Meanwhile, over in Georgia

They can - and will - use Iraq anything to justify anything

They can has anything

nobody gives a crap about background or context.

Speak for yourself.

In the middle of South Ossetia, the formerly quiet village of Kheiti is now a hive of activity.

A newly-built red-roofed block of flats sits in an empty swathe of land. The site around the building, all mountains of sand and cement, is swarming with trucks, cranes and other heavy machinery, all of them busy constructing new apartment blocks here.

The red-roofed building is home to 30 Ossetian families, who were moved here by (the pro-Georgian “provisional administration” of South Ossetia, led by Dmitry) Sanakoyev... in early November.

...

This ... administration of South Ossetia has provided each of the 30 families with a flat equipped with new household equipment and furniture, as well as with the sum of 6,000 laris (around 3,800 dollars).

In addition, one member from each family has been given a job in the temporary administration and receives a monthly salary worth 500 US dollars, which is paid onto a plastic card and can be drawn at a bank near the block of flats.

One Kheiti resident, who wished not to be named, told IWPR that the work was a pure formality, and the new employees were receiving the money for doing nothing.

“In actual fact, they do no work”, he said. “They are simply registered as employed and get wages.”

The apartment block has a central heating system, and is served by guards, cooks and maids round the clock, all free of charge. This prosperity is causing resentment among other locals.

Life is tough in the Georgian villages a short distance from Kheiti, and the locals do not conceal their anger at the luxuries being enjoyed by the Ossetian arrivals.

“We are nearly starving,” said Robinzon Babutsidze, 51, who is unemployed and lives in the village of Kvemo Anchabeti. “We can’t find jobs. We used to make a living by selling apples. But the Tskhinvali road has been closed for a long time, and taking apples to the market by the detour road is too expensive.

“Instead of helping us, they brought in Ossetians to Kheiti, who live there as if they were presidents. Is this what we fought for in the Nineties?”

Georgia’s Showcase in South Ossetia
http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=342149&apc_state=henfcrs342276

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

Beautiful pictures, though taking pleasure from them does make me feel a bit guilty. I wonder how distant a war needs to be before aesthetics win over compassion?

Looks like Russia isn't backing off any time soon. I'm guessing this will end with regime change in Tbilisi, and yet more bleating about Western hypocrisy in protesting this when it's just the same as Milosevic in the Hague. I wouldn't fancy being Saakashvili right now. He either flees exposing him for a western stooge (cue more bleating) or, what? What happens to renegades sent to answer to Moscow these days?

On the other hand, Ivanov is on telly just now absolutely denying that Russian troops will cross into Georgia-proper. It's like Schrödinger's Cat in there.

For someone who gives a crap about background and context: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200011/kaplan-georgia

Good historical info arguing that this Caucasus region was never wholly "Western"... before getting more recent

belgravia comes out of retirement for this:

http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/georgia_on_my_mind.html

Noticed that as well. (And have been tartly dealing with a commenter who is resolutely missing the point.)

That Atlantic article is fantastic

Surprisingly informative Dealbreaker forum on the conflict in 2 parts:

http://dealbreaker.com/2008/08/qa_on_wtf_is_going_on_with_rus.php
http://dealbreaker.com/2008/08/qa_on_wtf_is_going_on_with_rus_1.php

so what is russia actually trying to do here?

assert territorial hegemony

is western military involvement still unlikely?

hell yes.

no one in the west is sending their army over there no way in hell

although it's funny that we gotta give up some of our fighting buddies in iraq.

Khalilzad indicating US is gonna play the Hezbollah-style cleanup role here. There are some noises about G-8 action, but it seems dependent on what Russia does now (i.e. on Abkhazia?) and not all that likely.

Good job by former NY corporate lawyer (and Columbia Law grad) Saakashvili, but it's not like Putin isn't being a dick and taking full advantage

So from the little I've read it seems as if Georgia were totally banking on the US/NATO coming in to boost their numbers when they started this off. And of course that hasnt happened (did they forget Iraq was going on or something?), and Russia have issued smackdown and I just read an article quoting some Georgian soldiers saying "we have democracy and this is how the US repays us, by spitting on us, where are they?".

I am finding this all a little confusing but I'm sure I'm not the only one.

More context: Greenwald interviews Pro. Charles King.

"Mr Saakashvilli may also have banked on support from his closest ally, US president George W Bush, whose administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours. "

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2529986/Georgia-conflict-Screams-of-the-injured-rise-from-residential-streets.html

so who really knows.

If its true BushCo quietly said "go git em, it'll be a pushover and we'll back you up" and are now standing back and ignoring the whole thing, thats pretty damn cunty.

ya, not like him at all.

LOL well, I certainly wasn't suggesting it was a suprise.

I spent most of yesterday telling people here (Moscow) that I found it absolutely unimaginable that what everyone here believes -- that Saakashvili would've never ordered an attack without the full and explicit support of Washington -- was simply unimaginable. That Bush, given everything else he has going on in the world, plus his abysmal approval ratings, would approve military action by an unstable government in a tiny country that would be *guaranteed* to enrage the Kremlin (and, in the height of bad taste, do it just as the Olympics were beginning). No sale.

The front page article on one of the business papers here yesterday called on the government to raze Georgia's infrastructure and throw the country into chaos, otherwise the world community would never give Russia the respect it deserves (and virtually in that language). Admittedly you didn't read that everywhere, but that's a publication focused on business news.

From the beloved Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...easefire.html#

One pro-government tabloid, Tvoi Den, claimed that President Saakashvili made a suicide attempt because he realised the war was lost.

'His bodyguard knocked the gun out of his hand at the very last moment,' said the paper, which also claimed the 40-yearold president was mentally ill and spiced its report with lurid allegations about his sex life.

Thanks for committing nationalistic suicide first! If the Larson post that Belgravia linked to is accurate - most def. worth reading here - http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/08/09/georgia-and-russia/ - then Mr. Saakashvili has been anticipating this for a hell of a long time:

Soon after taking office, he succeeded in regaining Georgian control over the southwestern province of Ajara. Then, in the summer of 2004, citing growing banditry and chaos, he sent Interior Ministry troops into South Ossetia. After a series of inconclusive clashes, the troops were forced to make a humiliating withdrawal.

Not to mention the April 21st phone call Belgravia claims in which Putin explicitly warned Saaky to knock it off or else. I can't sympathize much for Saaky or his WSJ op-eds asking for Western intervention now - only with the Georgian people

Unless, of course, the rumors of an American bait-&-switch re: NATO are actually true. Then I can sympathize with Saaky. Still not advisable to go around kicking waking bears though, is it?

That Belgravia post again, which is excellent: http://www.belgraviadispatch.com/2008/08/georgia_on_my_mind.html

Man, I just hope we're not in the early days of some Threads-like situation.

From the Greenwald inteview with Charles King to which I linked above:

GG: One of the things that's a little difficult to understand is this idea that Georgia miscalculated what would be Russia's response. I mean, hasn't Russia been fairly unequivocal in the past, including the recent past, about that fact that they did intend to defend those provinces from incursions by Georgia, or an attempt to sort of take away their semi-autonomous status. It is really a surprise that Russia reacted the way that it did?

CK: Well, it's not a terrible surprise, but I think you also have to look at things from the Georgian perspective. Over the last several years, Georgia has become increasingly convinced that it's a real partner of the United States, that the US would defend Georgia - practically regardless of what Georgia did - that Georgia was simply reasserting control over bits of territory that are still internationally recognized as Georgia's own.
--------------------

Given the US's precarious condition militarily - where we're occupying two countries, fighting two wars - versus Russia's strength, and then you look at the aspect of soft power or moral credibility, there's that exchange in the UN where the US ambassador to the UN said that Russia had intended 'regime change' in Georgia, to which the Russian ambassador replied that that was an American concept, obviously referencing Iraq. Even if the US were inclined to do more, and Georgia's expectations of what we would do had been accurate, what would really our options be to intervene in any meaningful way in this conflict in a way that would influence Russia?

CK: Well, it would be absolutely impossible, I think. A great deal at this stage, in strict technical terms, not to mention the possibility of escalating what is really a very, a rather small and localized, however tragic, conflict into a confrontation between two major world nuclear powers. I mean, one can't imagine that scenario unless Russia pushes things much farther forward. I do think at the stage the ball is really in Russia's court.

From the US perspective, this is of course an illegal operation, it wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations, it doesn't fall under any kind of UN Security Council mandate, but so far, in fact the Russians have exercised a degree of restraint - that is to say, you haven't see, at least as of this morning, bombing of major Georgian cities. A few pieces of munitions seem to have gone astray, the city of Gori was hit, there may be some indications the city of Zugdidi, which is near the border with another secessionist entity, may have been hit. But these are cities are very near the zone of conflict.

yeah we don't have much of a leg to stand on here. Thanks, dubya.

administration is said to have given tacit support for a Georgian assault on South Ossetia in the believe that the territory could be recaptured within 48 hours.

i have no idea if that's true, but it would obviously fit the bush administration pattern: giving thumbs-up to israel to go into lebanon, encouraging abbas to crack down on hamas. the fact that these things keep turning out badly doesn't seem to prevent the next one from being tried. (it's like they've absorbed the seinfeld mantra: no learning!)

and of course, everybody is always hitler. you'd think if you were looking for a historical analogy to russia invading georgia you'd start with russia invading georgia. but hitler's more fun. appeasing appeasers and the appeasers who appease them.

nobody gives a crap about background or context.

Speak for yourself.

I'm speaking for the 99.9% of the people who watch CNN or BBC who have very little interest in hearing about anything other than the body count. (I am in the other 0.1%, or couldn't you tell)

It's fairly obvious why the news coverage is one-sided -- Combatant A kills more people than Combatant B, so cue pictures of dead bodies and accusations of a "disproportionate response" (the catchphrase that gets trotted out in all the armed conflicts these days) on the part of Combatant A. I'm not taking sides here or saying that the fighting is justified, but picking sides solely based on the body count is stupid and meaningless. But of course, if news broadcasts aren't going to bother with background and context, then there's not much else to go on when they decide to pick sides.

From the two-part dealbreaker link above:

13. Since Americans of all political stripes like to think of themselves as the center of the world, is this something Bush caused?
"Amazingly, it isn't. How nice to be able to blame Stalin instead of Bush for once!"

Worth bearing in mind. Saakashvili shouldn't have been expecting the western cavalry to ride to the rescue:
1. There was no US fleet stationed off the Georgian coast
2. The US army is otherwise engaged in Iraq and elsewhere
3. It's the Russkis, for goodness' sake
No, it was a gamble on a quick knockout blow, with a backup of swift withdrawal to the moral high ground. So far, all going to plan (plan B, anyway)

The leftish parts of the UK press are as usual disgracing themselves by pinning all the blame on Bush/the West. Honestly, that 'me, me, me' attitude bugs me beyond belief. I'm embarrassed by these people - it's one of the most racist things I can think of, to always deny other people the right to be autonomous actors.

which is the most up to date news source online that people are using? reuters? the poxy guardian seems to only want to update itself once every 5 hours while bbc news seems more concerned with the olympics.

I'm speaking for the 99.9% of the people who watch CNN or BBC who have very little interest in hearing about anything other than the body count. (I am in the other 0.1%, or couldn't you tell)

please go fuck yourself into a flooded ditch and lie there for a week or two.

I know I work with a bunch of exceptionally BRAINY UPPER CRUST high school graduates and such but when the dallas cowboys fan from gettysburg pennsylvania next to me schools me on a nation's natural resources I have a sneaky suspicion that for once in the history of man your really lovely assumptions about what the rest of a language's speakers know and care about might be a little bit, ahem, OFF

which is the most up to date news source online that people are using? reuters? the poxy guardian seems to only want to update itself once every 5 hours while bbc news seems more concerned with the olympics.

This throws up good links every so often.

danger room over @ wired is doing a bang-up job, and balloon juice has some good commentary (for us idiots who don't care about anything besides tv dinners and ufc pay-per-view)

Somebody in Georgia has to get hold of Saakashvili and stop him appearing on television every five minutes, he appears to have lost his marbles. I got in late last night to see Saakashvili, the president of a sovereign state, sitting in what appeared to be storage room, with some minor BBC guy, stabbing at a tiny map of Georgia with a fountain pen while rambling away some nonsense that contradicted what he'd just said half-an-hour earlier.

5 minutes later, switch over to Sky and who do I see but Saakashvili again, talking to some slip of a girl who'd obv. never interviewed anyone more important than a member of some boyband on the red carpet outside a film premiere in Leicester Square

yes, somebody tell the leader of a tiny, war-torn and apparently all of a sudden completely insignificant state (lol oil pipelines amirite) he needs to behave himself on british television

PS fuck putin btw I hope castro outlives him

Pupkin vs. Putin fite

finally get some good links and the whole thing suddenly finishes.

thanks for the links though chaps.

Wow, Tom, you have smart co-workers, give yourself a pat on the back. Of course that has nothing to do with the point I made, which (rephased) is this: the news broadcasts would show something other than explosions and body counts if that's what a majority of their viewership wanted to see. Which is why everyone is going out of their way on this thread to link to commentaries and reports that go beyond the basic "X number of people have died, fighting is bad" three-minute nuggets wedged between updates on the Olympics.

that's a criticism of network news, then, and not the general populace, where the comment you made is pretty explicitly against the general populace, as opposed to you, possibly the seventeenth smartest man alive

I mean if you're going to belong to some elite hundred thousandth of the public you might as well think a little about how you phrase things

Last I checked, the general populace are the people who watch the network news. If more people had the tolerance or the desire to hear something more than the most superficial coverage of a conflict like this, then that's what TV would provide them with.

ok well whatever I said ten minutes before whatever you said, I'm right and you're a prick