly, if utterly corrupt regime in Pakistan, barely managed to hold on to Kabul before passing the buck to NATO. Dude, do you realize how pathetic, how lame that is?
Besides, I am sure that you have heard of all the interviews of Talibans saying to Western reporters that compared to the kind of fights they had with the Soviets fighting the Americans was a joke…
You wanna think that you are forever? Fine. But remember that many other, far more sophisticated, empires than yours, have been brought down by overextending themselves and by this unique variety of hubris and ignorance which prevails among all imperialists.
As they say, when your head is in the sand, your ass is in the air :-)
Keep waving your (Chinese made) flags!
The Saker
One need not be fluent in Russian to understand this cartoon.
Hi! I was looking for information about Georgia and came across your website. Would you tell me something about yourself? Are you of Russian ancestry?
Saker, I had some time off recently in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan and events in Turkey have been all-consuming recently. You might say there has been another coup there, but that’s another discussion.
Anyway, I felt I had to comment because the rapidity and vehemence with which Russia has been painted as the aggressor by the American and Western media in this situation is absolutely astounding. . . even though I know very well that this is their modus operandi.
It might be a good idea to collect all the news from the initial reports, and analyze them according to the Propaganda Model proposed by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman in their book, Manufacturing Consent, because the Propaganda Model certainly seems to be working very well in this situation.
Very nice!
So you live in the US and you talk smack about it. Congratulations, you’re the only one ever to do that. You must have a completely unique point of view, and the mere fact that you live here unhappy about it makes you a completely objective.
The US managed to knock out the Talibani and Serbian militaries almost entirely from the air, allowing local fighters do do the actual toppling. I don’t see S. Ossetian tanks doing the lion’s share of the fighting, I see 58th Army tanks.
And while true, rampant mis-management has allowed a resurgence of the Taliban, I’d point out that the 40th army’s “effectiveness” was in no small part due to completely unrestricted warfare which the US and NATO won’t take part in. There has been collateral from the modern Afgan war, but nothing on the scale of the rampant War Crimes which the USSR forces took part in within their Afgan campaign. I’m sure we look like pansies for NOT wiping out every village from which a sniper takes a potshot at us, but I think we’ll gladly cede the “feared” title in exchange for retaining our humanity. And our losses with our “incompetent” force NOT massacring anyone have been vastly less.
So only Russia is immune to History? The US is another Rome and transient, but Russia’s Empire is good, just, and forever? Again and Again I see this argument, but I still fail to see how the US’s self-interested, overbearing foreign policy is Bad but Russia’s self-interested, overbearing foreign policy is good. Both are based on the same premise: that only “We” are right and its better to sew death and destruction rather than try to find common ground.
Put another way: Russia’s economic and military rebirth comes funded by Western Petro-Dollars. Our little parade flags are made in China, but your shiny new weapons are paid for in the USA and Europe. Russia cannot afford to upset that balance any more than the West can. Conquering Georgia includes securing that dynamic, preventing the West from seeking sources to circumvent it.
@warjen
I don’t think that Russia is acting out of any imperialist impulse to conquer Georgia. It is acting defensively, and with a good bit of indignation. Gerogia started this war with a surpise attack on S. Ossetia. They have the right to punish Georgia militarily as we would do if we were in their position. As I write this, Georgian troops have been routed in Gori and are fleeing to Tbilisi. What do you imagine our military would do in this circumstance? They would attack the fleeing columns from the air like we did in the first Gulf War when Iraqis were trying to leave Kuwait. Russia on the other hand has decided to halt operations. It has made its point. It is pretty clear it is not out to make Georgia a subject colony, on the other hand it is not going to put up with aggression from its neighbors. They have made their point.
I guess we can invade Panama an Granada at will, in the case of Granada, because Soviet proxy Cuba was at work doing infrastructure mischief like building strategic runways etc. and we did what Russia did. Only the direct analogy would be a total invasion of Georgia. We how come nobody notices?
@warjen: get this: I happen to be very happy in the USA and I love the American people. Its your EMPIRE which I have a bone with, can’t you get this?! One does not need to be anti-German to hate Naziism, right? And, FYI, I never even lived in Russia.
When you write completely unrestricted warfare which the US and NATO won’t take part in you are only making yourself look like a typical “patriotic” ignoramus who actually believes the nonsense he parrots.
Jeez dude, google Ron Paul, read Chomsky, take a trip abroad, learn a foreign language or something, but stop posting here: you make yourself look like a clown…
Saker, I thank you for a great writing.
I’m amazed on your understanding of the situation.
The only thing I want to point out, is that you missed the whole aspect of the conflict. The ethics. While from the international law point of view it is enough for Georgian to attack peacekeeping forces, from ethical point of view it was much more important, that Georgia attacked the civilians with artillery and rocket fire.
Your great post suffers a lot cause you did not gave a mention to the starting point of conflict, that is a bombardment of Tshinval. Although I understand that adding ethical aspect would require even more efforts to touch it and it will make your long article even longer, but I think that your article quality will improve greatly if you just insert the mention of bombardment.
Being Russian myself I can tell you, that I don’t care what laws (domestic or international) say if there are weak and innocent in need of help.
While the Russian government may feel otherwise, but for Russian people an attack on Tshinval civilians means much more then deaths of peacekeepers. So if you mention Russian people support for strike on Georgia, it is necessary to add mention of Tshinvali civilians.
Thanks again for a great post! You’ve just earned another loyal reader. And sorry for my poor English.
@andrey: Dear andrey,
Thanks for your kind words. You are correct, I should have added the ethical aspect of what happened. I suppose that I did not do this because my blog is mainly aimed at a Western audience and they, frankly, do not really believe claims about killed civilians too easily (just look at the guy who posted about the ‘alleged 1000 Ossetian civilians). ALso, it is just hard for the cynical Western audience which for decades has been fed God knows how many wars under the pretext of “humanitarian intervention” to believe that a government could actually act on ethical grounds. To be totally honest, I also partially share in this kind of skepticism as I have a very hard time believing that people like Medvedev or Putin have much of a moral sense at all.
I know that the Russian people were outraged at the Georgian atrocities and that they were sincere, but I also realize that the Russian press has been very active in making darn sure that as much reports about Georgian atrocities as possible would go on TV. So there is an element of manipulation here, even if the massacres are real.
But anyway – your point is well taken. What the Georgians did in Tskhinvali is definitely a war crime and their entire operation was an ruthless exercise in ethnic cleansing, if not genocide.
And sorry for my poor English
Да нет проблем – можешь мне писать по-русски :-)
Georgia bit more than it could chew .
The U.S. has committed a huge number of atrocities throughout its decades-long covert war for global hegemony. From the imperial corporate wars spoken of by General Smedley Butler in Latin America and the death squads of Negroponte to his later resurfacing in Iraq to arrange the same there. Not too mention as well, the 3 million dead in the Vietnam Corporate War and now over a million dead in Iraq and many many deaths elsewhere, depleted uranium contamination, torture prisons and so, so much more. All for global hegemony, Empire and the corporatist plutocracy.
Oh yes, the U.S. has sooo much to be proud of.
Thanks VS.
I agree as usual. The root of the problem is that we have, in the US, a plutocracy. The “free” press is just another comodity to pump out propaganda. I have a real crisis of confidence that our institution are capable of dealing with an international cartel that can buy the press and the political system. Nowhere do you hear Medvedev’s speech or any non party line material. On 60 minutes last sunday, we get a paean to the heroic IAF and their attack on the osirak reactor in Iraq, and practically invided them to attack Iran.Carl Schwarz is an interesting article but it’s in Rense- the flying saucer truther nonsehse animal goof site, and nothing from there can be sited without some degree of redicule, which maybe is the point of having such sites- set up a straw man and cross post there, and voila- instantly way to dicredit an idea. (Even if it’s basically true) The the propaganda MSM just picks up cred.
Well anyway-
http://www.rense.com/general82/euciac.htm
With this day of technically possible 1000 channel cable tv, and with 5 HBO’s and Golf channel, Jewlery channel etc. It would be excellent to have a channel for – say “buchanan- american conservative” magazine and its fine writters. Maybe a program for vin. or Scott horton. etc. But this won’t happen, not for technical or even economic reasons, but to keep this childlike view of politics in the US, divided in some clownlike way between two banners, “I’m for the poor” and “I beleive in business”.
What tripe. Suppose a restaurent had 2 things on the menu. fishheads and dirty rice. Everybody orders one of the other because its the only place in town, and it’s not because everbody is happy- nobody orders off the menu much. They don’t realize should could demand more. They HAVE choice.
So we have our country governed by the bloods and the crypts, and they brook no conpetition. They have this “arrangement”, occasional they rumble over turf, but they both agree on the need to keep the turf between them. That’s what we have, in the media and in politics. No carping about Russian ham handed media control — please.
I very much appreciate the analysis and perspective your blog presents Saker.
I admit that leading up to this conflict, I knew very little about Eastern Europe. I am actually more knowledgeable about the Middle East region due to having marriage ties and also having lived there for a period. Yet, it is never too late to learn and I am now learning.
It is just sad when I think about how I wasted so many years of my life in ignorance. As a born and raised typical American, I have been largely ignorant of the world around me. And I have only recently in the last decade become interested in other parts of the world, even though my country has been so involved and interferring on behalf of our so-called interests around the world for so long.
It is when I saw first hand the U.S. involvement in the the Middle East region for what it really is rather than what the media portrays it as being, that woke me up to my own ignorance.
Since I am basically ignorant on this subject, I do not have much to add other than to comment on the surprise of some here on how quickly the U.S. and Western media painted Russia as the aggressor. For me isn’t surprising at all.
When we look at the Middle East region and all of its past and present conflicts with the U.S. and the U.S.’s ally Israel, it is the “typical practice” in U.S. media to paint the occupied Arab resistance movements, who have been seeking sovereignty and independence from U.S./Israeli designs in their region as the aggressors while claiming as terrorists. Since 9/11, the U.S. and Israel have managed to put all resistance in the same category as Al Qaeda. We can also see this same practice concerning Iran, which is the only sovereign and independent country in the region, to the dislike of Israel and the West, being painted as the aggressor. While the occupier and true aggressors of independence in the region, the U.S. and Israel, are painted as victims.
Apparently, according to the West’s political agenda, the aggressors have become those countries and groups who are daring to claim or assert their sovereignty and independence from U.S./western interests and designs.
I hope that the way in which I expressed my comments were clear and not confusing, as I have a horrible tendency to resort to using long and wordy sentences.
Seems like most of your post was lifted from the book Kremlin Rising by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser.
What succeeded in bringing Russia “back” was not the siloviki, it was the price of oil. Just as the Reagan-led efforts to get the Saudis to pump-pump-pump and bring down the price of the oil in the 80’s help lead to the collapse of the Soviet economy, what has given Putin & co. so much power now is the wealth their natural resources give them.
@jtapp: Seems like most of your post was lifted from the book Kremlin Rising by Peter Baker and Susan Glasser
Right. Jee, thanks for the plagiarism compliment which, alas, I cannot really disprove other than saying that I have no idea who Baker and Glasser are, never seen their books, that I never read any American authors about Russia on principle (except Dave Glantz), and that confusing the “Putin People” with the “siloviki” is a big mistake anyway (exactly the kind of nonsense which makes me avoid American authors in the first place)
Say, Justin, are you aware of the fact that making unsubstantiated accusations of theft (plagiarism) is not exactly a Christian or “Biblically-principled” thing to do?
This being said, you are correct when you say that the price of oil was a huge boost for Russia, though this does not even come close to explaining what really happened since 2008 as the proceeds from oil exports only help a country when its leadership knows how to put it to good use.
Maybe your next missionary trip will take you to Nigeria and you will see what I mean :-)
@mar: Apparently, according to the West’s political agenda, the aggressors have become those countries and groups who are daring to claim or assert their sovereignty and independence from U.S./western interests and designs
Exactly. There is nothing more to it. Same thing for the word “terrorist” (at least when used in US diplomatic language), by the way.
It is just sad when I think about how I wasted so many years of my life in ignorance
Mar, please don’t worry about having been ignorant – we ALL have. I used to be a General Staff officer in a West European country and I really bought into the Western worldview. For example, I actually believed that Reagan was helping the poor Miskito Indians in Nicaragua against the evil Soviet-backed Sandinistas or that Israel was the only democracy in the Middle-East surrounded by Arab terrorist (how lame does one get…).
Its actually quite embarrassing when I look back at all the crap I used to sincerely believe in.
We live in a world of lies. Remember that the Prince of this World, Satan, is called the Father of all Lies and that we live in his dominion. That is also why only the Truth shall make us free.
There is no shame in being lied to and ignorant. There is only shame in not to struggle against this and you, Mar, are struggling and seeking the Truth and for this God will bless you.
Kind regards,
The Saker
Didn’t mean to accuse you of plagiarism outright, but a couple paragraphs above are almost identical to some that I’ve typed out and emailed in recent days. The authors were journalists who lived in Russia during the 90s.
In any case, you didn’t cite any of your sources.
@jtapp: In any case, you didn’t cite any of your sources
Did you ever consider that I don’t *have* “sources” but that I have personal, first hand knowledge of these issues? Probably not.
Some of us don’t get their views from books, imagine that…
Okay, I’m curious: When was the last time you set foot in the Caucasus?
Don’t mind the trolls VS. The vast majority of us who read your work enjoy your insights. Even if we don’t comment, we still appreciate your willingness to put your analysis on the web.
Best Regards,
AA
@jtapp” ts, ts, what a question to ask… First, it is not the kind of question a person wanting to remain anonymous like myself is likely to answer and second, I could claim anything I want, that I was there last Sunday eating excellent shashliki with my Spetsnaz friends – why would you trust my reply considering that you clearly distrust me?
@AA: I don’t think that he is just a troll. Check out his websites:
http://justintapp.blogspot.com/
http://tappstomoldova.blogspot.com/
Not to mention this great photo:
http://bp2.blogger.com/_IRiUmnYGmNA/Ru6zlzhbWXI/AAAAAAAAAMk/AfBSHAE1J4g/s1600/Picture+099crop.jpg
and you will get the picture, literally :-)
It’s not that I don’t trust you, I’m just curious what gives you more credibility than the 100 other bloggers who claim expertise and have differing opinions than yours. ?
I sort of believe that those who can, do. Those who can’t, blog. You’re pretty good about responding to comments.
I’m in a position now where I can’t, so I blog. I used to live in Azerbaijan, have a lot of friends in that part of the world. Just because I don’t agree with everything you say doesn’t mean you need to try and attack me personally.
In case anyone has doubts about how western financial interests were secretly behind the oligarchs check out this article:
Khodorkovsky’s shares in the Russian oil giant Yukos have passed to renowned banker Jacob Rothschild
James Petras also provides a brief description of who the oligarchs are and how they siezed Russia’s wealth in this article:
Global Ruling Class: Billionaires and How They ‘Made It’
Among the newest, youngest and fastest-growing group of billionaires, the Russian oligarchy stands out for its most rapacious beginnings. Over two-thirds (67%) of the current Russian billionaire oligarchs began their concentration of wealth in their mid to early twenties. During the infamous decade of the 1990’s under the quasi-dictatorial rule of Boris Yeltsin and his US-directed economic advisers, Anatoly Chubais and Yegor Gaidar the entire Russian economy was put up for sale for a ‘political price’, which was far below its real value. Without exception, the transfers of property were achieved through gangster tactics – assassinations, massive theft, and seizure of state resources, illicit stock manipulation and buyouts. The future billionaires stripped the Russian state of over a trillion dollars worth of factories, transport, oil, gas, iron, coal and other formerly state-owned resources.
Contrary to European and US publicists, on the Right and Left, very few of the top former Communist leaders are found among the current Russian billionaire oligarchy. Secondly, contrary to the spin-masters’ claims of ‘communist inefficiencies’, the former Soviet Union developed mines, factories, energy enterprises were profitable and competitive, before they were taken over by the new oligarchs. This is evident in the massive private wealth that was accumulated in less than a decade by these gangster-businessmen.
Virtually all the billionaires’ initial sources of wealth had nothing to do with building, innovating or developing new efficient enterprises. Wealth was not transferred to high Communist Party Commissars (lateral transfers) but was seized by armed private mafias run by recent university graduates who quickly capitalized on corrupting, intimidating or assassinating senior officials in the state and benefiting from Boris Yeltsin’s mindless contracting of ‘free market’ Western consultants.
Forbes Magazine puts out a yearly list of the richest individuals and families in the world. What is most amusing about the famous Forbes Magazine’s background biographical notes on the Russian oligarchs is the constant reference to their source of wealth as ‘self-made’ as if stealing state property created by and defended for over 70 years by the sweat and blood of the Russian people was the result of the entrepreneurial skills of thugs in their twenties. Of the top eight Russian billionaire oligarchs, all got their start from strong-arming their rivals, setting up ‘paper banks’ and taking over aluminum, oil, gas, nickel and steel production and the export of bauxite, iron and other minerals. Every sector of the former Communist economy was pillaged by the new billionaires: Construction, telecommunications, chemicals, real estate, agriculture, vodka, foods, land, media, automobiles, airlines etc..
With rare exceptions, following the Yeltsin privatizations all of the oligarchs quickly rose to the top or near the top, literally murdering or intimidating any opponents within the former Soviet apparatus and competitors from rival predator gangs.
The key ‘policy’ measures, which facilitated the initial pillage and takeovers by the future billionaires, were the massive and immediate privatizations of almost all public enterprises by the Gaidar/Chubais team. This ‘Shock Treatment’ was encouraged by a Harvard team of economic advisers and especially by US President Clinton in order to make the capitalist transformation irreversible. Massive privatization led to the capitalist gang wars and the disarticulation of the Russian economy. As a result there was an 80% decline in living standards, a massive devaluation of the Ruble and the sell-off of invaluable oil, gas and other strategic resources at bargain prices to the rising class of predator billionaires and US-European oil and gas multinational corporations. Over a hundred billion dollars a year was laundered by the mafia oligarchs in the principle banks of New York, London, Switzerland, Israel and elsewhere – funds which would later be recycled in the purchase of expensive real estate in the US, England, Spain, France as well as investments in British football teams, Israeli banks and joint ventures in minerals.
The winners of the gang wars during the Yeltsin reign followed up by expanding operations to a variety of new economic sectors, investments in the expansion of existing facilities (especially in real estate, extractive and consumer industries) and overseas. Under President Putin, the gangster-oligarchs consolidated and expanded – from multi-millionaires to billionaires, to multi-billionaires and growing. From young swaggering thugs and local swindlers, they became the ‘respectable’ partners of American and European multinational corporations, according to their Western PR agents. The new Russian oligarchs had ‘arrived’ on the world financial scene, according to the financial press.
Yet as President Putin recently pointed out, the new billionaires have failed to invest, innovate and create competitive enterprises, despite optimal conditions. Outside of raw material exports, benefiting from high international prices, few of the oligarch-owned manufacturers are earning foreign exchange, because few can compete in international markets. The reason is that the oligarchs have ‘diversified’ into stock speculation (Suleiman Kerimov $14.4 billion USD), prostitution (Mikhail Prokhorov $13.5 billion USD), banking (Fridman $12.6 billion USD) and buyouts of mines and mineral processing plants.
The Western media has focused on the falling out between a handful of Yeltsin-era oligarchs and President Vladimir Putin and the increase in wealth of a number of Putin-era billionaires. However, the biographical evidence demonstrates that there is no rupture between the rise of the billionaires under Yeltsin and their consolidation and expansion under Putin. The decline in mutual murder and the shift to state-regulated competition is as much a product of the consolidation of the great fortunes as it is the ‘new rules of the game’ imposed by President Putin. In the mid 19th century, Honoré Balzac, surveying the rise of the respectable bourgeois in France, pointed out their dubious origins: “Behind every great fortune is a great crime.” The swindles begetting the decades-long ascent of the 19th century French bourgeoisie pale in comparison to the massive pillage and bloodletting that created Russia’s 21st century billionaires.
-AA
“Contrary to European and US publicists, on the Right and Left, very few of the top former Communist leaders are found among the current Russian billionaire oligarchy. Secondly, contrary to the spin-masters’ claims of ‘communist inefficiencies’, the former Soviet Union developed mines, factories, energy enterprises were profitable and competitive, before they were taken over by the new oligarchs. This is evident in the massive private wealth that was accumulated in less than a decade by these gangster-businessmen.”
That’s pretty weak evidence. The stories of how various oligarchs restructured the factories and mines to make them more efficient are pretty well documented. I recommend Part 2 of this PBS documentary on Yergin & Stanislaw’s Commanding Heights (it’s free). Gives some first-hand accounts of the reforms.
Anyone whose seen a former Soviet-state run factory before/after privatization will have a hard time arguing that the Communists operated it efficiently and profitably. (With price controls and so much inherent in Socialism, how could they be?)
I’ve read the Commanding Heights and it was obvious to me that this is propaganda. The oligarchs did not enhance their nations productivity. They were not innovators. They were people who leveraged their connections to buy off the state’s assets on the cheap. That is their main contribution.
-AA
jtapp: what gives you more credibility than the 100 other bloggers who claim expertise and have differing opinions than yours?
I will make your the courtesy of one last reply, but that’s it. This *is* becoming tedious and while I usually try to reply to questions, that does not mean that I am willing to argue with folks who begin a discussion by an insinuated accusation and then try to continue it with off topic personal “questions”. Anyway,
Dude, you can take on this blog what you want, including nothing at all. I am not selling anything. All I am doing is sharing what I want with my readers and whether what I share here is worthless or not is for each person do judge. caveat emptor applies
If what I write makes sense to you, if it explains what you observe – take it. If it makes no sense – ignore it. That’s that simple. Who I am, what I did, where I have been or what my sources are doesn’t matter *in the least*.
There are, indeed, hundreds of blogs out there with different opinions and I encourage you to hang out there and forget about mine.
Goodbye! (hint, hint)
VS
Warjen said…
In regards to the US/NATO performance in the Kosova-Serbia war, Afghanistan and Iraq war II and III it is worth to keep this in mind: especially for the two Gulf wars: the US initiated combat operations at their liking. Supplies were in the area, units were moved into theater, maps and intelligence briefings and a lot of practice and rehearsal. The prep time for Gulf War II was almost six months wasn’t it?
I am sure Russia would have been able to be much more effective if the declaration of war had been bombs over Tiblisi, coupled with sabotage, airborne landings by the VDV and several choice regiments roaring into action.
Seems like the Russians had 1 MotRifle Reg at a high level of readiness. The airborne troops still had to be flown in. What I have read of the early fighting to relieve Tskhinvali was tough for the Russians as they were rushing to relieve the Russian and Ossekian troops fighting off Georgian tanks under heavy Grad fire.
FkD
AA, I don’t disagree with you that many siphoned off funds and invested in Swiss banks rather than in Russia, and that the acquisitions of the enterprises were often criminal.
I just disagree with you that the state-run operations were efficient or profitable and with what you claim is evidence. And I think there is overwhelming evidence that many of those enterprises were turned around, often with Western-trained management and advising. Hence the increase of foreign investment in many of them.
@fkd In regards to the US/NATO performance in the Kosova-Serbia war, Afghanistan and Iraq war II and III it is worth to keep this in mind: especially for the two Gulf wars: the US initiated combat operations at their liking. Supplies were in the area, units were moved into theater, maps and intelligence briefings and a lot of practice and rehearsal. The prep time for Gulf War II was almost six months wasn’t it?
Good point. I would also add the the NATO performance in Kosovo was below pathetic. The Serbian Army Corps which was deployed there (the 4th if I remember correctly) almost had no losses, just a couple of MBTs and APCs. It is the FAILURE of the air operation in Kosovo proper which forces NATO to “expand” the operation to Serbia, Montenegro and, last but not least, to civilian targets in the entire are of operations. Eventually, Serbia was defeated because Milosevic was offered a deal: he could stay in power if he gave up Kosovo. That was a *political* victory, but in purely military terms the air ops over Kosovo were a total and complete failure.
In Afghanistan the story is somewhat different. The USAF did conduct a bombing campaign in support of the Northern Front assault on the ground. The real combat was done mostly by Tadjiks (excellent soliders, by the way) supported by armor sent in from Russia (and, I was told, often driven by Russians). The Taliban, by the way, did something smart: they pulled back, let the Americans in, and only LATER fought back. To present the US airwar in Afghanistan as a great success (not to mention a humanitarian triumph) is rather laughable.
Same crap for the Israeli air war in 2006 over Lebanon. The simple reality is that airpower cannot win wars (though it can immensely help when put to good use).
Only a total idiot like Saddam could provided the USAF with an airman’s wet dream in 1991: a huge amount of armor and personnel in the open. Yes, there the USAF did beat the crap of the Iraqis and practically won the war on its own (that is not quite true, of course, but it comes pretty darn close).
Regardless of the much vaunted Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) and all the rest of the hoopla about high tech wars, it still takes boots on the ground to fight and win.
I am not claiming that privatisation and competitve forces did not enhance inefficent enterprises. This however is NOT the main source of the oligarchs wealth. Virtually all western sources claim that the oligarchs seized wealth in corrupt privatization schemes that rewarded well-connected cronies. The standard of living plummeted and death rates soared. The success of the oligarchs was completely decoupled from the success of the economy as a whole.
-AA
Boots on the ground can be very powerful, especially if they are Hezbollah …
It is also worth noting what kind of military hardware the Georgians bought – it certainly was not purely defensive in nature, much too tank and SPA heavy for that. Not so good when you have Russian combat aviation against you, but probably just fine for smashing some uppity separatists.
Tanks these days seems like a liability if you are up against an opponent with strong airpower, better to acquire and practice with mines and AT missiles … but then again, if you have some rebels to squash, a T-55 does just fine!
@fdk: as far as I know the Georgians had modernized T-72s, a rather powerful beast even if not the bleeding edge anymore. More importantly, modern anti-tank weapons seem to have the edge over armor, be it Abrams, T-80 or Merkavas. Even the (very) good old RPG-7s can be immensely effective in an urban environment (which allows strikes from the sides and top of the MBT).
AS for the T-55, its a great little tank. Its *small*, highly mobile, cheap. Of course, its no good in terms of protection, but since most of the big ones are not much good either…?
:-)
There is one thing we can do to threaten Russia: collapse the value of its major resources. Specifically, we can develop renewable-energy technology and infrastructure to the point where renewable energy is cheaper than the cheapest fossil fuel (coal) and usable in areas like transportation that currently require the best fossil fuels (oil and gas).
It won’t be easy, but it is possible. There’s enough energy in sunlight for all human uses, until long after other resources have become limiting. It’s just a matter of capturing it cheaply enough.
Congratulations, you’ve written the best analysis of this conflict to be found in the English language. I’m deeply impressed.
I also have several questions:
Firstly, do you see any possibility of Turkey, at the urgings of the United States, getting involved at a future stage to bog down Russia in a modern version of the Crimean Wars of the 19th century? This conflict reveals to all the world that Russia has recovered the spiritual strength to exist on its own terms. It is no “sick man”, no latter-day Ottoman Empire, propped up by patronising Western powers for fear of what would happen should it collapse.
Yet what if some clever strategist in Washington were to decide that the best way to deal with a resurgent Russia is to tempt it to overreach itself and self-destruct by wearing itself out in some Caucasian / Crimean war of attrition in which the allegiance of the Ukraine is very much up for grabs?
Secondly, do you find it significant that this conflict kicked off just a week or so after two Israeli security firms, Defensive Shield and Global CST, had finished training the Georgian military and returned to Israel?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1010224.html
Thirdly, is there any truth in the rumours that Medvedev is of Jewish extraction? I accept your point that, “One should avoid two extremes in discussion the issue of Jews in Russia: the one of thinking that ethnicity is irrelevant and the one of thinking that ethnicity is all-important. Its really somewhere in the Middle.”
Too many people see this in black and white, and refuse to acknowledge the shades. I have no doubt that it is possible for a partly Jewish Russian to be faithful to Russia and not an ever-ready Sayan. Yet there is equally no doubt – as well-sourced books by Knupffer, Wilton, Netchvolodoff, Diky, de Shishmareff and many others attest – that certain powerful Jews whose opinions have been preponderant – both with their own people and in the major Western capitals – have been waging war on Russia and its people for more than a century.
Therefore Medvedev’s ethnicity is significant. Can he be trusted to look out for Russian interests, or will he ultimately demonstrate that his loyalty is to the Jewish Mishpucka? Even the latter would be better for Russia – in that he could be quietly disposed of before “doing a Saakashvili” – than were he to be allowed to pursue the double-minded policies that enabled a certain toothbrush-moustached part-Jewish Austrian to ruin his adopted country of Germany in the disaster of WWII.
And if he is Jewish, does this mean that the siloviki (I use this merely as a term of convenience; I’m well aware of the “framing” agenda behind the popularisation of this term to suggest that these – perhaps misguided – patriots are merely the Jewish oligarchs’ rivals in gangsterism, power-seeking and thuggery) are not in fact as powerful as it appears? If they are all-powerful, why would they be compelled to share power with someone they don’t trust, who represents the interests of the oligarchs and the Western power elite? Or is Medvedev so lacking in influence as to make this question irrelevant?
Finally Putin himself: you speak of him as a “symbol”. I see the point, and you have justified it very ably in your analysis. Nevertheless you fail to indicate what is your assessment of the man.
This was one of the best shit I read on the web.
Great analysis.
I was born a Russophobe and in many respects still am, but I recognize that in this instance the hipocrisy is too much to ignoreand that it is the Russians who are on the side of the angels.
The Russians should have worn UN’s blue helmets in this action, but the way the world works now, I figure chances are the Georgian artillery and ‘Grad’ (modern Katyusha) crews would have a better chance of doing that.
I am so happy that the blogosphere recognizes the stink of hipocrisy and that people (you included, Saker) are speaking out.
Enough of CNN propaganda shills already!
Interesting take and thought provoking forum. My heart goes out to all people caught in the cross-fire of any conflict.
It took a bit to sift through the anti-American Capitalist pro-Communist Russian militaristic psychobabble but my understanding is this:
1) Russia will one day rule the world because they are cunning.(2) The USA has already fallen and ego driven capitalism is to blame (3) The American Military is weak because they no longer fight with their hands. (4) Jews are bad because they work in finance.
Beyond that, a great observation that our paradigm has shifted from an arms race to a commodities race but I’m not so sure America is going to run air strikes on Toronto if The Upper Peninsula of Michigan wanted to secede.
Anti-corporatism and or anti-neocon sounds more like sour grapes and an attempt to find something to blame than reality. You’re giving them way too much credit for being organized.
Sure America has overstepped its boundaries but the US has never taken land in it’s name through Military action since the Indians which of course needs to be put into historical context.
My guess is that Russia’s actions just gave the US a green light to role tanks through Cuba and Venezuela should we need to fight a global commodity war with Putin.
Not likely because Russia knows it can not survive more than 2-years without American or European wheat.
Also… never count the Chinese on your side. I suspect somebody in the Forbidden City has calculated both the cost and timing of moving west.
Again… very good observations thoughout but from a personal point of view….arguments are a lot more powerful when there isn’t some sort of conspiratorial jump that needs to be made.
Answers: (1) History is not on Russia’s side (2) Capitalism and America, even if bankrupted, are still the most efficient and productive economy in the world. Can’t wait for the ADOL (America’s Dollar). (3) The worlds only superpower still has a all mercenary force. (4) All my Jewish friends are great people. I guess you are what you think.
@flipper304:
Firstly, do you see any possibility of Turkey, at the urgings of the United States, getting involved at a future stage to bog down Russia in a modern version of the Crimean Wars of the 19th century?
No. Russia is simply too dangerous a foe to mess with. While Turkey has a powerful military they will not try to take on Russia, in particular not after the thrashing the US and Israeli trained
Georgians just took. Also, Russia is a nuclear superpower, only the USA has a similar arsenal of nukes.
Secondly, do you find it significant that this conflict kicked off just a week or so after two Israeli security firms, Defensive Shield and Global CST, had finished training the Georgian military and returned to Israel?
Yes. This is yet another a manifestation of the traditional hatred that most Jews have for Russia. Saakashvili is a creation of the American Neocons and it is no surprise that their Zionist pals form Israel would be all over the place helping him.
Thirdly, is there any truth in the rumours that Medvedev is of Jewish extraction?
Yes, I heard the rumor but I have no reason to believe it. I really do not believe that Medvedev is a Sayan though. The Mossad’s reputation is vastly, vastly overblown and I do not believe at all that they could achieve such a level of penetration in Russia, not under the “Putin People” at least.
Too many people see this in black and white, and refuse to acknowledge the shades. I have no doubt that it is possible for a partly Jewish Russian to be faithful to Russia and not an ever-ready Sayan. Yet there is equally no doubt – as well-sourced books by Knupffer, Wilton, Netchvolodoff, Diky, de Shishmareff and many others attest – that certain powerful Jews whose opinions have been preponderant – both with their own people and in the major Western capitals – have been waging war on Russia and its people for more than a century.
Sad as it is, you are basically correct. Please check out this article of mine on this topic:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/04/acting-as-one-which-of-course-they-are.html
Therefore Medvedev’s ethnicity is significant.
Not necessarily as I do not believe that ethnicity always defines a person’s worldview or agenda. Take for example Foreign Minister Lavrov. He is a Jew for sure, but does that make him a less worthy, dedicated and effective Foreign Minister? I don’t think so.
Can he be trusted to look out for Russian interests, or will he ultimately demonstrate that his loyalty is to the Jewish Mishpucka?
But can a Russian like Eltsin be trusted? Or a Russian like Pavel Grachev, the former Defense Minister of Russia who should be sent to a fire squad?
I just do not believe that being Jewish or Russian determines, let alone defines, loyalty to Russia or not.
Finally Putin himself: you speak of him as a “symbol”. I see the point, and you have justified it very ably in your analysis. Nevertheless you fail to indicate what is your assessment of the man.
I cannot say much about him. He is clearly tough and smart, and I think that he has personal courage. In a way, he is your rather typical small PGU KGB guy who managed to truly spread his wings only *after* he left the KGB.
Putin’s book is a rather dull read. I like to hear him speak though, because he is very direct and blunt, a quality which I appreciate. The latest crisis also showed a totally new aspect of Medvedev’s personality. I listened to him speak at the press conference with Sarkozy today and, boy, he was one strong and determined leader. I think that people who make theories about how Putin is still in power and Medvedev is a figurehead are wrong. These guys are both in power, if you can imagine that.
Anyway, hope that this answers your questions adequately. If not, please let me know and I will try to be more specific.
Cheers,
VS
@gyr: my understanding is this:
1) Russia will one day rule the world because they are cunning.(2) The USA has already fallen and ego driven capitalism is to blame (3) The American Military is weak because they no longer fight with their hands. (4) Jews are bad because they work in finance.
Then your understanding is wrong.
Thanks for the response.
Surprisingly well-informed summary of events here:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/08/war-nerdism.html
Btw, I noticed you distinguished between Putin’s People and the siloviki in one of your comments above.
I’m fascinated by this insight and intrigued by the thought that Medvedev is being used by Putin as a counterweight to the likes of Sechin, Patrushev and V. Ivanov, who seem to have been sidelined of late.
@flipper304: the concept of ‘siloviki’ is really one which was used in Russia mostly during the Eltsin era; it was then assumed that those with ‘kinetic power’ (guns) had some corresponding political power. With the coming to power of the “Putin People” this concept clearly became useless, if only because the “Putin People” concentrated *all* the power in Russia in their hands. Besides, kinetic power had *nothing* to do with the mechanisms by which the “Putin People” came to power anyone.
Forget ‘siloviki’ – the concepts sucks.
On the Russian-Jewish topic may I point you to an article by Gilad Atzmon and, in particular, to the conversation which followed it on Gilad’s website? I had the (rather dubious) pleasure of engaging a Jewish Trotskyite on the topic of Jews and their role in the Soviet Union and some of what was said might be of some interest to you. Check it out here:
http://palestinethinktank.com/2008/06/10/the-jewish-experience-by-gilad-atzmon/
For my point of view (-: when not arguing with a Trotskyite :-) you can, as I mentioned above, see my article on the topic here:
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2008/04/acting-as-one-which-of-course-they-are.html
HTH!
The Saker
dude that’s hillarious. Are you the Simpson’s Comic Book Guy? “Oh, loneliness and cheeseburgers are a dangerous mix.”
Have fun. Looks like you’re about to have lots of details to cover.
@gyr: ruffled feathers, eh? Look, don’t come here posting some childish (but politically correct) nonsense and actually expect me to take you seriously. Your summary of my article was so hilariously wrong that you came across as your typical teenager who chooses to read into things whatever his limited imagination can conjure in terms of crimethink. Hence my short answer.
Thank you for your insightful perspective on the situation. I wonder if we’ve past the point of no return, ignorance and imperialism seem to be rampant.
Just want to let you know that I thought this post was a Masterpiece. It taught me more about the current situation in Russia, Georgia and even the United States then all the articles that have come out recently in the Main Stream Media.
Also wanted to let you know that this has been posted to Digg and got an excellent response. In my opinion it should have made the front page. You may be interested in reading some of the comments that were posted there.
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_real_meaning_of_the_South_Ossetian_war
I have a blog of my own and know how much effort can go into writing an article like this. Thanks for taking the time and please be encouraged to continue writing.
@Frank:
I had no idea!!!
The thing is that I never follow Digg at all and so all this comes as a complete surprise to me. Thanks for pointing this out. Also, thanks for your kind words. I did put a lot of energy to write this article on the heels of spending 4 days following the events 24/7. The day I wrote it I was quite exhausted, in fact.
As you can imagine I also got quite a lot of really pissed off comments, mostly dummies mistakenly thinking that my condemnation of imperialism is “anti-American”. To my amazement, I have not been labeled as anti-Semitic (at least for this latest article). To read the positive comments on Digg was therefore very encouraging for me.
Again, thanks a lot and please stay in touch, keep an eye on my blog and post your comments anytime.
Kind regards,
The Saker
PS: where is your blog?
Hi Saker,
Here is an entry from my blog that you may find interesting:
“10 signs that the End of Democracy is near”
http://futurenewstoday.blogspot.com/2008/07/martial-law-plans-are-being-tested.html
I have not been keeping up with my blog because I spend so much time on Digg lately.
Regarding a previous comment about a quid pro quo with Israel for stopping military aid to Georgia. My belief is that the Georgian attack was timed to create a diversion for Russia at the same time that Israel and the US attack Iran. The quid pro quo would be, we stop harassing Russia if Russia stops supporting Iran. Gazprom recently made a deal with Iran.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-07-14-voa4.cfm
In addition Russia could use the Caspian to supply Iran in the event of a US blockade of the Persian Gulf. So it is important to have Russia at least on the sidelines if the US is going to attack Iran.
With regards to charges of anti-Semitism, Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu have both been labeled anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. So if Nobel Peace Prize winners are anti-Semites, then you are in good company.
@Frank: With regards to charges of anti-Semitism, Jimmy Carter and Desmond Tutu have both been labeled anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. So if Nobel Peace Prize winners are anti-Semites, then you are in good company.
LOL! Indeed.
I have seen all the reports of a Ossetian-Iranian link and the ones which speak of some kind of deal. I don’t know. I am keeping an eye open on evidence towards this and will wait to see how things develop.
Thanks for the link to your article which lists a lot of scary stuff (except the black helos thing which I don’t see as meaning much). Basically, both Obama and Mc Caine are rabid militarists and imperialists. Obama is more of the “old school” of imperialism whereas Mc Caine is clearly a Neocon puppet. But either way, democracy is under attack in the USA and I predict that things will only get worse with the new Pres.
God help us all…
Saker,
Regarding moral – I’m not claiming that Russian leaders are ethical, and have a moral as a top priority when choosing targets. Actually I also don’t know about that, and I have reasons to doubt their morality.
What I can add to the thing (this is my strong belief) is that being and acting ethically becomes the same as acting efficiently. In other words, I don’t think “With God’s help” is an empty sound. But this is a long story, which we can discuss sometime if you will have interest.
What I wanted to comment on this particular article of yours is a “spooky” thought. As you already mentioned Stalin in your later article, here what I’ve thought while reading the part of Putin getting into power.
The story reminds me the coming of Stalin into power. What opponents were thinking about Stalin is that he was dull, with peasant manners and language. They were mocking him for his simple words, etc. Also, he never gave his opponents an idea that his vision is radically different from them. And after they let him in, he started to grab more power, to remove his opponents (who were “bad guys” in my opinion, but that is another long story) and only realized the danger when it was too late to do something about it. (It had them up till 1953 when they regrouped, probably killed Stalin and got into power again.)
What Stalin’s opponents refused to see behind simplicity is the clearness of thoughts and huge ability and willingness to learn.
I’m not claiming Putin is a leader of the same magnitude and I don’t think he is. (the time may tell).
But the way you describe him getting into the power reminds me the story of the man who have built and saved my country.
This is Project Humanbeingsfirst’s Response to: “The real meaning of the South Ossetian war: Russia strikes back”, Thurday, August 14, 2008.
Very good article. Thanks.
However, also consider another aspect: that this was a setup to get the Russians to do precisely what they did.
It is asinine for the Georgians to have attacked like this otherwise. As reported elsewhere, the Georgians have been fully armed and controlled by the US and Israel, with full intelligence available to them 24×7. The Georgian leadership is handpicked US-Israeli puppets. The fact that the Russians had anticipated the assault by Georgia and were already in formation close to the borders because of which they were able to retaliate so quickly, was known to the Americans. Thus why would the Americans goad/command the Georgians to attack when they could trivially predict this hard likely response by the Russians? Minimally, the Russian military mobilization at the border was a sure give-away! A Rand Corporation worth its salt plays out all war-game scenarios. It is also worthwhile asking why would the American deliberately antagonize the Russians by ferrying Georgian soldiers from Iraq back to the Georgian frontlines so that they can contribute to Russian and Ossetian casualties? Lastly, in the attack by the Georgians, why would they concentrate on killing the Ossetian innocent civilians rather than take on/capture/disable things of military/civil significance if capturing the Ossetian capital and re-absorbing Ossetia into Georgia was the real goal?
The only forensic explanation which wholly and rationally explains this (mis)adventure by Georgia is that it was a trap set for the Russians to behave exactly as they did. The Georgians and Ossetians were just disposable canon fodder – like the Afghanis before them.
This operation has all the hallmarks of a Brzezinski proxy war on Russia leaving the Russians, once again, no choice but to intervene in Georgia, just like they had no choice as the former Soviet Union, in their intervention in Afghanistan three decades ago when Brzezinski started giving aid to the Mujahideen six months before the Soviet Union’s intervention. All this is known history. Only its lessons seem to be forgotten all too quickly.
If this scenario is plausible, as it appears to be if one looks at it from the geostrategic perspective on the grand chessboard, then it begs the question why?
Why prompt this Russian Intervention in Georgia, and now?
Just watch the worldwide mainstream news to know in a minute why!
OBL and Al-Qaida need replacing – the mantra is now well worn and not going down really well. Thus the new boogie man has been crafted. This is the most apparent and visible empirical reason.
The invisible or not so apparent reason, which one only understands if one looks behind the scenes to the “forces that drive them”, in this case Zbigniew Brzezinski, the ruling interests are itching to dismember Russia. And this intervention is merely the step-1, using a similar ploy as the Afghan Trap, but with the difference that this time it is part of a destabilization campaign right on Russia’s borders.
Additionally, keeping Russia busy on its flank while engaging Iran – if indeed Iran is actually engaged with the massive US armada now reportedly floating towards it – makes short term military sense.
All ducks are lined up in a row as far as Russia hater Zbigniew Brzezinski is concerned.
However, as noted by this scribe elsewhere:
While Zbigniew Brzezinski may have planned the “Grand Chessboard” in the West, his Eurasian targets of the great game actually invented chess. All four of the regions burgeoning powers, Iran, India, China, and Russia, are ancient civilizations far older than the Atlantic powers put together, and are also expert chess players in the very ethos of the richness of their civilizations. Many public parks in Iran for instance, are dotted with stone and wood carved chess tables where ordinary peoples gather daily under the shady trees to spar with each other, bringing their own chess pieces. Chess is not an acquired skill in Asia, nor is it of recent acquisition, as it is for the West! It is innate to the peoples. The Chinese classic “Art of War” is 2500 years old and still teaches the Rand Corporation how to play their great games!
Having said all that, your article lends an insightful backdrop perspective. I hope that the young Mr. Putin re-introduces the “balance of terror” from the present day “unilateral terror”! See:
http://humanbeingsfirst.blogspot.com/2008/04/balanceof-terror-tounilateral-terror.html
Thank you.
Zahir Ebrahim
Project Humanbeingsfirst.org
http://humanbeingsfirst.org
@Zahir:
I do not want to make my answer long, but how the fact that Western (NATO) countries, one by one are showing support to Russia?
Slovakia, Turkey gave open support, while Germany, France and Italy are doing it in a bit hidden way.
Looks like there is not much confrontation against Russia after this war. At least I see more positive changes for Russia even now, just 2 days after war stopped.
i am Irish i found your site had more realistic and believable info on the war. The likes of fox news and CNN are so far from the truth even us Irish laugh at what they expect us to believe.Russia is mistaking to believe that most Europeans a pro American that couldn’t be more wrong we are sick of them! will they get their soldiers out of other countries and sort out their own mess of a country and yes i believe and many other Europeans that its all about oil oil oil and that Americans have finally spread themselves too thin.
Russia you have friends
regards eok.
To Saker.
I guess it’s a bit too late, but anyway I’d like to ask if you have it translated in Russian and posted anywhere?
I mean it’s a must read for the russians but as you probably know most of them would have problems in reading it in engish
And yes – thank you it was good.
@alibi: Thanks for your kind words. To my knowledge this article has not been translated into Russian (at least so far) and I simply do not have the time to translate it into Russian myself. But please keep in mind that most Russians are quite aware of much of what I wrote over there so its not exactly earth-shattering stuff for them. I saw a comment on some Russian blog where I guy wrote about my article “nothing really amazing in it, besides that it was actually written in English” (or something similar). I think that this is quite typical of an audience which already knows and understands what is going on and which is only amazed by the fact that some truth was actually written in English.
Sad, but true.
Kind regards,
The Saker
To Saker
I guess you’re right about general knowledge by Russian people of the facts in your analysis. Russians know the West hates and fears Russia, and since there is no ideological reason for that now people get confused tying to figure out ‘why’
Your analysis gives a point of view which should as well be considered. And since it all put together very clear and logically it’s a good reading too.
Personally I haven’t seen anything as interesting as your work around, including works by Russian analytics.
Keep it up.
Best regards
Alibi
For a balanced strategic view:
http://buchanan.org/blog/2008/08/pjb-blowback-from-bear-baiting/
Not all USA citizen fall again for the White House spin on Ossetia. Some have learned the lessons of the USA administration misleading the International Community into Iraq. The hysterical USA reaction serves to cover their own Meddling in Georgia and Republican party’s interests in the upcoming election because talking tough sits well with the voters looking for security.
There are lots of people in both the West and The East who look further than their TV sets, no doubt about that. It’s just they don’t get to decide.
To Warjen,
I couldn`t past your false assertion that NATO defeated Serbian troops from the air, on the contrary in 3 months of bombing they only hit 3 tanks from WW2.If you call that the defeat Bush is a doctor, the reason Milosevic sign the agreement was that NATO was hitting more and more civilian targets and they did agree to Milosevic terms that UN and not NATO to enter Kosovo.
Now something different, to all you people of good will would you like kindly to tell your free western journalists and uneducated senators, when they call Putin and Medvedev hardliners to have a good look at themself.Why, because Medvedev holds Ph D in law and Putin holds Ph D in economics, to your uneducated senators means that two of them are very educated people. Then on the other hand what does Bush holds Ph D in farming you never know
Hi Saker. Thank you for a brilliant article. This really disturbs me however
http://www.davidduke.com/general/the-cold-hard-facts-about-the-georgia-russia-war_4219.html
Truth is the first casualty of war. I think in this case the truth is serving some peoples agendas. I live in Australia (Rupert Murdocks backyard) and we get the standard western rhetoric thrown at us as fact. Thanks for showing there is always two sides to a coin.
VS a brilliant analysis. There was an article in an regional Indian newspaper that touches broadly most of the points that you put out. It’s only the Western english press that spews unlimited bullshit.
It feels really good that Russia is beginning to assert herself again.
I dont know if you have read this already or not, but Chalmers Johnson’s blowback trilogy is probably as good as it gets (reg the US imperialistic aspirations).
To Saker
Just wanted to add a few words to your analysis. Here is a quote from George Kennan, one of the “founding fathers” of the original Cold War (he headed the group which prepared the paper):NSC-20/1. 1948 [1975]. “United States Objectives with Respect to Russia,” Top Secret paper prepared by the Policy Planning Staff of the Department of State in connection with NSC-20, “Appraisal of the Degree and character of Military Preparedness Required by the World Situation,” declassified August 1, 1975. See in Thomas H. Etzold and John Lewis Gaddis, eds., Containment: Documents on American Policy and Strategy, 1945-1950 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), p. 184.
There goes the quote:
…what our aims would be with respect to any non-communist authority which might be set up on a portion or all of Russian territory as a consequence of the events of war.
First of all, it should be said that regardless of the ideological basis of any such non-communist authority and regardless of the extent to which it might be prepared to do lip service to the ideals of democracy and liberalism, … we should set up automatic safeguards to assure that even a regime which is non-communist and nominally friendly to us:
(a) Does not have strong military power;
(b) Is economically dependent to a considerable extent on the outside world;
(c) Does not exercise too much authority over the major national minorities; and
(d) Imposes nothing resembling the iron curtain over contacts with the outside world.
In the case of such a regime, professing hostility to the communists and friendship toward us, we should doubtless wish to take care i.e. impose these conditions in a manner which would not be offensive or humiliating. But we would have to see to it that in one way or another they were imposed, if our interests and the interests of world peace were to be protected.
We are therefore safe in saying that it should be our aim in the event of war with the Soviet Union, to see to it that when the war was over no regime on Russian territory is permitted:
(a) To retain military force on a scale which could be threatening to any neighbouring state;
(b) To enjoy a measure of economic autarchy which would permit the erection of the economic basis of such armed power without the assistance of the western world;
(c) To deny autonomy and self-government to the main national minorities; or
(d) To retain anything resembling the present iron curtain. If these conditions are assured… We will then be safe, whether a Soviet government retains the bulk of Russian territory or whether it retains only a small part of such territory or whether it disappears altogether. And we will be safe even though the original democratic enthusiasm of a new regime is short-lived and tends to be replaced gradually by the a-social concepts of international affairs to which the present Soviet generation has been educated.”
You can find more on that document, it was posted by Freedomisknowledge
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/news/2008/08/live_georgia_conflict_1.html
Regards.
Alibi