Putin has just accused the US of orchestrating the Georgian war

To benefit one of it's Presidential candidates. That sounds like a "dirty" thing to do to me and since it's been said repeatedly all week that Obama "just isn't dirty enough". If what he says is true, I wonder who he could he possibly mean?


http://edition.cnn.com/20...index.html

SOCHI, Russia (CNN) -- Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia to benefit one of its presidential election candidates.
Russian PM Vladimir Putin has accused the U.S. of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia.

Russian PM Vladimir Putin has accused the U.S. of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

In an exclusive interview with CNN's Matthew Chance in the Black Sea city of Sochi Thursday, Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia.

Putin told CNN his defense officials had told him it was done to benefit a presidential candidate -- Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are competing to succeed George W. Bush -- although he presented no evidence to back it up.

U.S. State Department deputy spokesman Robert Wood labeled Putin's statement "ludicrous."

"Russia is responsible for the crisis," Wood said at his off-camera meeting with reporters in Washington on Thursday.

"For the Russians to say they are not responsible for what happened in Georgia is ludicrous... Russia is to blame for this crisis and the world is responding to what Russia has done."

When told that many diplomats in the United States and Europe blame Russia for provoking the conflict and for invading Georgia, Putin said Russia had no choice but to invade Georgia after dozens of its peacekeepers in South Ossetia were killed. He told Chance it was to avert a human calamity. iReport.com: First-person accounts from the center of the conflict

The former Russian president, still considered the most powerful man in the country, said he was disappointed the U.S. had not done more to stop Georgia's attack.
Don't Miss

* Analysis: A new Cold War -- or more hot air?
* Cheney trip to Georgia planned before crisis
* Special: Georgia Crisis

Putin recalled he was watching the situation in Georgia and South Ossetia unfold when he was at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympic Games on August 8.

He said he spoke spoke to U.S. President George W. Bush, also attending, who told the Russian prime minister he didn't want war -- but Putin spoke to CNN of his disappointment that the U.S. administration didn't do more to stop the Georgia early in the conflict.

Also Thursday Putin announced economic measures which he said were unrelated to the fighting with Georgia. Nineteen U.S. poultry meat companies would be banned from exporting their products to Russia because they had failed health and safety tests, and 29 other companies had been warned to improve their standards or face the same ban, Putin said.

Putin said Russia's health and agricultural ministries had randomly tested the poultry products and found them to be full of antibiotics and arsenic.

While Putin repeated that the bans were not related to the Georgian conflict, they indicate the measures some Western countries -- particularly in Europe -- fear if Russia goes on a diplomatic offensive. Video Watch analysis of Russia's relationship with the West. »

Russia is trying to counterbalance mounting pressure from the West over its military action in Georgia and its recognition of the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

But Russia's hopes of winning international support for its actions in Georgia were dashed Thursday, when China and other Asian nations expressed concern about tension in the region.

The joint declaration from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which includes China, Russia, Tajikistan, Kyrgystan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, said the countries hoped any further conflict could be resolved peacefully. Video Watch more on rising tensions between Russia and the West. »

"The presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the principles of respect for historic and cultural traditions of every country and efforts aimed at preserving the unity of a state and its territorial integrity," the declaration said, The Associated Press reported.

"Placing the emphasis exclusively on the use of force has no prospects and hinders a comprehensive settlement of local conflicts," AP reported the group as saying.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev had appealed to the SCO at a summit Thursday in Tajikistan Thursday to support its actions, saying it would serve as a "serious signal for those who are trying to justify the aggression."Video Watch Medvedev explain his reasoning to CNN »
advertisement

On Wednesday a U.S. ship carrying aid docked in Georgia, while Britain's Foreign Secretary David Miliband traveled to the Ukraine, which is worried about Russia's intentions in the region, to offer the UK's support.

Miliband equated Moscow's offensive in Georgia with the Soviet tanks that invaded Czechoslovakia to crush the Prague Spring democratic reforms in 1968, and demanded Russia "change course," AP reported.

My understanding is that the Bush administration told Russia we would not interfere with an invasion of Georgia, but told the Georgian president we were on Georgia's side.

Apparently, we never told Georgia that we would not stop Russia from invading them, so Georgia felt they were safe in sending troops to South Ossetia.

Maybe the Bush administration is just plan incompetent.

Or, maybe they threw Georgia in the grease to give McCain an opportunity to look presidential.

Once again, the BEST thing you can say about the Bush administration is that they are fuck-ups.

Byron said:

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the United States of orchestrating the conflict in Georgia to benefit one of its presidential election candidates...although he presented no evidence to back it up.

How convenient for him lol ...

http://emptywheel.firedog...setia-too/

The White House has started to panic over a July 9 meeting between Condi Rice and Mikheil Saakashvili, desperate to suggest they didn't encourage Georgia's crack-down in South Ossetia. Given that panic, I wonder whether Karl Rove had any similar chats with Saakashvili when they were in Yalta together just days later?

Now, there's been a lot of justified chatter about the role of Randy Scheunemann, who appears to be advising the Republic of Georgia at the same time as he provides campaign advice to John McCain.

Sen. John McCain's top foreign policy adviser prepped his boss for an April 17 phone call with the president of Georgia and then helped the presumptive Republican presidential nominee prepare a strong statement of support for the fledgling republic.

The day of the call, a lobbying firm partly owned by the adviser, Randy Scheunemann, signed a $200,000 contract to continue providing strategic advice to the Georgian government in Washington.

Given the way McCain has boasted of his frequent calls to Saakashvili in attempts to reclaim the mantle of the best international leader, it raises questions of whether the Administration's "see no evil" approach to Georgia was part of a deliberate campaign strategy.

Particularly when you consider the fact that Karl Rove may have met with Saakashvili just days after the July 9 private dinner between Condi and Saakashvili that the White House, State, and DOD are now panicking about. Rove was in the neighborhood, in Yalta, at a conference with Saakashvili three days after the meeting (h/t brendanx).

09:30 – 11:00 – Plenary session: Elections in Russia and the USA: impact on Ukraine and Europe

What will be the foreign policy of the new Russian and American leadership over the coming years? How will it impact their relationship with the European Union and Ukraine, and EU’s further enlargement?

Moderator: Richard Haass
Panel: Sergey Glaziev, Director, Institute for New Economy, member of the 1st, 3rd and 4th Russian State Duma
Kostyantyn Gryshchenko, Ambassador to the Russian Federation and First Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine
Alexander Rahr, Programme Director, German Council on Foreign Relations, member of the Board of YES
Karl Rove, Former Deputy Chief of Staff to George W. Bush and Chief Strategist for Bush's Presidential Campaigns
Bob Shrum, political consultant and Senior Fellow, Wagner Graduate School of Public Service, New York University

I mean, given that Rove was talking about the upcoming election as Saakashvili was walking in the room, it sure does make you wonder whether Rove said anything to Saakashvili about how a firmer hand in South Ossetia might help Georgia ensure its strong relationship with the US going forward. (And who would look to Bob Shrum, whose only value is in making Mark Penn look like slightly less of an electoral failure, to comment on US politics?)

I'll say this: the Administration is even more desperate to push back against claims that they encouraged Georgia's initial crackdown than you'd think they would be (compare, for example, their response to claims we gave Israel the go-ahead to invade Lebanon in 2006 or bomb Syria in 2007, and their response to claims that we encouraged Maliki to crack down on Basra). There's something going on--and given Karl Rove's presence close to the scene of the crime, I've got my suspicions.

SupaFunkyOrgangrinderSexy said:

I believe Putin too!! Thats why I was glad they did attack!!

What else is new?

Well, we DID sell Georgia the weapons and tell them we had their back. Man, they must be PISSED at us right now!

Prince.org: Your home for wacky left-wing conspiracy theories.

Accujack said:

Prince.org: Your home for wacky left-wing conspiracy theories.

It's self bordering self loathing to believe that these politicians aren't all playa's. Putin is KGB. He's not playing angles. He doesn't bring up the election by accident.
Georgia has one of the biggest deposits of oil in the area. Money. Russia isn't interested in money? Let's say Georgia killed a dozen people or two dozen...are going to invade another country for that?
If the US went to war for that, some would say we were being bullies or overreacted because of ego.

I support the following:


http://exiledonline.com/s...dont-know/

RUSSIA
SOUTH OSSETIA: THE WAR WE DON’T KNOW
By Mark Ames
Posted on: August 15th, 2008

Five days after Georgia invaded and seized the breakaway separatist region of South Ossetia, sparking a larger-scale Russian invasion to drive Georgian forces back and punish their leaders, Russia surprised its Western detractors by calling a halt to the country’s offensive. After all, the mainstream media, egged on by hawkish neocon pundits and their candidate John McCain, had everyone believing that Russia was hellbent on the full-scale annihilation and annexation of democratic Georgia.

But then came Tuesday’s cease-fire announcement–and we’re now forced to ask ourselves serious questions about the recent conflict: what really started it, how dangerous was it and what, with serious careful consideration, could be done to prevent it from turning into a worst-case scenario?

Up until now, this war was framed as a simple tale of Good Helpless Democratic Guy Georgia versus Bad Savage Fascist Guy Russia. In fact, it is far more complex than this, morally and historically. Then there are two concentric David and Goliath narratives here. The initial war pitted the Goliath Georgia–a nation of 4.4 million, with vastly superior numbers, equipment and training thanks to US and Israeli advisers–against David-Ossetia, with a population of between 50,000-70,000 and a local militia force that is barely battalion strength. Reports coming out of South Ossetia tell of Georgian rockets and artillery leveling every building in the capital city, Tskhinvali, and of Georgian troops lobbing grenades into bomb shelters and basements sheltering women and children. Although true casualty figures are hard to come by, reports that up to 2,000 Ossetians, mostly civilians, were killed are certainly believable, given the intensity of the initial Georgian bombardment, the wanton destruction of the city and surrounding regions and the generally savage nature of Caucasus warfare, a very personal game where old rules apply.

But you don’t hear about this story from the Western media. Indeed, you hear little if anything about the Ossetians, who seem to hardly exist in the West’s eyes, even though their grievance is the root cause of this war.

While Russia and America see the conflict in abstract terms about spheres of influence and protecting allies, for Ossetians, who still recall the centuries of massacres Georgians committed against them, it is highly personal. They will still recall the Georgian massacres in the early 1920s, when Georgia was briefly independent, which exterminated up to 8 percent of the Ossetian population. In 1990, when Georgia was again moving towards independence, the ultranationalist leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia abolished Ossetia’s limited autonomy, leading to another Ossetian rebellion that was only quelled by a peace agreement signed by Georgia, Russia and the Ossetians. Gamsakhurdia was subsequently deposed, and Georgia’s ethnic chauvinism was shelved until the rise of current president Mikhail Saakashvili in 2003.

Ossetians have traditionally relied on their powerful northern neighbor Russia for protection against Georgia. The Georgians, in turn, have tried to counter Russian hegemony, for which they are no match, by aligning closely with the United States, finding friendly ears among old cold warriors and Bush-era neocons.

When he first rose to prominence, the American-educated Saakashvili was often referred to as “Georgia’s Vladimir Zhirinovsky”–the Russian ultranationalist firebrand who once promised to retake Alaska. Although Saakashvili was subsequently rebranded as a Euro-democrat, he promised to reunite Georgia and bring his separatist regions to heel, by force if necessary, whether the aggrieved ethnic groups liked it or not.

At the root of this conflict is a clash of two twentieth-century guiding principles in international relations. Georgia, backed by the West, is claiming its right as a sovereign nation to control the territory within its borders, a guiding principle since World War II. The Ossetians are claiming their right to self-determination, a guiding principle since World War I.

These two guiding concepts for international relations–national sovereignty and the right to self-determination–are locked in a zero-sum battle in Georgia. Sometimes, the West takes the side of national sovereignty, as it is in the current war; other times, it sides with self-determination and redrawing of national borders, such as with Kosovo.

In that 1999 war, the United States led a nearly three-month bombing campaign of Serbia in order to rescue a beleaguered minority, the Albanians, and carve out a new nation. Self-determination trumped national sovereignty, over the objections of Russia, China and numerous other countries.

Why, Russians and Ossetians (not to mention separatist Abkhazians in Georgia’s western region) ask, should the same principle not be applied to them?

The answer is clear: because we say so. That sort of logic, in an era of colossal American decline and simultaneous Russian resurgence, no longer works on the field.

But sadly, this news hasn’t been conveyed to neocon hawks like Robert Kagan or to John McCain, who seem to still be living in 2002, when American military power was seen as the answer to all the world’s problems. There is even evidence to suggest that America encouraged Saakashvili to think he could solve this conflict by war. Ever since 2002, when American Green Berets dropped into Georgia to train its troops against phantom Al Qaeda cells, the Bush Administration has drawn the former Soviet nation closer into what appeared to be a military alliance, culminating in Georgia’s 2,000-man contribution to the Iraq coalition forces (the third-largest contingent), and American joint training exercises in July, just a few weeks before Georgia’s blitzkrieg attack on South Ossetia. In the UN, Russian attempts in the early hours of the war to pass a resolution calling for a cease-fire were shot down by American and British diplomats, who objected to the clause calling on both sides to “renounce violence”–exactly Saakashvili’s position.

The question we must ask is: Are we willing to risk war, including nuclear holocaust, in order to fulfill the aspirations of Mikhail Saakashvili? While Bush and McCain speak of Saakashvili as if he’s a combination of Thomas Jefferson and Nelson Mandela, he’s seen by his own people as increasingly authoritarian and unbalanced. Last year, Saakashvili sent in his special forces to violently disperse opposition protesters in the capital city, followed by a declaration of martial law. He sacked the opposition television station (partly owned by Rupert Murdoch), exiled or jailed his political opponents, and stacked the courts with his own judges while removing neutral observers, leaving even onetime neocon cheerleaders like Bruce Jackson and Anne Applebaum feeling queasy. Hardly the image of the “small democratic nation” that everyone today touts.

The Russian response has, of course, been disproportionate and heavy-handed–exactly what’s to be expected of them ever since Boris Yeltsin first showed the world how post-Soviet Russia fights its wars, starting with Chechnya in 1994. Georgia has been terrorized by indiscriminate aerial bombing and the constant threat of invasion by a vastly superior Russian force–eerily reminiscent of NATO’s campaign against Serbia in 1999. Indeed, many observers believe that the current Russian response is a direct blowback of the Kosovo campaign, which is why there are so many similarities.

But what is the best way to respond? The neocons and even CNN reports talk about exploring military options, which is absurd given the consequences of war with nuclear-armed Russia. Woofing loudly like John McCain is likely to prove as effective as Bush’s woofing did with North Korea, before he was forced to crawl back to the negotiating table.

In fact, one of the most effective ways America could respond to this crisis is by rethinking its entire geopolitical approach of the past two decades, which has been hegemonic, arrogant, hypocritical and reckless. If we set a better example, then we could at least reclaim the moral authority, or “soft power,” that we once had.

Instead, we’ve left the world other more brutal lessons about geopolitical power and how to use it, and the Russians are showing they’ve learned from us well. One lesson they learned from Kosovo is that when you bomb a petty nationalist leader like Saakashvili or Milosevic, eventually–when the cease-fire is called and the sense of defeat settles in–the nationalist firebrand who brought them to defeat pays with his seat in power.

This article first appeared in The Nation.

I'm still trying to understand exactly WHAT is it in Georgia that gives us (the US) such an important stake...I've seen Condi Rice over the last 8 years bring up Georgia again and again when she makes diplomatic negotiation trips here overseas...it has usually been along the lines of "we won't give up Georgia"...or something to that effect. First of all, why have we had our hands in Georgian affairs for all this time, and what does Georgia mean to us strategically...? We've (admittedly) been dipping and dabbling over there doing SOMETHING, the thing is I just don't know what...

Ottensen said:

Well...and then there's this:


John McCain aide's dual roles intersect
Randy Scheunemann is a former lobbyist for Georgia, a country the candidate strongly supports in its crisis.
By Bob Drogin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 17, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Randy Scheunemann operated for years deep inside Republican foreign policy circles, a burly, bearded lobbyist with powerful patrons, neoconservative credentials and little public profile.



http://www.latimes.com/ne...6734.story

Measure in Love
"May the voice of the child in you never stop speaking. May it fall like a gift from heaven, offering to dessicated words its splendorous burst of laugher, the salt of its tears, its all powerful wildness." Maurice Blanchot

OIL of course - just as Tremolina exlained - except that the 'Democracy' card is just a trick to get the oil imo.

Ottensen said:

I'm still trying to understand exactly WHAT is it in Georgia that gives us (the US) such an important stake...I've seen Condi Rice over the last 8 years bring up Georgia again and again when she makes diplomatic negotiation trips here overseas...it has usually been along the lines of "we won't give up Georgia"...or something to that effect. First of all, why have we had our hands in Georgian affairs for all this time, and what does Georgia mean to us strategically...? We've (admittedly) been dipping and dabbling over there doing SOMETHING, the thing is I just don't know what...