The conflict in Georgia, as Russia continues dropping bombs and killing an estimated 1,500 people, has produced vivid pictures that the world is now viewing. For more photos go here. And here.
Picture above from BBC. Picture below from New York Times.
CAFFEINATED POLITICS 
Russian bombs did not kill 1500 people as you state – 1500 people died when the Georgians used rocket launchers to attack civilian neighbourhoods of Tskhinvali in the middle of the night. Many died in their beds.
I should have been more precise with my wording, but in the end Russia’s actions have resulted in these deaths, whether by Russia’s bombing directly, or not.
Yes the facts don’t matter. This all fits into Obama’s foreign policy adviser Dr. Brz’ plan for another cold war.
Only in Obamaland would one defend Georgia when they killed 1500 civilians in an act of genocide. If Russia the bad guy here why are they all the refugees emigrating there at the moment.
As you can see from this interview the area in question was functioning as a quasi independent state.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/3389757.stm
Georgia’s action was clearly an act of war if not genocide. Russia intervened because of Georgian troop movements.
Going back to Dr. Brz., it now makes more sense why Obama want to move the front to Afghanistan.
The region in question is a break-away area that is supported by Russia. Lets not forget that the South Ossetian leader, Eduard Kokoity self declared this area seperate. (Can I rename Lake Monona and claim it for the Brits?) Russia is using the recent tensions in the the area to break the will of Georgia from being a western ally (NATO member soon?)….or at least one that is leaning in our direction. Lets be mindful also that the timing of Russia’s moves comes on the heels of Kosovo’s declaration of independence. Is Russia nervous about the trends? So if one is truly interested in ‘independent states’ one must look at the real motives for why Russia sent in the tanks.
Oh, I should comment..
Imagine following: Mexico has territorial conflict, and US mediates between sides for a decades. All sides has an agreement of cease-fire and US stands surety for sides.
One night one side uses rocket launchers to kill all the population of the capital of the second side. They start from hospital, kinder gardens, schools – not to allow citizens to hide and gather in one place. Then they destroy one residential quarter by one with tanks. About 2000 civil people killed this night. Simultaneously, they start to fire at peacekeepers (US peacekeepers!). All buildings at the peacekeepers base are destroyed. Several casualties. About hundred of wounded. Aggressor’s side forces are 12 times as much as US’s ones.
And now, read your words:
“So if one is truly interested in ‘independent states’ one must look at the real motives for why US sent in the tanks.”
Good point, isn’t Georgia a breakaway republic? South Ossetia broke away in 90’s after a frickin war. We did the same thing in 1776.
How in your liberal mindset do you condemn an act of 1500 dead when you believe Russia was responsible, yet rationalize it when Georgia is the culprit.
Lets be frank and honest. This is about oil, oil, oil. The US wants control of the Georgia – Afghanistan pipeline that has been in the works for some time. Akin to Russia wanting control of the Alaskan pipeline I might add.
Henry,
You are right about the oil portion of your post….but the country to blame is Russia. Let us not forget about (2?) years ago how Russia used natural gas for political purposes in Ukraine.
And from today’s NYT comes this paragraph.
Marshall Goldman, a leading Russia scholar, argues in a recent book that Mr. Putin has established a “petrostate,” in which oil and gas are strategically deployed as punishments, rewards and threats. The author details the lengths to which Mr. Putin has gone to retain control over the delivery of natural gas from Central Asia to the West. A proposed alternative pipeline would skirt Russia and run through Georgia, as an oil pipeline now does. “If Georgia collapses in turmoil,” Mr. Goldman notes, “investors will not put up the money for a bypass pipeline.” And so, he concludes, Mr. Putin has done his best to destabilize the Saakashvili regime.
I disagree.
It is not about oil. It is well-planned US act to destabilize the situation on Caucasus and to show Russia in the form of aggressor. US President said yesterday that Russian response is ‘disproportionate’. Hmm.. Russia does all wrong. What shall America do? It is duty of all American people to help Georgians to build democracy! Lets help them and bring NATO forces (or, may be, UN forces) into Georgia to prevent Russia from future ‘disproportionate’ responses! As the result – greatly increased American influence in the Caucasus region. This a destabilization and, as you know, any destabilization is very-very bad.
Lets see what CNN, SkyNews, BBC and others show.. First report about conflict in Georgia has been shown by CNN the day after (!) it’s start.. And what did they show? Russian tanks entering Georgia! What about the cause? NOTHING! You know, it’s terrible.. 2000 killed? NO! 34000 of refugees in Russia? NO! Russia is aggressor! WOW!!! Is that a democracy? Did you see any crying S. Ossetian woman on TV? No? Here they are! http://streaming.visionip.tv/Russia_Today Yes, it is a pro-Russian TV channel. But it provides another point of view..
P.S. Remember Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo… Who is an aggressor? Russia has much more moral rights to help Georgian people (including S. Ossetians) to avoid violence than US had in Iraq: Russia is official peacekeeper and Russia HAVE TO RESPOND by the agreement. And how do you think, is US response to ‘atomic threat’ was much more ‘disproportionate’ than Russian one today? I do so.
Thanks Artem,
I do appreciate your response. I do thank you for commenting, and while I respect your views, I differ.
The fact that Russia sent tanks over the boundary of a seperate country is a great event that creates troubling consequences. There is little doubt that Russia fears the future, and as such strikes out when feeling pressed. The right of the government in Georgia to follow a path to the West should not in any way give Russia license to behave in such a manner.
Of course the Russian tanks invading a neighbor would be news! Would one think otherwise? The way not to make it news was of course not to invade.
As to the cause I would suggest that Russia has long held to the view that it owned Georgia. That notion, though long held, is false. The people of Georgia own thier own nation.
My previous comment was quite emotional, sorry 🙂
Of course, I respect your point of view too. One thing that I never respect is hypocrisy. And when I see one in mass media, I cannot be quite.
Russia has the obligation to protect side that is under attack in this conflict reflected in the agreements between Georgia, S. Ossetia & Russia. Also, Russia has the right to protect its people. It is a mission of any country. Of course, I respect sovereignty of Georgia. But I do not respect genocide. I’m certain that the only thing that has to be done when one nation commits genocide over another is to prevent it. Do you think that Russia can stand aside when about 2000 of Russian citizens killed? I hope you don’t.
About the news.. Let me paraphrase. What would you prefer to see: both points of view on the problem or only one that fits perfect to your previous experience? It is very sad to see how simple governments of several democratic countries can control their citizens’ thoughts by means of mass media. This is not democracy at all in my understanding.
And to the cause.. You know, you are right. Russia is multinational country. About million of Georgians live in Russia, lots of Russians live in Georgia. And all post-USSR states are home in minds of several generations. But I think that the real cause is to make one more trap, one more haunting on Russia. The question is “Why Georgian army started full-scale military operation against S. Ossetia”. Crossing the border is a consequence.
That is a discussion and I propose do not continue. Thank you for interesting conversation.