SPIEGEL (09/02/2008) Schröder Blasts the West: Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said it's no wonder Russia reacted as it did given its encirclement by the West. He said Georgia crossed a "red line" when it marched into South Ossetia. Schröder's critique of the position taken by the West in the ongoing spat with Russia differs little from comments made given soon after the six-day Georgian-Russian war came to an end. In that interview, he spoke of "serious mistakes made by the West."
Tell us about dear Garhard who was thrown out by his people for the most part. Next you will tell us about how Jacques Chirac says Russia is a good and generous neighbor who only has good intentions toward Europe.
Politics aside (as he's loathed by Western Corporate Socialists) the point is that European economic interests are intimately linked with Russian economic interests. Such is the zeitgeist. Thus, EU hawks are unable to punish Russia. Clearly, Europe is divided (the EU stance is all bark, no bite).
How can you say corporate socialists hate him when he works for a Gazprom subsidiary? He is a corporate socialist!
Schroder created much of Germany's dependence on Russia and supports Putin no matter how many journalists he kills or how many neighboring states they threaten.
Look into the facts of Schroder connections to Russian oil and gas production and how he hurt Germany by having to rely almost solely on Russia.
How can you say corporate socialists hate him when he works for a Gazprom subsidiary? He is a corporate socialist!
*You caught that. Good call. The distinction is relative between East and West. The players seem to occupy both sides of the field. Why on Earth would they do such a thing?
Yeah, I guess all you have are other peoples ideas and words. No substance of your own to throw around. You make up phony bullshit like corporate socialism and run with it.
FACT-Schroder brokered deals that ran Gazprom pipeline from Russia to Germany.
FACT-Schroder was forced into political retirement and went to work for the company he benefited at Germany's expense.
FACT-Schroder calls Putin a friend and kept European criticism of Russia to a minimum even while Russia acted aggressively.
Corporate socialism is a BUZZ word like Neo-con. Means nothing and is a way of describing something without actually saying anything. I don't like words that are meant to draw ire without actually saying what it is that is really going on.
I agree with your first 2 facts as they are FACTS. Your last fact is an assumption and is not a FACT!
All the evidence shows that Russia has been building up to attack Georgia over the last year.
Corporate Socialism: the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct, i.e., socialism for the rich. This means we pay for the greed of the wolves shepherding the flocks (tis a slick trick).
Saakashvili would never dare take any actions with American military personnel on his soil with approval (that's a FACT).
All the evidence shows that Russia has been waiting for Georgia to attack (and the fool Saakashvili did just that).
I think that Saakasvili took some peoples statements as meaning that America had Georgias back if Russia attacked. He was wrong. We have his back but way back if you know what I mean. That Americans passport means nothing if that is what your getting at.
The passport was, most likely, a plant. It was found (or stolen, or manufactured); propaganda (like the passport found at the WTC ruins, but that's another topic far removed from this episode). A nice clean piece of evidence for the media. No argument here.
Mr. Saakashvili studied law at Kiev University and the International Institute of Human Rights before earning his LLM from Columbia Law School . His command of the English language is impressive. In short, he's no dummy. That he misunderstood anything is questionable. It almost appears as if he were chosen for the CIA Rose Revolution, and now, set-up as a fool who is portrayed as a hothead. Regardless, he didn't order the South Ossetia attack without US military personnel being aware.
If you want to talk about American politics I will be happy to oblige but lets stay focused on one thing at a time. I make a comment about Russia and you reply about Russia. You make a comment about America and I will reply on America. Lets not mix the subjects as no one will gain anything. I understand that things are similar and even related but one thing at a time please.
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- European Union leaders refused to impose sanctions on Russia over the invasion of Georgia, acknowledging their reliance on Russian oil and gas at a time of faltering economic growth. EU leaders took the symbolic step yesterday of suspending talks over expanded trade ties with Russia, fearing that tougher measures would expose the energy-dependent bloc to Russian retaliation. ``What, beyond rhetoric, do the Europeans have to offer?'' said George Friedman...
EVERYBODY IN THE "JEWUSA" ARE IMMIGRANTS NOT A REAL civlization NOTHING BUT COWGIRL'S WHO DRINK OIL AND STEAL LAND AND PUT PEOPLE IN OFFICE AS president
1. Politicians playing word games. Their news is no news. All the hot air amounts to very little, save for positioning themselves for their hawkish allies in Washington. The EU needs Russia and will not be biting the hand of the bear. Nicolas Sarkozy is a joke (and he could use an ear job).
If you think the idea of taking away Russia's trump card (energy) is all bark and no bite I think your crazy. EU energy diversification takes away all Russian leverage(stronger than sanctions). All Russia will have left is their idol threats of aiming nukes at Europe and US. But your analysis is funny as usual.(predictable)
The "rational" Neville Chamberlain also attempted to avoid confrontation with a bully who threatened their neighbors and look how that turned out.
Who wants confrontation with Russia?
Only Russia has been acting in an aggressive manner. If you don't stand up to this bully they will continue to conduct electronic attacks against Estonia, cut off oil and gas to Europe, steal European investments, invade and threaten it's neighbors, and kill dissidents.
The "rational" Hans Blix also attempted to avoid confrontation with a bully who threatened the sovereign nation of Iraq and look how that turned out.
Who wants confrontation with America?
Only America has been acting in an aggressive manner. If you don't stand up to this bully they will continue to kill more than 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians and poisoning the living with depleted uranium and threaten any and all who they deem dissidents.
I think you're in denial. You see corruption in your self-perceived enemies but fail to notice such in your own backyard.
FYI America is turning over Iraq to the Iraqis and I agree this will not be allowed to continue.
Smart ass or dumb ass, none of us get a say in how to turn this around (we don't own significant Class A shares of the multinationals, as cynical as this seems).
With nearly 100,000 Iraqis, many of them former insurgents, on the American payroll, saying the Iraqis are taking control is a semantic ploy. Anbar (the cradle of the Sunni insurgency) is the eleventh province to be transferred to Iraqi security responsibility, but Shiite dominated leaders will have plenty to contend with given the predominately Sunni populace (Sahwa/Awakenings councils). Time will tell if the Americans will have to play cop again (before Sunnis get fresh provincial elections).
To deny the progress is not productive. I agree that only time will tell but Iraq seems to be heading in a good overall direction. One third of American casualties came in Al Anbar. The fact that Americans no longer have to govern this region is a good thing.
Less killing in Iraq (or anywhere) is a good thing. Having said as much, rationalizing American criminal occupation in Iraq by arguing that they will be gone one day and then beating the emotional drums of war over Russian troops in South Ossetia is something of a double standard. Were America less hypocritical, most reasonable peoples on this planet would lend a sympathetic ear to American officials. As it stands, things now come down to advocating the lesser of 2 evils (so to speak).
If America were to leave Iraq today it would create a devastating situation in the middle east. Iraq would go into civil war mode and Iran would capitalize on the situation(1 evil). While keeping American soldiers in Iraq for another year is a bad thing(2 evil) I don't see a better way of getting Iraq back on its feet(good). America likes to think if you broke it, you fix it. We are pouring a ton of money and resources into doing just that.
Russian troops have a right to be in S.Ossetia because they were peace keepers. Russia does not have a right to turn Georgian(Abkhazian, S.Ossetian) citizens into Russian citizens.
I have some more to say on this subject but I will have to get back with you tomorrow and will reply to your other comments.
In the 1990s, President Clinton embarked upon converting Georgia into an energy corridor for the export of Caspian basin oil and gas to the West in order to bypass Russia (that evolved into the BTC pipeline). It was America (corporate socialist interests) that presided over every stage of the BTC line's development and corporate structuring. It was a case of geopolitics, pure and simple (to enhance Western energy security while diminishing Russia's control over distribution).
Since Washington's Eurasian energy corridor passed near conflict zones (e.g.,Abkhazia and South Ossetia) Mr Clinton transformed the Georgian army into a military proxy of the USofA. The Russians (temporarily weakened by internal strife) watched this in their so-called near abroad and planned countermoves. The issues for both superpowers being National Interests (which Washington sees as anyplace around the globe and dismisses Russia's to within its own borders, a clear double standard).
(Then) President Putin re-nationalized many of the Russian companies previously privatized by Yeltsin, e.g., Yukos and Gazprom. Mr Putin then focused on the Caspian Sea basin with the intention of dominating export conduits to Europe and Asia (not to own the resources, the same as the interests of the Anglo-American cartels in Iraq) with precedence already established through agreements with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (to ship gas through Russia to Europe via Gazprom).
Thus, the geostrategic priority for Moscow became undermining international confidence in Georgia as a reliable corridor for energy distribution (all while the EU planned the Nabucco pipeline to reduce Europe's reliance on Russia). This is what the crisis in Georgia was/is about. Georgia's geostrategic importance is primarily about the US/EU-Russian struggle over the distribution of Caspian energy. Cheney/Bush armed/trained the Georgian military/special forces to protect the new pipelines.
Unfortunately, Mr Saakashvili had more ambitious plans (the CIA sponsored politician is simply a useful pawn in the anti-Russian agenda being played out). And then Mr Putin set his trap by taunting Georgia into invading South Ossetia (namely through allowing militia types to antagonize villages on the edges of the territories) and allowing Saakashvili to reveal himself to be an unreliable partner (hothead) to the Western pipeline enthusiasts who sought reasonable stability in the region.
The Western geopolitical prize (the Eurasian energy corridor) suddenly became vulnerable (and the rage in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, et cetera, expressed the frustrated reality, that is, the BTC and South Caucasus gas pipelines are ever so close, even too close to rather pissed Russia). The primary media spin in the West (and East) is about genocide, territorial integrity, and so forth.
Given the double standards of the American position (as in Iraqi invasion and occupation over hydrocarbon resource access, not Iraqi liberation), both sides make their cases in regard to Georgia. In short, they each have their stories, and they're sticking to them. The real issue is energy distribution expressed in terms of National Interests on the global stage.
This West-East struggle has no (sane) military solution. Only dialogue will broker a deal that will eventually have to ensure a fair and equitable split of distribution rights and corporate profits. Unfortunately, the American Corporate Socialists have yet to display a willingness to cooperate fairly (to share, in Eurasia, or Iraq). From their (irrational) vantage, Russia is not a serious partner.
It appears that it will be up to the Europeans to ease tensions with the Russians and broker fair deals where all the plutocrats are (reasonably) satisfied. The alternatives for the peoples of this planet are not acceptable. And it really is just that simple.
RUSSIA SHOULD TURN THE GAS OFF ON EUROPE SO THEY CAN SEE NOW MUCH THEY NEED RUSSIA RATHER THEN RUSSIA NEED THEM SO THE EU NEEDS TO SHUT THE FUCK UP BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANY Natural Resources THE "JEWUSA ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS NOT A REAL RACE ALL ARE IMMIGRANTS THAT'S WHY THEY ACT LIKE ANIMALS LIKE DOGSHIT THE REAL AMERICAS INDIANS ARE A REAL RACE EVERYBODY IN THE "JEWUSA" ARE IMMIGRANTS NOT A REAL civlization NOTHING BUT COWGIRL'S WHO DRINK OIL AND STEAL LAND AND PUT PEOPLE IN OFFICE AS president
Please tell everyone how Russia will pay for pensions, and for those new T-90's,KA-50's,and SU 37or47's without that money Russia gets from Europe for the oil and gas?
Russia can't make ends meet if it shuts off the energy to Europe. Europe can burn numerous types of organic matter to get by while saving money and Russia will collapse from lack of funds.
So who has who by the balls really? I hear the European doctor asking her patient Russia to "cough please".
Please tell everyone how America will pay for pensions, and for those new Wars On Terror with Debts?
Russia can make ends meet if it shuts off the energy to Europe by selling to the insatiable markets in the Far East. Europe can burn organic matter to get by and then complain and vote out their current crop of leaders.
So who has who by the balls really? I hear the Russian doctor asking her patient Europe to remain rational and distance itself from Washington hawks.
We will barrow it of course! Governments and individuals still find it to be a safe bet to invest their dollars in the USA and her Righteous causes.
What currencies will the insatiable countries of the east use to purchase that energy with? Can you pay pensioners with Yuan? Will the people of Europe throw out their leaders when their leaders will be able to invest their energy savings back into their people and economies?
to EU
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH AND ANOTHER BLAH
mima11vlad 3 years ago
SPIEGEL (09/02/2008) Schröder Blasts the West: Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder said it's no wonder Russia reacted as it did given its encirclement by the West. He said Georgia crossed a "red line" when it marched into South Ossetia. Schröder's critique of the position taken by the West in the ongoing spat with Russia differs little from comments made given soon after the six-day Georgian-Russian war came to an end. In that interview, he spoke of "serious mistakes made by the West."
wyrd24 3 years ago
Tell us about dear Garhard who was thrown out by his people for the most part. Next you will tell us about how Jacques Chirac says Russia is a good and generous neighbor who only has good intentions toward Europe.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Politics aside (as he's loathed by Western Corporate Socialists) the point is that European economic interests are intimately linked with Russian economic interests. Such is the zeitgeist. Thus, EU hawks are unable to punish Russia. Clearly, Europe is divided (the EU stance is all bark, no bite).
wyrd24 3 years ago
Schroder is Putins lackey.
How can you say corporate socialists hate him when he works for a Gazprom subsidiary? He is a corporate socialist!
Schroder created much of Germany's dependence on Russia and supports Putin no matter how many journalists he kills or how many neighboring states they threaten.
Look into the facts of Schroder connections to Russian oil and gas production and how he hurt Germany by having to rely almost solely on Russia.
Europe bypassing Russian energy is all bite!
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
How can you say corporate socialists hate him when he works for a Gazprom subsidiary? He is a corporate socialist!
*You caught that. Good call. The distinction is relative between East and West. The players seem to occupy both sides of the field. Why on Earth would they do such a thing?
wyrd24 3 years ago
"Russians need our energy markets and we need Russian energy, it's as simple as that."
~Finnish Foreign Minister ALEXANDER STUBB
on the EU's refusal to impose sanctions on Russia
wyrd24 3 years ago
Schroder is Putins lackey.
"Don't bother me with facts."
~ George W. Bush
wyrd24 3 years ago
Yeah, I guess all you have are other peoples ideas and words. No substance of your own to throw around. You make up phony bullshit like corporate socialism and run with it.
FACT-Schroder brokered deals that ran Gazprom pipeline from Russia to Germany.
FACT-Schroder was forced into political retirement and went to work for the company he benefited at Germany's expense.
FACT-Schroder calls Putin a friend and kept European criticism of Russia to a minimum even while Russia acted aggressively.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Corporate Socialism: the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct, i.e., socialism for the rich.
FACT-Cheney brokered no-bid deals that allowed Halliburton to steal billions of dollars from American taxpayers.
FACT-Cheney used his office stationary to have forged documents drafted to justify an illegal war in Iraq.
FACT-Cheney calls Saakashvili a friend and gave him the green light to aggressively attack South Ossetia.
wyrd24 3 years ago
Corporate socialism is a BUZZ word like Neo-con. Means nothing and is a way of describing something without actually saying anything. I don't like words that are meant to draw ire without actually saying what it is that is really going on.
I agree with your first 2 facts as they are FACTS. Your last fact is an assumption and is not a FACT!
All the evidence shows that Russia has been building up to attack Georgia over the last year.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Corporate Socialism: the privatization of profit and the socialization of risks and misconduct, i.e., socialism for the rich. This means we pay for the greed of the wolves shepherding the flocks (tis a slick trick).
Saakashvili would never dare take any actions with American military personnel on his soil with approval (that's a FACT).
All the evidence shows that Russia has been waiting for Georgia to attack (and the fool Saakashvili did just that).
wyrd24 3 years ago
Saakashvili would never dare take any actions with American military personnel on his soil WITHOUT approval (that was a typo).
wyrd24 3 years ago
I think that Saakasvili took some peoples statements as meaning that America had Georgias back if Russia attacked. He was wrong. We have his back but way back if you know what I mean. That Americans passport means nothing if that is what your getting at.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
The passport was, most likely, a plant. It was found (or stolen, or manufactured); propaganda (like the passport found at the WTC ruins, but that's another topic far removed from this episode). A nice clean piece of evidence for the media. No argument here.
wyrd24 3 years ago
Mr. Saakashvili studied law at Kiev University and the International Institute of Human Rights before earning his LLM from Columbia Law School . His command of the English language is impressive. In short, he's no dummy. That he misunderstood anything is questionable. It almost appears as if he were chosen for the CIA Rose Revolution, and now, set-up as a fool who is portrayed as a hothead. Regardless, he didn't order the South Ossetia attack without US military personnel being aware.
wyrd24 3 years ago
If you want to talk about American politics I will be happy to oblige but lets stay focused on one thing at a time. I make a comment about Russia and you reply about Russia. You make a comment about America and I will reply on America. Lets not mix the subjects as no one will gain anything. I understand that things are similar and even related but one thing at a time please.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Sept. 2 (Bloomberg) -- European Union leaders refused to impose sanctions on Russia over the invasion of Georgia, acknowledging their reliance on Russian oil and gas at a time of faltering economic growth. EU leaders took the symbolic step yesterday of suspending talks over expanded trade ties with Russia, fearing that tougher measures would expose the energy-dependent bloc to Russian retaliation. ``What, beyond rhetoric, do the Europeans have to offer?'' said George Friedman...
wyrd24 3 years ago
EVERYBODY IN THE "JEWUSA" ARE IMMIGRANTS NOT A REAL civlization NOTHING BUT COWGIRL'S WHO DRINK OIL AND STEAL LAND AND PUT PEOPLE IN OFFICE AS president
LILUCKSMO80 3 years ago
1. Politicians playing word games. Their news is no news. All the hot air amounts to very little, save for positioning themselves for their hawkish allies in Washington. The EU needs Russia and will not be biting the hand of the bear. Nicolas Sarkozy is a joke (and he could use an ear job).
wyrd24 3 years ago
What did we hear here today?
1 The EU will start energy diversification. Which means less or no reliance on Russian energy sources.
2 The EU agrees that Russia is in violation of the 6 point peace plan.
3 The EU will be sending OSCE peace keepers to the so called "buffer zones".
4 The EU suspends the Russian partnership plan until Russia decides it will comply with international law.
5 EU doesn't recognize independence of Georgian rebel regions. EU supports Georgian sovereignty.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
6 The EU will assist refugees and provide financial aid to Georgia for civil defense and emergency needs.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
EU official position: all bark, no bite (predictable).
wyrd24 3 years ago
If you think the idea of taking away Russia's trump card (energy) is all bark and no bite I think your crazy. EU energy diversification takes away all Russian leverage(stronger than sanctions). All Russia will have left is their idol threats of aiming nukes at Europe and US. But your analysis is funny as usual.(predictable)
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
The rational elements within the EU want to avoid confrontation with Russia. It's just that simple.
wyrd24 3 years ago
The "rational" Neville Chamberlain also attempted to avoid confrontation with a bully who threatened their neighbors and look how that turned out.
Who wants confrontation with Russia?
Only Russia has been acting in an aggressive manner. If you don't stand up to this bully they will continue to conduct electronic attacks against Estonia, cut off oil and gas to Europe, steal European investments, invade and threaten it's neighbors, and kill dissidents.
This can not be allowed to continue!
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
The "rational" Hans Blix also attempted to avoid confrontation with a bully who threatened the sovereign nation of Iraq and look how that turned out.
Who wants confrontation with America?
Only America has been acting in an aggressive manner. If you don't stand up to this bully they will continue to kill more than 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians and poisoning the living with depleted uranium and threaten any and all who they deem dissidents.
This can not be allowed to continue!
wyrd24 3 years ago
Who the hell is defending American actions?
I think your funny. You can't back up your support of Russia after someone calls you out on it so you try and turn it around to attack America.
FYI America is turning over Iraq to the Iraqis and I agree this will not be allowed to continue.
So how will you turn this around smart ass?
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Who the hell is defending Russian actions?
I think you're in denial. You see corruption in your self-perceived enemies but fail to notice such in your own backyard.
FYI America is turning over Iraq to the Iraqis and I agree this will not be allowed to continue.
Smart ass or dumb ass, none of us get a say in how to turn this around (we don't own significant Class A shares of the multinationals, as cynical as this seems).
wyrd24 3 years ago
With nearly 100,000 Iraqis, many of them former insurgents, on the American payroll, saying the Iraqis are taking control is a semantic ploy. Anbar (the cradle of the Sunni insurgency) is the eleventh province to be transferred to Iraqi security responsibility, but Shiite dominated leaders will have plenty to contend with given the predominately Sunni populace (Sahwa/Awakenings councils). Time will tell if the Americans will have to play cop again (before Sunnis get fresh provincial elections).
wyrd24 3 years ago
To deny the progress is not productive. I agree that only time will tell but Iraq seems to be heading in a good overall direction. One third of American casualties came in Al Anbar. The fact that Americans no longer have to govern this region is a good thing.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Less killing in Iraq (or anywhere) is a good thing. Having said as much, rationalizing American criminal occupation in Iraq by arguing that they will be gone one day and then beating the emotional drums of war over Russian troops in South Ossetia is something of a double standard. Were America less hypocritical, most reasonable peoples on this planet would lend a sympathetic ear to American officials. As it stands, things now come down to advocating the lesser of 2 evils (so to speak).
wyrd24 3 years ago
If America were to leave Iraq today it would create a devastating situation in the middle east. Iraq would go into civil war mode and Iran would capitalize on the situation(1 evil). While keeping American soldiers in Iraq for another year is a bad thing(2 evil) I don't see a better way of getting Iraq back on its feet(good). America likes to think if you broke it, you fix it. We are pouring a ton of money and resources into doing just that.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Russian troops have a right to be in S.Ossetia because they were peace keepers. Russia does not have a right to turn Georgian(Abkhazian, S.Ossetian) citizens into Russian citizens.
I have some more to say on this subject but I will have to get back with you tomorrow and will reply to your other comments.
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Buckeye: My apologies in advance for the semi-lengthy reply (as sound bites won't adequately support my final position).
wyrd24 3 years ago
In the 1990s, President Clinton embarked upon converting Georgia into an energy corridor for the export of Caspian basin oil and gas to the West in order to bypass Russia (that evolved into the BTC pipeline). It was America (corporate socialist interests) that presided over every stage of the BTC line's development and corporate structuring. It was a case of geopolitics, pure and simple (to enhance Western energy security while diminishing Russia's control over distribution).
wyrd24 3 years ago
Since Washington's Eurasian energy corridor passed near conflict zones (e.g.,Abkhazia and South Ossetia) Mr Clinton transformed the Georgian army into a military proxy of the USofA. The Russians (temporarily weakened by internal strife) watched this in their so-called near abroad and planned countermoves. The issues for both superpowers being National Interests (which Washington sees as anyplace around the globe and dismisses Russia's to within its own borders, a clear double standard).
wyrd24 3 years ago
(Then) President Putin re-nationalized many of the Russian companies previously privatized by Yeltsin, e.g., Yukos and Gazprom. Mr Putin then focused on the Caspian Sea basin with the intention of dominating export conduits to Europe and Asia (not to own the resources, the same as the interests of the Anglo-American cartels in Iraq) with precedence already established through agreements with Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan (to ship gas through Russia to Europe via Gazprom).
wyrd24 3 years ago
Thus, the geostrategic priority for Moscow became undermining international confidence in Georgia as a reliable corridor for energy distribution (all while the EU planned the Nabucco pipeline to reduce Europe's reliance on Russia). This is what the crisis in Georgia was/is about. Georgia's geostrategic importance is primarily about the US/EU-Russian struggle over the distribution of Caspian energy. Cheney/Bush armed/trained the Georgian military/special forces to protect the new pipelines.
wyrd24 3 years ago
Unfortunately, Mr Saakashvili had more ambitious plans (the CIA sponsored politician is simply a useful pawn in the anti-Russian agenda being played out). And then Mr Putin set his trap by taunting Georgia into invading South Ossetia (namely through allowing militia types to antagonize villages on the edges of the territories) and allowing Saakashvili to reveal himself to be an unreliable partner (hothead) to the Western pipeline enthusiasts who sought reasonable stability in the region.
wyrd24 3 years ago
The Western geopolitical prize (the Eurasian energy corridor) suddenly became vulnerable (and the rage in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Warsaw, et cetera, expressed the frustrated reality, that is, the BTC and South Caucasus gas pipelines are ever so close, even too close to rather pissed Russia). The primary media spin in the West (and East) is about genocide, territorial integrity, and so forth.
wyrd24 3 years ago
Given the double standards of the American position (as in Iraqi invasion and occupation over hydrocarbon resource access, not Iraqi liberation), both sides make their cases in regard to Georgia. In short, they each have their stories, and they're sticking to them. The real issue is energy distribution expressed in terms of National Interests on the global stage.
wyrd24 3 years ago
This West-East struggle has no (sane) military solution. Only dialogue will broker a deal that will eventually have to ensure a fair and equitable split of distribution rights and corporate profits. Unfortunately, the American Corporate Socialists have yet to display a willingness to cooperate fairly (to share, in Eurasia, or Iraq). From their (irrational) vantage, Russia is not a serious partner.
wyrd24 3 years ago
It appears that it will be up to the Europeans to ease tensions with the Russians and broker fair deals where all the plutocrats are (reasonably) satisfied. The alternatives for the peoples of this planet are not acceptable. And it really is just that simple.
wyrd24 3 years ago
poor frenchs with this little bastard & ugly dwarf, their worst president ever.
tracala 3 years ago
Nicolas Sarkozy is Jewish, which explains why he feels the need to side with Bush's puppet in Georgia.
LethalKillingMachine 3 years ago
Russia is in a hell of a state right now. President is EVIL and a lowlife scumbag.
OblongTea3 3 years ago
RUSSIA SHOULD TURN THE GAS OFF ON EUROPE SO THEY CAN SEE NOW MUCH THEY NEED RUSSIA RATHER THEN RUSSIA NEED THEM SO THE EU NEEDS TO SHUT THE FUCK UP BECAUSE THEY DONT HAVE ANY Natural Resources THE "JEWUSA ARE ALL IMMIGRANTS NOT A REAL RACE ALL ARE IMMIGRANTS THAT'S WHY THEY ACT LIKE ANIMALS LIKE DOGSHIT THE REAL AMERICAS INDIANS ARE A REAL RACE EVERYBODY IN THE "JEWUSA" ARE IMMIGRANTS NOT A REAL civlization NOTHING BUT COWGIRL'S WHO DRINK OIL AND STEAL LAND AND PUT PEOPLE IN OFFICE AS president
LILUCKSMO80 3 years ago
Please tell everyone how Russia will pay for pensions, and for those new T-90's,KA-50's,and SU 37or47's without that money Russia gets from Europe for the oil and gas?
Russia can't make ends meet if it shuts off the energy to Europe. Europe can burn numerous types of organic matter to get by while saving money and Russia will collapse from lack of funds.
So who has who by the balls really? I hear the European doctor asking her patient Russia to "cough please".
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago
Please tell everyone how America will pay for pensions, and for those new Wars On Terror with Debts?
Russia can make ends meet if it shuts off the energy to Europe by selling to the insatiable markets in the Far East. Europe can burn organic matter to get by and then complain and vote out their current crop of leaders.
So who has who by the balls really? I hear the Russian doctor asking her patient Europe to remain rational and distance itself from Washington hawks.
wyrd24 3 years ago
We will barrow it of course! Governments and individuals still find it to be a safe bet to invest their dollars in the USA and her Righteous causes.
What currencies will the insatiable countries of the east use to purchase that energy with? Can you pay pensioners with Yuan? Will the people of Europe throw out their leaders when their leaders will be able to invest their energy savings back into their people and economies?
I hear the Bear bellowing!
1BuckeyeNation 3 years ago