313 ::: Leonid Korogodski ::: (view all by) ::: August 18, 2008, 11:44 AM:
Maria #306:
So Georgia state is much more young than Ossetians.
Are you kidding me? The united Georgian kingdom existed since 1008 AD uninterrupted until 1812 AD when it was incorporated into Russia. Before that, the eastern Georgian kingdom (Kartli-Iberia) existed since around 300 BC. And the western Georgian kingdom (Colchis) existed since the 13th century BC. Kartli-Iberia was one of the first states in the world to convert to Christianity in 327 AD and possibly even in 317 AD.
Well, I possibly said about the final state of this nation as.
Well, since I consulted with Dad (his a doctor of electronic sience, but fonds of history as well- can you imagine in a KGB ruled country were people are barbarians (as from the words of current Georgian leader).
The most aincient states Iberia and Colhida were the most close relatives to Spanish Basks, and tend to move to Caucasus. Thus we have to close nations in the opposite sides of Europe.
Ossetians have yet a veri aincent history, going from Alans.
HA, I know,I've gone too far))
Madyars are from Volga river.
I have just to stop my deeping back in history.
You're right.
Russian is a mix with tatars (damn, they are).
In what you can really help me- is to overcome and say some calming words, about MacKeinfobia. PRO means, may be attacking Moscow. I'm afraid about the lives of my children(( I mean, you have more rational vision and real facts.
#37 ::: Ursula L ::: (view all by) ::: August 17, 2008, 12:29 PM:
“This is for America. This is for NATO. This is for Bush.â€
It seems unfortunate that the poor Georgians get to be the recipients of bombs so clearly intended for other targets.
Note to people with weapons. If you know your bombs/bullets will hit half a planet from your intended target, why bother to fire?
It is for approved escalation of conflicts all over the world for ations of not one but many parties (I mean governments and pseudo-organisation who can't care less about troubles of ordinary people and inactions of others).
One wise man said- do not be afraid of enemies, they will show you your weak points to be improved. Be afraid of indifferent people - with their condonation the most disastors crimes in the world are committed.
I wish the world has the hope with the people like you
But remember all innocent people here should be accounted for
#306 ::: Keith ::: (view all by) ::: August 17, 2008, 08:24 AM:
Keith, thank you for the weight and reasonable answer.
All we have to do about this conflict, is to wate and be wise enough.
About Putins KGB background.
You're a kind of a patriot of your country, and even, if you are not agree with all the aspects of your government its very good of you to understand that democracy is unavoidable.
And the Russians understand this, too.
The only thing that is disputable, is that Putin behave himself like a KGB monster, trying to pull the things back to the state of 1980-s.
The style of our government is already becoming more democratic, we have different parties. All people and journalist have the fredom of speach. One of th reasons, why Putin was elected not once- is the conomic stability and this freedom, that people received.
Some may say that Eltsin was a good point for democravy. But real facts says, that even democratic leader may lead its country to starving and economic defolt, if he is a poor and inadequate leader.
I want all people know (I have written about this before) that I lived during eltsin was ruling, this was the real "genocid", all in all, russian women didn't give born to children, because they were afraid, they won't be able to raise them.
Apparently, my father was a democrat (not communist nor socialist), he is a doctor of sience. Their electronical institute didn't work, he had to go to plant to earn money.
He tried to elect anybody else, than Eltsin, but
he can do nothing of this monster to come back again.
I do not deny, that some of Eltsins actions were good- just give freedom to former USSR countries at the beginning of his ruling period.
Things are improving this times. And all over Putins hysteria in the western coiuntries are not reasonable. Though not all his steps are appreciated by me and my husband
29 ::: albatross ::: (view all by) ::: August 16, 2008, 10:44 PM:
Albatross, I'm a kind of agreen with you. I'm not so good at financial market, but I'm an economist.
From the perspective of a consumer market, the China also depends on USA today.
Their average income is veru low, while industrial power have climbing up quicker in the past years. They have a well-developed trading realationships with the USA, whose customers have much greater spendings.
And its cheaepr to export to USA, rather than to other countries.
At leasy their dependance from export-import trading with western countries will prevent them from chnging the current position on the financial market, too.
#32 ::: Bacchus ::: (view all by) ::: August 17, 2008, 04:10 AM:
Bacchus
Like in many countries, there are different people. I'm from Russia and dare say that you should visit some of official sites better.
We have many respectful people, who even critisize Medvedev and make their conversation in more reasonable way.
For me I'm glad to find this site, where people at a very high level exchange different sources and try to form out independent view on th topic.
Thinking reasonably, I'm closer to the position, that we can't deny the fact, that both Russian and USA rpesidents believe, they are the only ruling powers in the world.
Unfortunately, Bush, as a real power tried to invest in Saakashvilly. I know for sure, it was not the right choice. He is at a high extent selfish and ambicious, he would probably spent USA investments in the way, involving his personal interest.
The ruling leaders of the world (including Russians, they are no except) have to start understanding, that they are responsible (due to their status) for the stability in the world, becoming more and more fredgile.
Of cause, in another topic on this forum, I behaved myself more radically.
Sorry for that.
Because Russians see in this action of Saakashvilly more powerfull green-light, given by Bush to struggle against Russia. May be this is not reasonable, and we are not to be threatened, but when military camps are set all around Russia, this seems to be s sign of unfriendly action from the side of NATO. Who knows (thats the fought of an ordinary Russian), for what purpose they were established. May be Bush is going to bomb us, to establish the world only ruling power.
Would you please help me on this patalogical reasoning. Because I'm an adequate person, and I don't want to fall into hysteria.
Please, comment on this, I appreciate you point of view,, thanks.
#301 ::: Terry Karney ::: (view all by) ::: August 16, 2008, 02:38 PM:
Thank you very much for response.
The thing that today I'm concerned about is that civil people again became the victims of political leaders manipulation.
Ilike georgian people and wish they finally receive their aid, whoever will bring it.
The reports are coming each hour- in Gori the local robbers steal this aid from the people, and local government can do nothing about it. In Zugdidy is a better situation.
Believe me, I don't approve the actions of USSR in Czekh republic, 1968 and Afganistan. But today we have another story- till the current month I didn't hear a word in press nor any actions of Russia's interest in the territories of Georgia or any other countries. This country now is too conctious about its internall economic stabillity.
Now I have not pro-russian (history shows we were not always right), but today we have seen on TV that:
GEORGIAN MINISTER THREATENS OSSETIAN and georgian, that have Russian passports, that they will be either killed, or at least pushed from their territory.
If anybody reads this, please, what are the actions of Russia to be, if such speach is adressed to the people, supposed to be its citizens.
Thank you.
#266 ::: Leonid Korogodski ::: (view all by) ::: August 14, 2008, 05:12 PM:
On the matter of Crimea:
Note, however, that attempts to organize a separatist movement in Crimea have failed. Whatever the history and the demographics, the Crimean population doesn't want to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
I can't talk for people in Crimea. May be this is true.
But the same true thing, and you can find info in the net, that civil people establish real struggle with NATO troops to avoid their establishing military base this May, 2008. Their actions were supported by the local government.
If people, part of the nation themselves go out to prevent NATO troops and called them "invaders", why do NATO insist on democratic and military aid. Its looks like establishing collonies.
And about democracy in the USA, from our side it looks so sttractive, many europians (including Russians) left our country for comfortable life in th USA.
For me, as I will say again- I respect USA as an economical power and many other things. But unfortunetly, I can't say, whether the DEMOCRACY in USA contributes to this power,
By the way, Bush is not a from a democratic party
Please help me on this question, because untill today I could form my vision on things like Oruell books.
#297 ::: John L ::: (view all by) ::: August 16, 2008, 08:54 AM
I never make comment as to call you naive.
The only naive is David writing about donations,
execuse me, if I made you belive that I assessed you as naive person.
And, naive person would not refer to Gorbachev, I suppose. You probably want to make decisions after having reviewed different sources.
But many words was said about Russian expansion.
Than, what do you think about American involvment. If they are so intrested in Georgia safety, they must be intrested in peace in Ossetia too.
May be some steps were done, but I have not got the information. If you have one, would you please provide me with the reference.
Thank you.
I'm not as pro-Russian as you might think, but as you might notice that I even proceeded with a bounch of criticism to eltsin regime and neither I approve the hesitating position of Medvedev in most cases.
My main idea, that neither of leaders of Russia wants to restore USSR.
Still, you may be surprised, but all former USSR had migrated inside former RSFSR and Moscow, gerorgians, armenian, other nations, Ukraine massively moved to Russia to find here support and to make business. Still this countries are already independent and nobody interefers their government. But people feels more comfortable and safe here.
The main problem, as I can see, is that Westen countries apply to "interfering in the integrity of Georgia". This intergrity practically means not a unit of equal nations. Georgian people always think a lot about their nation (like about elite) and their only desire in this conflict was to get reed of ossetians and abkhazians (they even thought about them as about lower level naitons).
I'm not pro-russian in all espects, but I accuse the NATO, who may practically give support to peaceful outcome of the conflict (about which Bush was well informed) by plainly not providing such various help to non-adequate people (like Saakashvilly), they may introduce more thoughtful leader in this country of their interest.
Many resources in net and press showed, that Saakshvilly was ambicious and inadequate far before this conflict had broken out. An this "beast" was fed up by Bush support.
One french writer, former pilot of the second World War2 (you definetly know about whom I'm saying) wrote: We are in charge of those whom we have tamed.
I should ask you and everybody, whether NATO could and should have known the conflict and turn it peaceful outcome.
It is high time we treated Russia's post-Soviet leaders as responsible adults representing a legitimate national interest, rather than assuming the stereotypical worst.
IT WAS said by UK professional journalist and (as I have very poor language, I will agree with her observation)
Extract from INDEPENDENT UK
Mary Dejevsky: Russia the bad guys? Who are the West trying to kid?
Friday, 15 August 2008
m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk
Well, Russia did not have long to worry about losing its reputation as backyard bully. Within hours, the United States envoy to Georgia was spinning a whole new myth to the BBC about how it was only decisive US intervention – by which he presumably meant the warplanes laden with humanitarian aid by then ostentatiously parked at Tbilisi airport – that the mighty erstwhile Red Army had been turned back.
The many Georgians who had counted on more timely and robust assistance from their US protector surely laughed a bitter laugh. But there were signs, with the arrival of the US Secretary of State in Georgia, that this version was gaining hold. The story of this war, it seems, will be that the US faced down a snarling, expansionist Russia, and forced it to limp back to its lair.
This is a travesty. But it is only the latest and most glaring in a series of Western misrepresentations and misreadings of Russian intentions throughout this sorry episode. They began with the repeated references to Russian "aggression" and "invasion", continued through charges of intended "regime change", and culminated in alarmist reports about Russian efforts to bomb the east-west energy pipeline. None of this, not one bit of it, is true.
Take "aggression" and "invasion". Georgia declared itself to be in a state of war with Russia. War, regrettably, is war, and a basic objective is to reduce, or destroy, the enemy's military capability. This is what Russia was doing until it accepted the ceasefire. The positions it took up inside Georgia proper can be seen as defensive, not offensive. Gori houses the Georgian garrison on South Ossetia's border.
And anyway, how did hostilities begin? Georgia sent troops into South Ossetia. The status of that region – which declared unilateral independence – is anomalous. It is inside Georgia's borders, but outside its control. But one reason why the dispute has not been solved is that the "fudge" over independence brought with it a degree of stability. Georgia's action upset that stability. But did anyone describe it as "aggression"? Trying to explain Russian "aggression", many reports went further, observing a "new" mood of Russian aggressive nationalism. Today's Russia, they reasoned, was uniquely liable to lash out, because energy wealth had fuelled new national ambitions. Where, though, is the evidence that Russian national pride is automatically malign?
If you exclude Chechnya, which Russians have always regarded as part of Russia, then neither Putin, nor Medvedev, had sent troops outside Russian borders before this point. As for the idea that Putin wants to restore the Soviet Union – derived from his remark about the Soviet collapse being "among the greatest catastrophes" of the 20th century – nothing could be further from what he did. Far from hankering after a lost empire, Putin used his years as president systematically to fix Russia's post-Soviet borders, signing treaties with every neighbouring country that would agree – including, last month, China. Of course, Russia does not like the idea of another Nato member on its borders. But this is not the same as wanting to restore "ex-Soviet space". It reflects Russia's view of its legitimate security interests.
Perhaps the most pernicious assumption over the past week, however, is that Russia wanted to effect "regime-change". Russian officials categorically denied this, insisting that they had no business overthrowing an elected leader. You might scoff, but Russia has done nothing that would contradict this. The Kremlin would probably be delighted if Georgians eventually punished their President for his misguided enterprise, but Russia seems to accept that Georgians decide what happens in Georgia.
Why was it so difficult for outsiders to believe that Moscow wanted precisely what its leaders said they wanted: a return to the situation that had pertained before Georgia's incursion into South Ossetia – and does it matter that its intentions were so appallingly misread? Yes it does. If outsiders impute to Moscow motives and objectives it does not have, they alienate Russia even further, and make a long-term solution of many international problems that more difficult. It is high time we treated Russia's post-Soviet leaders as responsible adults representing a legitimate national interest, rather than assuming the stereotypical worst.
m.dejevsky@independent.co.uk
#290 ::: Sica ::: (view all by) ::: August 16, 2008, 06:53 AM:
Maria @ 287
I think you misunderstood Leonid. He wasn't saying that the Russian speaking people in Ukraine should want to get up and move to Russia.
He was saying (as far as I understood it) that they didn't seem to want their region to stop being a part of Ukraine and become a part of Russia instead or become 'independent' but supported heavily by Russia.
Respond:
I would, may be disappoint you. The really want.
90% of Russian and Tatars were against the orange revolution and want to leave te state of Ukraine- but here we have the situation, that this is not even Osetia- a separate nation.
Their desire couldn't be supportted bu any political or economical practice. They can't just one day sai- we are a part of Russia.- That would be real separatism. And nobody will support them, even Russia.
270 ::: David ::: (view all by) ::: August 15, 2008, 01:40 AM:
However, as soon as the Oil Economy is over, the Russia will return to its poor state that we saw at the end of the USSR. That's when the Putin and alike will lose their power and the Russian revolution will be inevitable.
Respond:
Naive guy!
Continued:
Of cause, Uncle SAM wants to rule the world, thats the idea.
And America will be pleased to have more polite leaders, than Putin and Medvedev in Russia. But now we are not that poor country like in late 1990-s, seeking for international credits. Now we have well-developed financial markets, raising level of life, made not from oil incomings, but from real industrial growth. and make me just admit, none of former republics of USSR contributed to this growth nowdays.
Now America stays for liberation of Cosovo region, their independence.
From this prospective, USA have to save Ossetians rather, than Georgians. Why so powerful country, that is said to be not only the most powerful, but most generous and democratic country left in need the small and helpless nation, that was almost killed in the first day of georgians agression.
You may say, that Russia have no right to enter this conflict. But for me, Russian government had done the job of USA, that have to anyway convince its rascal, saakashvilly, not to send troops against the civil population
#270 ::: David ::: (view all by) ::: August 15, 2008, 01:40 AM:
However, as soon as the Oil Economy is over, the Russia will return to its poor state that we saw at the end of the USSR. That's when the Putin and alike will lose their power and the Russian revolution will be inevitable.
Respond:
Naive guy!
We have the most powerful economy in the world till Eltsin empowered internal genocid and we returned back to the state of 1920-s. We lost most of our economical and industrial power at this period.
Have you ever tried to understand the trends- even now we have all the benefits of developing countries- markets are expanding, not only for oil- its another part of the story. If you think oil is the only thing that makes Russia alive- you're blind.
If any part has to seek for help in the world- its Europe (except German). Everything is stable, and unmotivated. Hopefully if America will support they will survive for a vile, but not independingly.
And again- our poor state was the consequense of Eltsins morazm, and longer the case. And of cause, we will survive without any support from future slaves of NATO, like Georgia, belive me. This is just to give the idea that Russia has no OTHER purpose to answer on a Georgia agression.
The real purpose was- just to be an independent country with our own view of situation (not to be a beatch, just acting like Europa wants us to be).
The other point was- to save OUR citizens. That's the way USA always acts, no matter where its citizens stay
And finnaly your article is an information with no reasonable base.
Please, forgive me for the tone
Thank you
#285 ::: John L ::: (view all by) ::: August 15, 2008, 10:02 PM:
The Washington Post has the transcript from a discussion with the Georgian Ambassador to the US:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/08/15/DI2008081502199.html
John, if you would base you vision of the situation on the comments of the person engaged and being well paid by the american media corps, you'll nether get the real idea of the situation
#266 ::: Leonid Korogodski ::: (view all by) :::
August 14, 2008, 05:12 PM:
On the matter of Crimea:
Note, however, that attempts to organize a separatist movement in Crimea have failed. Whatever the history and the demographics, the Crimean population doesn't want to leave Ukraine and join Russia.
Respond:
And the same is for russian population in Baltic ciuntries and so on- this is not the characteristic of their position. Why should they, eg: a man leaving in Crimea for 60 years, why for god's sake should he move, leave home and work, for finding nothing in Moscow or SPb.
I don't think, that you have always quite correct information on the thoughts and desires of the people in Ukraine and other former Soviet nations.
Ok they don't want to return to USSR times, neither want Russians, belive me. And we are not under Putin's slavery, as you wer mb convinced. The young people in Russia are free to choose their own way, mb leave for USA, why not.
As it is clear for everybody, who at least works in the economic sphere: The USA is an imperialistic country (well Russia is too, I know).
Russia is the only element, that prevents SU economy (don't just vail it by the idea of "all over the world democratic revolutions"). One way to starve Russia to death is to surround it by the opponent nations. That's why the informational war is conducted all over the world now, which Russia fails to resist. Nobody in the west knows about real situation about the NATO moving to the east- NOBODY in the Ukraine and Georgia really approves the treaties of the Governments. The orange revolution was a bullshit a well planned action. I know 65% of people in Ukraine were against NATO, but who cares.
May be I have repetitive comments? I respect all the comments here, because the strength, for example, of the american nation, is that they believe in their government and state, and critical articles in press is rear.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/14/AR2008081403048.html?sub=new
Extract from Washingtonpost: Posted by Olga Ivanova
Who's Blogging» Links to this article
By Olga Ivanova
Friday, August 15, 2008; Page A21
I wish I could fly back to Russia. I have been in the United States for a year, and I am studying and working here to get experience in American journalism, known worldwide for its independence and professionalism. But in recent days it has felt as though I am too late, that the journalism of Watergate is well behind us and that reporting is no longer fair and balanced.
#160 ::: albert ::: (view all by) ::: August 11, 2008, 03:43 PM:
Kieran ::: (view all by) ::: August 10, 2008, 10:43 PM:
The Russians(at this point) Have no reason to invade Georgia, and to do it during the Olympics.
You mean who cares even if Georgians would cut Ossetians to the last baby - it is thier family affair. Lets watch the Olimpics.
Albert, I don't no, whether you've read anything of Dostoevsky, but I suppose, you have catched up his idea from "Karamazovy brothers".
Well, Dostoevsky said (by the words of Ivan Karamazov": "I don't believe in a world-wide harmony (no matter how fair it would be) if this harmony was based on one killed child".
So
#250 ::: Ken MacLeod ::: (view all by) ::: August 14, 2008, 04:51 AM:
And by the way, the only reason Sevastopol is in Ukraine is that Khrushchev gave Ukraine the Crimea in a moment of absent-mindedness.
It is surprising for me, but YOU QUIte catch the idea. Nikita, despite of his contribution into the development of USSR, was a very poor politician, knocking by his boot on higher level rbiefings and things like this- silly man.
The greater fool was Eltsing when having left Crimea with Ukraine (with mostly tatar and Russian population and fleet bases) and South Osetia (separate nation but only an autonomy, not uSSR republic) in 90-s with Georgia. No we have the result, but Russians can only blame themselve, not Georgia, when electing an old shizo (Eltsin) as a president.
For me the Eltsin period was without democracy at all but it was a real "Eltsin" genocid of Russians, couples even stopped to give birth to new children, because they were not sure in the future. That was the price for the Eltsin democracy... However, even Putin, beeing a KGB breeded man made more progress in this area
Just for you to know, that Russians are ready to criticise their leaders)
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2008 | 39 |
Total: 39 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by maria:
Show all comments by maria.