Putin Orders Russian Military To Highest Alert, Orders Attack On US ‘Interests’ If Georgia Invades

as always. You'd think she's actually maybe just ONCE report real news.

Viewing the news makes you sad.

War war war. World War 3.

I think I go watch My Little Pony now.

Oh fucking lovely.

Tbilisi source: Georgia may attack S. Ossetia within days
MOSCOW. July 12 (Interfax) - A source in Tbilisi said on Wednesday that Georgia might launch military actions within days to restore its sovereignty over the breakaway region of South Ossetia and that "this action may start on July 15, during the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg."

The source told Interfax by telephone from Tbilisi that he believed "the Georgian leadership secured support from the American administration on the issue of the restoration of the territorial integrity during the Georgian president's visit to the United States."

"Judging by what is happening in the security structures of our country now, this is quite possible," he added.

He declined to comment on reports that the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) had been told in a telephone call from Tbilisi that armed action against South Ossetia was being plotted.
[link to www.interfax.ru]

Mah gut says she's right.

If the US loses Ukraine and Georgia they also lose their pipelines out of Central Asia.

Russia, on the other hand, is bound and determined NOT to be surrounded by the US.

This is a VERY serious game...just too bad you Yanks are kept in the dark about it.

Ukraine Braced For New Rallies Amid Government Crisis

Created: 13.07.2006 12:51 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:52 MSK, 2 hours 23 minutes ago

Ukraine is bracing for more demonstrations after supporters of a candidate for prime minister on Wednesday called for the start of nationwide protests, UPI reports. Several thousand demonstrators protested outside the Ukrainian parliament Wednesday, many calling on President Viktor Yushchenko to dissolve Parliament and hold a new election, the RIA Novosti news agency reported.
[link to www.mosnews.com]

You Yanks can't forget either that Putin's laying the blame for the killing of his diplomats right on your doorstep.


Putin blames coalition forces, U.S. for Russian diplomat murders
12:40 | 12/ 07/ 2006



MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday part of the blame for the killing of five Russian diplomats in Iraq in June lay with coalition forces, including the United States.

"The abduction and murder of our diplomats is a great tragedy," he said in an interview with U.S. television channel NBC.

After being asked whether he blamed the United States for that, Putin said: "If the United States and its allies assumed responsibility for Iraq when they decided to deploy their troops there, then of course, they are also responsible for the security of noncombatants, especially the security of the diplomatic corps."

He also said that had the United States used peaceful means in Iraq, it might not be the breeding ground for terrorism that it is today.
[link to en.rian.ru]

[link to www.screenhead.com]
lmao

And if you Yanks think that Putin is going to let Bush go to war with Iran, well think again.


Russia's FM says forcible actions against Iran out of question
22:27 | 12/ 07/ 2006



MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's foreign minister said Wednesday that any forcible sanctions against Iran were out of the question.

"I would like to emphasize that today the Iran-6 members clearly confirmed the previous statements that rule out any possibility of forcible actions against Iran sanctioned by the UN Security Council," Sergei Lavrov said after a Paris meeting of foreign ministers of the five permanent Security Council members and Germany.

"We are convinced that this [forcible] path would not lead us nowhere other than to another crisis in the region," the minister said. "The only way to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem lies through negotiations."
[link to en.rian.ru]

Anyone care to bet on whose going to win this shootout?

Georgia: Decision Near On Russian Troops
July 12, 2006 20 42 GMT



Georgia's government will soon decide on a course of action with regard to Russian peacekeepers' presence in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, local media reported July 12, citing a July 11 statement by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. Saakashvili called the Russian forces a "danger for Georgian citizens" and accused them of facilitating the annexation of Georgia's territory; he also called for a decision on the future of Georgian membership in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
[link to www.stratfor.com]

It would be great if the Yanks had just ONE government, but they don't.

Whose in charge??? Depends on the day.

Bush Urged to Be Cautious of Russia Joining WTO

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 13, 2006; Page A17

On the eve of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, business groups and members of Congress are warning the Bush administration not to rush into a deal with Russia over one of Moscow's cherished goals -- entry into the World Trade Organization.

In a letter to President Bush that was released yesterday, 20 Democratic senators voiced their "serious concerns . . . that the United States may be poised to finalize" an accord with Russia "while numerous issues critical to U.S. agriculture, manufacturing, high tech, intellectual property and services industries remain outstanding."
[link to www.washingtonpost.com]

Large difference in saying "IF" Georgia attacks, you hit American interests than what you're asking.

Poke at a bear long enough and it WILL poke back.


NATO Insists on Poking Russian Bear
by Justin Logan and Ted Galen Carpenter

Ted Galen Carpenter is vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute. Justin Logan is a foreign policy analyst at the Cato Institute.

Although the fluttering in the West over the Russia-Ukraine gas dispute has ended for now, there is a deeper problem in relations between Russia and the West. Over the past several months, NATO has steadily crept into Russia’s backyard, romancing the former Soviet republics of Ukraine and Georgia with the prospect of membership in the alliance, and even hinting that NATO may attempt to intervene in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. Unfortunately, it seems that poking the Russian bear is back in vogue.

On the heels of "color revolutions" in Georgia and Ukraine, those countries -- both of which have prickly relations with Russia -- have cozied up to NATO, much to the delight of NATO enthusiasts and Russophobes. NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer told Ukrainian leaders in October that NATO’s door "was, is, and remains open" to Ukraine. Less than a week later, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld encouraged the Ukrainian government's efforts to join the alliance: "Progress has been made [toward accession], and we encourage it."

By November, Scheffer was using his same line to discuss potential Georgian membership: "Needless to say that NATO's door is open." Acknowledging the hot-button dispute between Russia and Georgia over the province of South Ossetia, Scheffer hedged: "NATO is following this, of course, with interest." Even more brazen, NATO hinted that it would be open to deploying military forces to Nagorno-Karabakh.

NATO boosters ought to close the door of expansion, take a deep breath, and explain what, exactly, NATO's mission is now. Equally important, they need to justify how it is in America's self-interest for the alliance to acquire an ever-expanding roster of fragile and unpredictable client states on Russia's border.

At the end of the Cold War, NATO's purpose vanished. There was no longer a danger of Russian aggression against the West. Instead of disbanding, however, NATO took up an array of missions entirely unrelated to its original purpose -- without bothering to define its new role. Relations between the alliance and Moscow are increasingly testy. NATO antagonized Russia in the late 1990s by circumventing the UN Security Council in attacking Russian ally Serbia. Now the alliance continues to poke at Russia by swallowing up former members of the Soviet bloc as fast as it can.

Advocates of continued NATO expansion express inexplicable surprise when Russia protests. By taking in the Baltic republics as members, NATO is already deeply involved in countries that have historically been well within Russia's sphere of influence. The alliance seems poised to intrude further, and the Russian bear is beginning to growl. Nikolai Bordyuzha, spokesman for the Moscow-led Collective Security Treaty Organization, has made Russia’s views plain enough, warning that NATO bases surrounding Russia would constitute "a potential threat to Russia’s security."

Russia -- like any other country -- tends to get alarmed when the world’s sole superpower extends security guarantees and military cooperation to countries on its borders. As NATO continues to expand, the United States has been hailing, and in some cases directly supporting, "color revolutions" that have caused instability and chaos in Ukraine, Georgia, and Kyrgyzstan. This is a dangerous mix from Moscow’s perspective.

It is also a dangerous mix from America's standpoint. NATO is much more than a political club. It is a military alliance with serious obligations for the United States. Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty proclaims that an attack on one member is an attack on all. That means the United States is obligated to defend every member no matter how small, how militarily and economically insignificant, or how strategically exposed that member may be.

And those obligations go on forever. Therein lies the danger. True, there is little risk of a clash with Russia in the near term. Russia’s military is in no condition to challenge the United States, even in Moscow's backyard. Moreover, Vladimir Putin has adopted a surprisingly accommodating policy in an effort to secure economic and political benefits from the United States and its allies.

But who knows what Putin’s successor might be like? Who would dare predict the political environment in Russia a decade or a generation from now? All that would be required to trigger a crisis is a Russian president who tires of a neighboring state’s treatment of its Russian inhabitants as second-class citizens and decides that Moscow should rectify that situation by force if necessary. Indeed, a crisis could be triggered if a future Russian president concludes that a Western military presence itself is an intolerable intrusion into what should rightfully be Moscow's sphere of influence. And a Russian president might well conclude that the United States would not really risk war over South Ossetia or a similar obscure conflict.

We don’t need to treat Russia with kid gloves, but reasonable caution and consideration is in order. Russia has a sound right to wonder about NATO's motives: Whom, exactly, would Georgia, Ukraine, and other potential member-states be allying militarily with NATO against?

The West can continue to press forward with NATO expansion indefinitely, antagonizing Russia and entering into security guarantees with countries on its border. But that course is unreasonable if we expect Russia's cooperation on nuclear proliferation, terrorism, or other issues vitally important to America. If the United States values those goals, let alone long-term peace with Russia, it needs to engage Moscow, not unnecessarily antagonize it.
[link to www.cato.org]

Again, to those Yanks of you who care, do you really think Russia is going to let itself be surrounded?



Bush backs Georgia's push to join NATO
Comment may annoy Moscow ahead of next week's Group of Eight summit

Updated: 5:02 p.m. ET July 5, 2006
WASHINGTON - President Bush gave strong backing Wednesday to ex-Soviet state Georgia's desire to join NATO in a comment that may annoy Moscow ahead of next week's Group of Eight summit.

Bush's show of support for Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili came at a time when tensions between Tbilisi and Moscow have been growing.
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]

I'd bet a pint, two actually, that very few Yanks have even heard of South Ossetia....but if there's any FUSE that will light a World War this is where it is!

Provocations possible in South Ossetia - Russia's peacekeeper
22:34 | 12/ 07/ 2006



TBILISI, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - A top peacekeeper in Georgia's breakaway region of South Ossetia said Wednesday provocations orchestrated by Georgia were possible in the conflict zone.

His statement follows allegations by Russia's security services that Georgia was planning provocations in the region during the Group of Eight summit to be held this weekend in St. Petersburg.

"I do not rule out such a scenario. The situation in the conflict zone is abnormal," said Marat Kulakhmetov, commander of the joint peacekeeping forces.

He said peacekeepers had been on high alert to prevent any incidents.

Georgia's president has sought to return the region to the fold of the country after South Ossetia proclaimed independence in 1990 and fighting broke out. Russia has had peacekeepers stationed in the conflict zone to maintain a ceasefire since 1992.

Boris Chochiyev, the first vice-premier of South Ossetia, said during a phone call from Tskhinvali, the region's center, that South Ossetia also had the information about the possible provocations but was unaware of their time, place and extent.

Saying that Tskhinvali was ready for challenges from Georgia, he added that all law enforcement structures had been placed on high alert until July 17, when the G8 summit ends and a session of a joint control commission for the conflict resolution, which comprises representatives from Russia, Georgia and South Ossetia, will start its work.

Giorgi Khaindrava, Georgia's state minister for conflict resolution, confirmed that the session of the commission in Tbilisi had been put off from July 12-13 until July 17 with the consent of Chochiyev, a co-chairman of the commission.

Russia's Federal Security Service said earlier Wednesday it had received a warning that Georgia had been planning a provocation in South Ossetia during the G8 summit.

"The Georgian leadership has prepared a plan to kill 15-20 Georgian nationals in South Ossetia," a source told the FSB by phone. "They are also planning to somehow plant two bodies of Russian peacekeepers or soldiers at the site to incriminate them in the murders."

The source, who claims he received information from circles close to the Georgian leadership, said Georgia was planning to use the provocation to launch a military operation in South Ossetia while hoping that the Russian president would not opt for a harsh response during the summit.

In response to the announcement made by the FSB, Konstantin Kemularia, the head of Georgia's Security Council, said Russia's accusations were groundless.

"Russia does not have evidence pointing to a planned provocation on the part of Georgia," he said. "It is not the first time we hear rumors about Georgia allegedly preparing military provocations during the G8 summit."

He also said Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili reiterated Tuesday that his country was not planning to deploy additional troops in the conflict zone in South Ossetia.
[link to en.rian.ru]

But this is from Scorcha foul, not booth. : p

And for any of you Yanks that think that Putin isn't serious about this, think again!

Jul 6 2006 6:39PM
Putin warns Georgia against war on Abkhazia, South Ossetia

MOSCOW. July 6 (Interfax) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that it would be "an unforgivable mistake" and "a provocation" on the part of Georgia to use armed force to restore its sovereignty over its breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

"As for any armed action in potential conflict zones, where there have been ethnic conflicts, bloody events, it would be an unforgivable mistake if anyone got it into their head to go for this kind of provocation - provocation is the only word I can use for this," Putin said during an Internet conference.
[link to www.interfax.ru]

You totally set around archiving shit from this site to useing in debunking don't you. lol

This is how the US plays the game of war with its allies...you Yanks should be ashamed!

Russia warned of Georgia's provocation plans during G8 summit -FSB
20:09 | 12/ 07/ 2006

MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's Federal Security Service said Wednesday it had received a warning that Georgia had been planning a provocation in its breakaway region of South Ossetia during the Group of Eight summit to be held this weekend in St. Petersburg.

"The Georgian leadership has prepared a plan to kill 15-20 Georgian nationals in South Ossetia," a source told the FSB by phone. "They are also planning to somehow plant two bodies of Russian peacekeepers or soldiers at the site to incriminate them in the murders."
[link to en.rian.ru]


Colombia arrests soldiers for civilian killings


Friday, July 7, 2006 (Bogota):


In the latest scandal to hit Colombia's armed forces, military investigators have arrested 18 soldiers accused of executing civilians and then claiming they were leftist rebels killed in combat.

Soldiers killed 29 civilians including young children and women, one of them pregnant, in the past 18 months in northern department of Antioquia, authorities said.
[link to www.ndtv.com]

When Russians start to talk of protecting the motherland, it's best to take them seriously :P

Look at it from their perspective. They might *feel* like they "lost" the Cold War, but in reality, it was as much the Russian people who engineered that loss as all of NATO's moves. Communism had a good few decades left, if they'd held on to power forcefully - it was the Russians *themselves* who overthrew the USSR, not the Americans.

And what do they get in return for overthrowing communism peacefully? An open embrace into the arms of the West, as a long-lost brother, much like Eastern Europe? No... they got economically and militarily looted, humiliated, and treated like a 3rd rate power up until Putin took charge. Even under Putin, they "lost" the Ukraine, some 40 million people - their "cousins" - not to mention Georgia, which had been one of their star-Republics under the Soviets - Stalin himself was Georgian, IIRC.

It's naive to think that you can continue to push them around indefinitely... Mother Russia might not be able to influence Eastern Europe or even World Politics to the same extent, but they *are* still a force to be reckoned with, and getting stronger with every passing year under their new management.

I think the Russian attitude now is "this far, but no further", and they'll start a shooting war with Georgia to prove it, if they have to...

Which country do you Yanks think Putin's talking about here?

Putin says will foster civil society, prevent foreign meddling
11:14 | 13/ 07/ 2006




MOSCOW, July 13 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said Thursday that his country was seeking to bolster civil society but would not allow foreign funding for Russian non-governmental organizations engaged in domestic politics.

In an interview with Germany's CDF television channel ahead of a Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg this weekend, Putin said: "We do not want to accuse anybody... But we do not welcome and will not assist foreign governments to send money to the Russia Federation in a non-transparent way, via secrete services, while these organizations pursue political activity in Russia."

The president said he believed this was the right approach for countries, be they Russia or Germany, seeking to preserve their sovereignty.
[link to en.rian.ru]

Jeezus. In a democracy, polititians are expected to express thier differing views on any given subject of importance. Thats how it works (contrary to the tinfoil hat corp)

Oh, and for you Yanks thinking you'll get help with North Korea from Russia, well think again!


Russian foreign minister blasts UN draft resolution on N. Korea

MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's foreign minister criticized Wednesday a draft UN Security resolution on North Korea's controversial missile tests last week and singled out Japan for its position on the matter.

Communist North Korea launched several ballistic missiles, including a long-range Taepodong-2, last Tuesday despite a moratorium on missile tests. The Japanese military said at the time that all missiles fell in the northwestern part of the Sea of Japan closer to Russia than to Japan.

Sergei Lavrov said the document was unacceptable because it left no room for compromises.

He said the resolution could lead the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear problem into a "dead-end."
[link to en.rian.ru]

Keep in mind while reading this that it was written in 2002...things are MUCH different now, Russia is ready to strike back...but here's the 'background'.

Russia Surrounded with US Military Bases

In spite of Moscow's really emotional protests, the United States and NATO, which have now established a bridge-head in Central Asia, continue to expand their military presence on former Soviet territory. The geo-political importance of some CIS countries is too great during the forthcoming re-alignment of the South-West Asian and Mideastern balance of forces. (..)

The Central Asian heart-land has never seen such a multi- national US-European troop contingent ever since the epic expeditions of Alexander the Great. A tactical group of the third British mechanized division (400 soldiers, all told) is now stationed in Kabul. A tactical group of a German airborne brigade numbering 200 soldiers is also located there. Add to this units of an Italian infantry regiment (100 soldiers), a 300-strong French armored-cavalry regiment, a Spanish military unit numbering 50 soldiers, a joint 150-strong German-Dutch unit, as well as up to 300 US Marines. Apart from that, US and NATO military units are stationed in Kandahar. The US Army's 101-st air-assault division has contributed 1,000 soldiers. A 1,500-strong expeditionary USMC (United States Marine Corps) battalion is also staying there. Moreover, 100 British and 300 Canadian soldiers are stationed in Kandahar. 100 soldiers serving with US special forces have settled down in Herat; yet another 200-strong American SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) unit is based in Shindand. Meanwhile 400 soldiers from the US Army's 10th light-infantry division, as well as a 600-strong battalion of British Marines, are stationed in Baghram. All in all, ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) in Afghanistan comprises the following national troop contingents -- Great Britain, 2,000 soldiers; France, 500 soldiers; Germany, 900 soldiers; Norway, 100 soldiers; Italy, 100 soldiers; Turkey, 200 soldiers; Denmark, 200 soldiers; Jordan, 500 soldiers. As of today, about 12,000 soldiers, including 8,000 Americans and about 1,000 Canadians, are involved in the Afghan counter-terrorist operation.

US and NATO military installations on the territory of former Soviet Central Asian republics are instrumental in providing logistics support for multi-national forces and their operations. As is known, the United States and NATO have reliably asserted themselves at Uzbek, Kirghiz and Tajik bases, i.e. Manas (Bishkek), Karshi, Kulyab, Kokaidy and Termez. All these airfields were to have been used for re-supply missions, for transporting humanitarian relief aid and for deploying search- and-rescue units. However, the first few French Mirage-2000 fighters have landed in Manas not so long ago. Until then, reconnaissance aircraft, including Predator drones, used to operate rather actively from all bases in the interests of the US-NATO air-force formation being used against Al-Qaeda units. Moreover, ranger units, AWACS-type aircraft, psychological- warfare and reconnaissance planes were deployed there. (..)

Few obstacles impede now the conversion of former Soviet military bases into full- fledged Western outposts. Among other things, the stockpiling of aircraft fuel and weapons is seen as the most labor-consuming process, which requires more time to complete than all other processes. Nonetheless, all local airfields could be used for sustaining the most determined attacks, once this process is complete.

It should be emphasized that Central Asian countries themselves consider US military presence quite profitable. The configuration of their borders, which had been arbitrarily drawn by the Bolsheviks, is always fraught with the danger of bloody inter-ethnic wars, which would inevitably entail the uncontrollable massacre of civilians, causing a multitude of people to flee their native parts. The latter would lead to absolutely unpredictable consequences. Besides, not a single post-Soviet republic has sufficiently powerful armed forces capable of rectifying the hypothetically unfavorable regional situation. (..) Consequently, Central Asia simply can't do today without a powerful "sergeant of the relief," or "neighborhood cop." Therefore one can safely say that US-NATO military presence is perceived as a regional blessing and a guarantee of sorts against terrible blood-baths in the struggle to control land, water and other natural resources. (..)

Quite possibly, after gaining a foot-hold in Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kirghizia, the United States will be sorely tempted to spread its military presence over Kazakhstan, which looms over the whole of Central Asia like some kind of a tremendous horse-shoe. The US side will, most likely, establish control over former Soviet air-force bases in Taldy-Kurgan, Zhangiz-Tobe, Semipalatinsk, Zhana-Semei and the Alma-Ata airfield junction (i.e. the south-eastern axis), for openers. (..)

A paradoxical and hitherto unthinkable situation can shape up, when Russian military installations in Kazakhstan, i.e. an early-warning radio-technical facility on cape Gulshad (Lake Balkhash), the Saryshagan ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) testing range, as well as state-run testing range No. 5 in Baikonur, find themselves surrounded with NATO military bases. Moreover, it can't be excluded that Russia might have to coordinate all military shipments to these facilities with both local authorities, as well as US and NATO representatives. (..)

Right now, a relatively small US troop contingent is stationed in Georgia. Technically speaking, US servicemen would be expected to render military-technical assistance in organizing several Georgian SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) battalions. Tbilisi subsequently intends to use such units for fighting terrorist groups and in order to enhance Georgia's territorial integrity. (..)

It's therefore hardly surprising that the Georgian infrastructure will be used by the United States and NATO, which continue their crusade against international terrorism at this stage. Geo-politically Georgia plays the part of a bridge for the transit of Central Asian crude oil and other mineral resources. Consequently, the leadership of this young independent republic can obtain numerous advantages as a result of its foreign- political maneuvers. Moreover, one should not under-estimate Georgia's territory as a convenient bridge-head for waging a war against Iran and Iraq. Incidentally, the United States has already announced its decision to fight such a war rather loudly. Therefore possible US control over this Trans-Caucasian republic would apparently benefit Tbilisi and Washington alike.

The Georgian leadership's aspirations therefore tally with the US diversification theory, which implies that Kazakh and Central Asian natural resources should be delivered along different routes. Georgia is therefore becoming a natural US ally. Consequently, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that US Air Force and NATO bases will be deployed in Georgian territory soon after the arrival of first several hundred US servicemen. Such bases might well appear at former Soviet airfields, which had belonged to the former Soviet 34-th air army and the USSR's air-defense force -- Marneuli, Vaziani, Senaki (Mikha Tskhakaya) and Gudauta. After that, Turkish military units might well be deployed there; by the way, Ankara has already hinted that this is theoretically possible. There is no doubting the fact that the fate of Abkhazia and South Ossetia would be predetermined, after this happens. In that case, Moscow, which has repeatedly advocated Georgian territorial integrity, and which boasts a limited military potential, would merely be able to observe the outcome of a brief conflict. (..)

Azerbaijan, which borders on Iran, is regarded as a convenient air-force base for tactical US and NATO warplanes, that is, if Washington and Brussels decide to go ahead with a possible counter-terrorist operation, attacking Iran in the process. As of today, Washington considers Iran to be the bulwark of international terrorism. In this case former Soviet first-category air-force bases in Kyurdamir and Nasosnaya (Pumping Station) will prove to be a highly valuable asset for the United States. Surely enough, their current state leaves a lot to be desired. However, the US side, which boasts tremendous resources, can upgrade these two bases in no time at all. If necessary, the United States and NATO could also use the international airport in Baku. However, all these airfields can accommodate no more than 90-100 tactical aircraft, reconnaissance planes and flying tankers. Nonetheless, even this number is enough to conduct limited air strikes and to seriously threaten theoretical enemies from the northern axis. (..) As a reward for possible collaboration Azerbaijan may be offered substantial US and NATO support in settling the Nagorny Karabakh conflict. (..)

It's becoming absolutely clear nowadays that many of the Russian leadership's extremely costly and painstaking projects had been false from the very outset, thereby leading us into a blind alley. Frankly speaking, the most far-sighted Russian analysts had warned about this back in the early 1990s. Quite possibly, the list of such projects includes the collective CIS peace-keeping forces, which have virtually become redundant today, as well as the protection of the CIS external perimeter. Russian society apparently doesn't know that the latter idea has also lost its topicality; nonetheless, it had been the subject of heated debates, with the Russian treasury spending a lot of money on this project. The epoch of open borders within the CIS is also nearing its completion, upon benefiting most of our neighbors, rather than Russia itself. In fact, Russia is engulfed by millions upon millions of illegal migrants.

In the obtaining situation, the United States has obtained more benefits than all other countries, virtually gaining access to the immense regional natural resources. (..) Washington acquires powerful leverage for influencing subsequent Russian political aspirations in line with any possible scenario, thus reducing Moscow's maneuvering room on the global political scene still further. Quite possibly, this constitutes the main result of America's penetration into this hitherto walled-in strategic region. (..) Nonetheless, Moscow is so far unable to clearly formulate the relevant political goal of countering expanded US and NATO influence on CIS countries. (..)
[link to cndyorks.gn.apc.org]

For those of you Yanks wanting to know the WHOLE truth of what's going on here's a good start.

The 'Great Game' for Caspian Sea Oil


[edited by Michael P. Croissant and Bulent Aras, Westport, Conn. & London: Praeger 1999] with a foreword by Pat Clawson of the National Defense University and editor of ORBIS, and dedicated to Ronald Reagan and Turgut Ozal, announces its far-right wing political pedigree and U.S establishment legitimation literally up front.

Clawson already explicitly, indeed brutally, lays out the groundwork in his two page foreword: The Caspian Sea region is a world-class oil area with complex econo- and geo-strategic conflicts of interest and corresponding competing policies among surrounding states and the West, particularly the United States.

The issues are not only the oil per se, including its low price at the time of publication, but also the related conflicts of interest over pipeline routes and the U.S. intent to deny them to Russia and Iran.

The rule of law, democracy and human rights come in at the tail end.
In his chapter on the United States, Stephen Blank has done enough of his homework to bring along multiple strategic [in more senses than one] quotations from the horse's mouth in Washington and at NATO headquarters.

The background of it all is of course the ongoing American competition with Russia, now also with the regions under review, among which "the Transcaspian has become perhaps the most important area of direct Western-Russian contention today" [p.250 in the book].

Therefore, the author argues, that the new geo-economic competition cannot be separated out from the old but still ongoing geo-political one.

That is, the nineteenth century "Great Game" competition for the control of Central Eurasia is still alive and kicking also in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries.

Blank writes that "Washington is now becoming the arbiter or leader of virtually every interstate and international issue in the area" [254] and indeed also "the main center of international adjudication and influence for local issues" [255]. However in the face of the Russian bear, old style gun-boat diplomacy is too dangerous and is now replaced by its "functional equivalent ... peace operations" [256].

Washington is pursuing these with intense "actual policy making on a daily basis throughout the executive branch" [253] in Washington and by a myriad of "Partnership for Peace" programs of which the Strategic Research Development Report 5-96 of the [U.S] Center for Naval Warfare Studies reports

on activities of these forces that provide dominant battlespace knowledge necessary to shape regional security environments.

Multinational excersizes, port visits, staff-to-staff coordination - all designed to increase force inter- operability and access to regional military facilities - along with intelligence and surveillance operations.... [So] forward deployed forces are backed up by those which can surge for rapid reenforcement and can be in place in seven to thirty days [256-257]

-- all as a 'partnership for peace" in - we may understand - Orwellian double-speak. Indeed, U.S. local diplomats and the Clinton administration now regard the Transcapian as a 'backup' for Middle East oil supplies and some insist that the U.S. "take the lead in pacifying the entire area" including by the possible overthrow of inconveniently not sufficiently cooperative governments [258].

The policy and praxis of common military exercises also includes distant Kazakstan. All this and more "reflects a major shift in U.S. policy toward Cental Asia ... coordinated by the National Security Council," as the author quotes from the hawkish U.S. JAMESTOWN FOUNDATION MONITOR.

The Security Council's former head and then already super anti-Soviet Russian hawk, Zbigniew Brzezinsky, now promotes a modernized Mackinder heartland vision of a grand U.S. led anti-Russian coalition of Europe,Turkey, Iran, and China as well as Central Asia [253].

This is where the NATO connection comes in. Former U.S. Secretaries of State and of Defense Christopher and Perry stated in 1997 that "the danger to security ... is not primarily potential aggression to their collective [NATO] territory, but threats to their collective interests beyond their territory....To deal with such threats alliance members need to have a way to rapidly form military coalitions that can accomplish goals beyond NATO territory" [252].

Note that this was two years before "humanitarian" NATO aid to 'out of area' Kosovo. Also, U.S. Central Asia experts met at NATO headquarters and discussed extensive U.S. interests in Caspian basin energy deposits.

Not to be outdone, Javier Solana, the former Defense Minister in the 'Socialist' Party government of Spain, become Secretary-General of NATO also during its war against Jugoslavia, and now promoted to czar of European Union [EU] foreign policy, pronounced himself at a Washington conference on NATO enlargement to say that Europe cannot be fully secure without bringing the Caucasus into its security zone [250].

U.S. Ambassador Nathan Nimitz agrees: "PAX NATO is the only logical regime to maintain security in the traditional sense... [and] must recognize a need for expansion of its stabilizing influence in adjacent areas, particularly in Southeastern Europe, the Black Sea region (in concert of course with the regional powers...) and in the Arabian/Persian Gulf.

The United States must continue to play the major role in this security system" [252]. This statement is not only a guide to policy making in Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels.

The policy is in fact already being implemented on the ground in that the U.S. has been assiduously using economic,diplomatic and military carrots to engage more and more 'regional powers' to play assigned roles in this 'concert' under its own regional direction.

These countries include especially Ukraine, Georgia, and Azerbaijan on the western wing to distant Kazakstan and Kyrgyztan on the eastern one of this American and NATO PfP concert hall. All of these states, whether in the oil business or not, happen to be former Soviet republics on the underbelly of Russia.

All this was written and begun to be implemented already in 1997 and earlier. well before the NATO war against Jugoslavia that was allegedly fought to defend 'human rights in Kosovo,' which along with the new NATO 'out of area' south-eastward projection toward the oil producing countries can now be better seen in the light of the above considerations. Indeed, "NATO's regional involvement, especially through PfP [referring to the above mentioned "Partnership for Peace"] is intensifying on a yearly basis.

Military excersizes also already in 1997 were supposed to show that "U.S. and NATO forces could be deployed anywhere" [266].

"The obvious implication of current policy is that NATO, under U.S. leadership, will become an international policeman and hegemon in the Transcaspian and define the limits of Russian participation in the region's expected oil boom" [267].

Now the precedent of "humanitarian defense of human rights" in Kosovo also embellishes the "Partnership for Peace" in the Caspian Sea Basin, where it alone might otherwise not evoke enough popular political support from the folks back home.

So now in Orwellian language again, not only "War is Peace," but now it also is highly "humanitarian." Preferably that is also placed under a mantle of 'legitimation' by United Nations, as now is the NATO military occupation of Kosovo after the war ended.

But if that is not available to make war itself, as it was not against Jugoslavia, then 'legitimation' may at least sought by the agreement of the "International Community," whose states [mis]represent at most 15 percent of humanity, but whose bombs spoke so eloquently in 1999 over Jugoslavia. Where will they fall next - yet farther south-east ?

"It is highly unlikely that Russia will accept such a position 'lying down'," writes Blank, especially in its own Caucasian and Caspian underbelly.

Thus, he outlines four main reasons why he regards this U.S. policy not only misguided but also counterproductive:

1. Structural conditions. Military forces will be deployed in the guise of the now sanctioned 'peacekeepers' or 'peace enforcers,' as Kosovo has begun to confirm since he wrote.

But that can mean also overextending these forces beyond domestic acceptance. [Contrary to the propaganda, NATO bombs did NOT bring Milosevic to heel and ground troops would have been necessary, had not Russia eventually withdrawn its support from Milosevic, which is what really obliged him to accept Western terms that by then were far less than those for which it had gone to war].

But what if Russia no more plays along at all? U.S. policy and praxis over Jugoslavia and in formerly Soviet Central Asia and the Caspian Sea area has already shifted the Russian political center of gravity towards sharpened nationalism and a renewedly increase in the influence of the military.

Yet, already before that, Blank wrote that "Russia will resolutely contest the United States' expanded presence" [263], which can drive Russia into the arms of China and India as "Kosovo" already did, even if it does not threaten a Third World War, as it well may.

2. This U.S. policy also drives Russia to cooperate with Iran, which is certainly not in the interest of current American policy.

3. "It is impossible to discern any strategic context for the Clinton administration's Russia policy...[which] only enhance Russia's sense of regional threat and propensity to reply in kind, while not preventing it from doing so" [262].

4. For all the power at the disposal of the U.S., Washington "remains singularly unable to use such instruments to obtain a comprehensive and insightful understanding of regional trends and their implications" [262].

Kuwait, Somalia, and Iraq - since then also Kosovo - "suggest that this is a structural failing of U.S. policy" [262].

Thus, the U.S. is enlarging its commitment absentmindedly, Blank writes, in the contemporary continuation of the nineteenth century "Great Game" in Central Eurasia -- with still the same major players, excepting the replacement of erstwhile Great [now small] Britain by the United States.
[link to www.rrojasdatabank.org]

For all some of you Yanks think you KNOW about Russians, the Russian mindset...or what Russia has been planning for, why they have been planning for it...think again!

"Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma."
Winston Churchill

The Empire Strikes First: Space and World War III

"Let's think of a world where the U.S. has "death stars" that are going over countries. Do you think other countries are going to accept that?''

-- Theresa Hitchens, vice president of the Centre for Defense Information

China and Russia announced they will be conducting their first ever joint military war games in 2005.1 World War III is being planned and the U.S. military views space as a battleground to its strategic advantage since it is far and away the front-runner on the final frontier. Immediately after China put their first man in space, Lt. Gen. Edward Anderson, Deputy Commander of US Northern Command, stated that it will not be long before space becomes a battleground.
[link to www.globalresearch.ca]

And don't you Yanks get all caught up in the hype about North Korea's missles....these are the baddest boys on the block.

Russia launches ballistic missile from Urals site

MOSCOW, July 12 (RIA Novosti) - Russia has conducted a launch of an RS-20 Voyevoda (SS-18 Satan) intercontinental ballistic missile from a silo in the Urals to launch a U.S. civilian satellite into orbit, the press service of the Strategic Missile Forces said Wednesday.

"The launch has been conducted to put a U.S. Genesis satellite into orbit, and to test technical characteristics of the missile," the press service said in a statement.

The document said that the modified version of the Satan missile, also known as the Dnepr carrier rocket, is equipped with a third stage carrying a spacecraft instead of a warhead.

It is the six launch of a modified ballistic missile for civilian purposes under the Dnepr commercial program. Russia has launched 23 commercial satellites under the program in line with contracts concluded with a number of government agencies and private companies from Russia, Belarus, France, Japan, the U.K., Saudi Arabia, the U.S., Germany, Italy and Malaysia.
[link to en.rian.ru]