by Debs is dead
lifted from a comment

Since, in the well worn words of the classic wit and incisive
thinker Anonymous Bystander "opinions are like assholes – every one has
one and thinks others all stink" I may as well put my two bobs worth in
on the humans being killed in the Caucasus.

From down at this end of the world it felt at first, like if one
could play the sort of numbers game that pols play, the notion of
northerner Europeans fighting each other as the fight expanded outwards
drawing in ‘supporters’ on both sides, that this could be a ‘good
thing’ for the rest of us. Although there have been a few well
publicised atrocities committed over the centuries when the whitefella
oppressor has a falling out among themselves, in the main for unwhite
peeps especially those in the South, these periodic feuds can provide
opportunity for southern Houdinis to cast off the shackles of empire.

Eg: I don’t believe that the English decolonisation post WW2 could have
occurred without WW2. And yes many of the southern slave states did end
up having their English masters exchanged for Amerikan ones.
Nevertheless there was also plenty of room to manouver for loosened
shackles during the 50 year transition period. So from this part of the
world the millions of dead in WW2 may have prevented the deaths of at
least that many, maybe more deaths, up here in the south of the planet.

Now that is a fucking harsh way to look at the world, even if it is
a mirror image of the way most in the north look at the South, it
prolly wouldn’t sit well with most southerners especially those still
in touch with their indigenous culture.

That attitude is only viable if the fight escalates, something which
seems increasingly unlikely especially now that Saakashvili has been
exposed in the foreign media as ‘the boy who cried wolf’. I have no
doubt that his moronic intervention into South Ossetia was a clumsy
attempt to regain his regime’s popularity in Georgia by uniting the
Georgians against the common enemy. It was doomed to failure just as
Olmert’s bloodier attempt to pull off the same trick in Israel failed.

However I did watch the ‘show’ last night on the BBC, which was the
first time. For the past week I have used downloaded documentaries as
lullabys – the Olympic farce of humanism perverted into nationalistic
jingoism cranks me up rather than lulls me to sleep.

Some observations:

Saakashvili and Co’s claim of Russians in Gori accompanied as it was
by assertions that the Russian are invading to re-subjugate Georgia was
not for domestic consumption. Why does Saakashvili make his historic
speeches to press conferences where the lingua franca is English? Any
politician who doesn’t talk to his people in their native language at
such a time of crisis that Saakashvili and Co claim Georgia is in, is
not a pol who cares for his citizens.

The thing that really got my goat before the Beeb finally ‘fessed up
and admitted the Gori invasion was a figment of Saakashvili and Co’s
imagination, was that if Gori and the towns close to South Ossetia were
under threat of a Russian attack followed by ethnic cleansing, what
were the Georgian military priorities. Instead of reinforcing the
defences of Gori to provide breathing room for the citizens to evacuate
or fight for their homes, the Georgian army retreats in a rout leaving
the citizens unprotected. Saakashvili and Co claimed from the start
that regime change was the primary Russian objective. Even if it had
been, surely the best way to prevent regime change is to protect the
voters. If Saakashvili were popular with his citizens, regime change
would be much harder to effect.

However this talk of regime change brings me to the nub of my concerns about the ‘blue’
in Georgia. Someone commented here previously that it seems when the
BBC newsreaders interview Russian Foreign Ministry spokespeople, that
they are auditioning for that worthless beeb prog "Hardtalk". For the
uninitiated the interviewers in Hardtalk pretend to be tough. That is if
you imagine that ill mannered interviewing is incisive interviewing.

Be
that as it may, every time the Beeb talking head made a claim about
Russian aggression, the Russian spokesman would counter with "just like
Iraq/Kosovo/Lebanon" eg "Is it true that Russian troops have ignored
Georgian sovereignty?" "How is that different from US troops invading
the sovereign state of Iraq?" or "So Russia advocates South Ossettia
being split from Georgia" "Exactly as Kosovo has been split from
Serbia". You get the drift.

I am sad to see that the ‘Amerika did it too’ or ‘USuk have done
worse’ defense for Russia’s actions is being used by some here too.

I’ll try and explain why I reckon this is such a bad move for those
who believe humans should have some sort of self determination.

All of Russia’s moves may be entirely legitimate and ethically pure.
They probably are correct in the claim that what Russia is up to is no
way any less legitimate than Amerika or USuk’s invasions, rapes and
murders.

The problem is that if Russia continues to use Amerikan aggression
to legitimate their actions, they don’t just legitimate what Russia is
up to. A sort of cross legitimization occurs where the legitimation of
Russia’s adventure excuses Amerika’s crimes.

That may be fine for Russia, even for Russians, but it doesn’t bode
well for the rest of us who live in smaller sovereign entities. If Amerika and Russia agree they have a right to inflict their will on
lesser states, we will go back to the world being divided between two
huge empires with injustices abounding throughout.

It is true that planet earth became a much tougher place for most
humans to exist after the collapse of the USSR. The leaders of
sovereign states smaller than the two behemoths could no longer balance
one against the other to find a mid point of survivability, but now
that the ‘major players’ all claim to share the same economic ethos it
is unlikely that tightrope walking of the type perfected by Nasser of
Egypt or Sukarno of Indonesia will be achievable. The latest iteration
of a world order will be rather different than the one before last, ie
the ‘Cold War’ era. None of the above would be my response in the
unlikely event of my being asked which umbrella I would prefer to stand
under.

In the meantime of course the Anglo media is trying hard to twist the reality. Eg The Guardian has a lead article which says: Russians march into Georgia as full-scale war looms

• Claims of full scale invasion
• Retreat to defend Tbilisi
• Kremlin ignores ceasefire calls

Close reading of the text shows all of those claims to be untrue
just the ravings of the Georgian govt. My favourite part is the quote
towards the end.

"This is a full-scale invasion." said Irakli Batkuashvili, head of
Georgia’s military planning division. "This is an occupation… Half of
Georgia is under Russian control. Our aim now is to build up our troops
and to create a defensive line in front of Tbilisi."

I thought things must have changed drastically in the last 10 hours
which would have been the middle of the night so I went looking for the
Guardian’s map of this new horror.
It isn’t really available at a click it is a downloadable pdf which
many readers will eschew discouraged by the hassle. Deliberate? Prolly
just one more piss weak effort at twisting the reality of this killing
zone. If you download it you will see the bits where Russia is alleged
to be, barely make up 10% of Georgia.

I’m not sure that the propaganda has been effective. My own
extremely conservative fishwrap has been running a readers views column
inviting readers to say who they believe is to blame.
Even after a series of ad hominem attacks on the posters from amerika
and Georgia the posts heavily favour some combination of
Georgia/Amerika/Israel as being responsible for the killings.