PDA

View Full Version : Just one last Georgia question.



DOUBLEDEE
13-08-2008, 01:41
I understand why those 14 republics got away from the Soviet Union. And paradoxically enough the "non-democratic" Russia let them go.

Now answer this question.

If Georgia is that good, and is so free and democratic, and is taking the proud kartvelebi under NATO's father-like protection and then hopefully to the EU's mother-like heaven, why the heck do two (not just one, but two!) out of 11 Georgia's regions want so much to be independent from this bright future?

Not autonomous, but independent.

It's South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

quincy
13-08-2008, 01:53
Georgia also stands accused of intolerance in the southern regions which are Armenian speaking.
Javakhk - 2BGal (http://www.djavakhk.com/galerie/disp_serie.php?id_album=44&stat=ok)

Transparent Theatre
13-08-2008, 03:16
I have a Georgian question too, please.

How do you say in Georgian:

"Ve voss only obeying orders?"

quincy
13-08-2008, 13:08
even his supporters in the media in western capitals can't believe how dumb (and cruel) Mr Saaka... must be for expecting his heavy artillery shelling of civilians and invasion to go unnoticed just because of the Olympics

TGP
13-08-2008, 22:05
even his supporters in the media in western capitals can't believe how dumb (and cruel) Mr Saaka... must be for expecting his heavy artillery shelling of civilians and invasion to go unnoticed just because of the Olympics


Saaka has a good explanation for them: during a meeting in Tbilisi, at which high level reps from Urkaine, the Baltics and Poland were present (all supporting their Georgian friend), Saak enthusiastically shouted from a tribune that Russia will answer for the demolished Tskhival which they, Russians, ruined. (!) His friends, with serious, sad faces, silently expressed their agreement :agree:

Dumb and dumber?

In general, the picture is as disgusting, as it is pathetic.

Judge
13-08-2008, 22:22
Saaka has a good explanation for them: during a meeting in Tbilisi, at which high level reps from Urkaine, the Baltics and Poland were present (all supporting their Georgian friend), Saak enthusiastically shouted from a tribune that Russia will answer for the demolished Tskhival which they, Russians, ruined. (!) His friends, with serious, sad faces, silently expressed their agreement :agree:

Dumb and dumber?

In general, the picture is as disgusting, as it is pathetic.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/01/24/science/25sheep_lg.jpg

DOUBLEDEE
13-08-2008, 23:28
Saaka has a good explanation for them: during a meeting in Tbilisi, at which high level reps from Urkaine, the Baltics and Poland were present (all supporting their Georgian friend), Saak enthusiastically shouted from a tribune that Russia will answer for the demolished Tskhival which they, Russians, ruined. (!) His friends, with serious, sad faces, silently expressed their agreement :agree:

Dumb and dumber?

In general, the picture is as disgusting, as it is pathetic.

In Greek it's called: σχίζεινφρήν...

Schizophrenia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Eugen_Bleuler.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3c/Eugen_Bleuler.jpg/220px-Eugen_Bleuler.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/3/3c/Eugen_Bleuler.jpg/220px-Eugen_Bleuler.jpg

TGP
13-08-2008, 23:30
What else can one expect from you? :bedtime:

Transparent Theatre
13-08-2008, 23:33
Russia will answer for the demolished Tskhival which they, Russians, ruined. (!) His friends, with serious, sad faces, silently expressed their agreement :agree:

Dumb and dumber?

In general, the picture is as disgusting, as it is pathetic.

I am not surprised. I know several people living in the West who wrote to me, saying how disgusting it is that the Russians killed all the people in Tskhinvali...

:mooooh::mooooh:

DOUBLEDEE
13-08-2008, 23:35
What else can one expect from you? :bedtime:

I mean it looks like Suckass has that mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality...

TGP
13-08-2008, 23:54
I am not surprised. I know several people living in the West who wrote to me, saying how disgusting it is that the Russians killed all the people in Tskhinvali...

:mooooh::mooooh:

All I can say is that this tragedy put a final full stop in my attitude towards the western mass media. I don't want even to hear the names of their news agencies. A bunch of stupid hysterical liars. Maybe there is some exception, but I dont know who they are.

TGP
13-08-2008, 23:56
I mean it looks like Suckass has that mental disorder characterized by abnormalities in the perception or expression of reality...


Sorry, I thought you meant something else

Albertina
13-08-2008, 23:57
All I can say is that this tragedy put a final full stop in my attitude towards the western mass media. I don't want even to hear the names of their news agencies. A bunch of stupid hysterical liars. Maybe there is some exception, but I dont know who they are.

I have the same attitude towards the Russian media. :10600:

DOUBLEDEE
14-08-2008, 00:39
I have the same attitude towards the Russian media. :10600:

I respected CNN grandly for covering the 1st and the 2nd coups-d'etat in Moscow. Now CNN journalists remind me of Muhammad "Baghdad Bob" Saeed al-Sahhaf...

quincy
14-08-2008, 01:57
I have the same attitude towards the Russian media. :10600:

Let's leave out the Russia media for a minute. After seeing the TV images of the terrible destruction in South Ossetia by the Georgian army can you imagine anything more propagandistic than media and politicians still singing the praise of the Georgian regime and its "liberal democratic" values?

is there any difference between sections of the western media and the soviet media?

Korotky Gennady
14-08-2008, 02:44
I am not surprised. I know several people living in the West who wrote to me, saying how disgusting it is that the Russians killed all the people in Tskhinvali...

:mooooh::mooooh:Surprisingly i heard many russians on radio "liberty" who repeated the same. In fact they didn't see it, but they repeat this lie becoz they don't like Russia very much.

Korotky Gennady
14-08-2008, 02:50
All I can say is that this tragedy put a final full stop in my attitude towards the western mass media. I don't want even to hear the names of their news agencies. A bunch of stupid hysterical liars. Maybe there is some exception, but I dont know who they are.T..., try to read "Gardian" maybe...

It's interesting for me how would our Exile observe Tshenvalli's events ?

Adamodeus
14-08-2008, 10:46
All I can say is that this tragedy put a final full stop in my attitude towards the western mass media. I don't want even to hear the names of their news agencies. A bunch of stupid hysterical liars. Maybe there is some exception, but I dont know who they are.

I know I've already posted this in another thread, but to be fair:

Rejuvenated Georgian president cites U.S. ties as &#039;turning point&#039; - International Herald Tribune (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/14/europe/14saaka.php?page=1)

Adamodeus
14-08-2008, 10:55
I have the same attitude towards the Russian media. :10600:
I would agree with that if it weren't for the fact that the Russian media never made it a secret they supported one point of view. They are unabashedly one-sided, although they don't always agree with each other. On the other hand, some western networks that shall remain nameless (even though it's the BBC) pretend to be fair and unbiased.

If FOX News people, for example, want to support Saakashvili, that's fine. Just don't pretend you're perfectly neutral. It's insulting to people's intelligence.

chertovka
14-08-2008, 11:36
This is what I got from one of my long-standing American pen pals: "we are much concerned about your
country as our President wants peace to happen with your countrymen as he
considers your President and PM our friends in the world".

Ha-ha-ha... I can't believe someone's mind could be as much brainwashed.

DDT
14-08-2008, 11:55
This is what I got from one of my long-standing American pen pals: "we are much concerned about your
country as our President wants peace to happen with your countrymen as he
considers your President and PM our friends in the world".

Ha-ha-ha... I can't believe someone's mind could be as much brainwashed.Who is brainwashed....you?

DDT
14-08-2008, 12:04
If FOX News people, for example, want to support Saakashvili, that's fine. Just don't pretend you're perfectly neutral. It's insulting to people's intelligence.
Actual FOX NEWS is the same as the other networks. Much of it comes from the same feeds.
It is the debate shows that are different to the other networks. The reason that the FOX debate shows are different is because they actually present conservative guests to debate liberals and will actually ask a tough question to a liberal......unlike other networks.
If you only watch BBC, CBS, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc.....you don't know sh!t!

quincy
14-08-2008, 12:48
All I can say is that this tragedy put a final full stop in my attitude towards the western mass media. I don't want even to hear the names of their news agencies. A bunch of stupid hysterical liars. Maybe there is some exception, but I dont know who they are.

It's more complex. On politically sensitive issues that impact on geopolitics, geostrategy etc (Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO, Russia, Georgia, Chechnya and the Caucasus, former Yugoslavia, Turkey) yes, the media supports the establishment because in many ways the media IS the establishment! So - as much coverage as possible was given to alleged Serbian atrocities in Kosovo in 1999 to prepare public opinion for NATOs bombing campaign while Georgian atrocities in South Ossetia have been given limited space in favour of 'Russian aggression'

But on domestic issues and foreign matters that don't have an impact on geopolitics - media coverage is usually good

AndreyS
14-08-2008, 13:07
It's more complex. On politically sensitive issues that impact on geopolitics, geostrategy etc (Iraq, Afghanistan, NATO, Russia, Georgia, Chechnya and the Caucasus, former Yugoslavia, Turkey) yes, the media supports the establishment because in many ways the media IS the establishment! So - as much coverage as possible was given to alleged Serbian atrocities in Kosovo in 1999 to prepare public opinion for NATOs bombing campaign while Georgian atrocities in South Ossetia have been given limited space in favour of 'Russian aggression'

But on domestic issues and foreign matters that don't have an impact on geopolitics - media coverage is usually good

BBC, CNN are doing quite well on this conflict imho. At least since yesterday. Giving speeches from both sides.
Do you agree, Quincy?

TGP
14-08-2008, 13:11
If BBC, CNN are doing well (and they are leading agencies as far as I know), why people in other countries think that Russians killed all inhabitants in Tskhinvall?

AndreyS
14-08-2008, 13:13
If BBC, CNN are doing well (and they are leading agencies as far as I know), why people in other countries think that Russians killed all inhabitants in Tskhinvall?

It's up to these people what to think. But they can hear Russia's position. I heard of it several times yesterday on BBC and CNN. From Medvedev, Lavrov, Ivanov. And there was a film on CNN last night called "real Saak."

quincy
14-08-2008, 13:17
BBC, CNN are doing quite well on this conflict imho. At least since yesterday. Giving speeches from both sides.
Do you agree, Quincy?

Yes, in some ways not as bad as we have been used to (the terrorist attack on Beslan was blamed on Putin, and not the terrorists). They have questioned the Russian estimate on the number killed in the Georgian attack, trying to make it sound less serious than it was. They haven't investigated the Georgian massacre (probably because a liberal democracy does not massacre)

Ghostly Presence
14-08-2008, 14:19
Earlier today I read some reports claiming that the US and its NATO allies are amassing fleet in the Persian Gulf supposedly to start a naval blockade of Iran. I do not know if this news will be later verified, but if it is true, than the whole little war in Georgia begins to make sense. The US needed to make Russia’s opinion on Iran irrelevant because Russia was against American belligerent plans to subdue that unruly country. By dragging Russia into war and then launching a successful propaganda campaign against Russia, the US managed to turn Russia into an international outcast whose opinion is not worth a cent, so the US is free to do with Iran whatever they please. If the news about the US fleet in Persian Gulf is true, than the US certainly did not waste any time to capitalize on the Georgian tragedy.

I hope that Georgians will understand that they were played like a bunch of kids; they were used and cheated in a much bigger global game for the US dominance. Russia was played too. Two nations that lived side by side peacefully for centuries were turned into enemies by strategists in far away Washington.

I hope they rot in hell.

DOUBLEDEE
14-08-2008, 14:20
Actual FOX NEWS is the same as the other networks. Much of it comes from the same feeds.
It is the debate shows that are different to the other networks. The reason that the FOX debate shows are different is because they actually present conservative guests to debate liberals and will actually ask a tough question to a liberal......unlike other networks.
If you only watch BBC, CBS, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc.....you don't know sh!t!

Do YOU watch Al Jazeera?
هل يتحدث العربية؟

kirk10071
14-08-2008, 14:38
Do YOU watch Al Jazeera?
هل يتحدث العربية؟

I don't know if he speaks Arabic (in answer to your question above) but Al Jazeera has a very good English-language broadcast.

kirk10071
14-08-2008, 14:41
If BBC, CNN are doing well (and they are leading agencies as far as I know), why people in other countries think that Russians killed all inhabitants in Tskhinvall?

Do they really think that? I have watched the news carefully both inside and outside Russia, and I don't have that impression. Is this from some source or another product of your closed little paranoid mind that you dream up sitting home alone at night with your coffee and cat. I would be very surprised to learn that "people in other countries think Russians killed all the inhabitants..."

Yes, I think the Western media has its point of view, but you exaggerate this, like you do everything else, as part of your sad, bitter outlook on life.

AndreyS
14-08-2008, 14:48
Regretfully lots of people sometimes don't think at all. It's quite a work, to think. They just don't care.
Some just follow what the media are banging on about... ;-(

Adamodeus
14-08-2008, 15:31
Earlier today I read some reports claiming that the US and its NATO allies are amassing fleet in the Persian Gulf supposedly to start a naval blockade of Iran. I do not know if this news will be later verified, but if it is true, than the whole little war in Georgia begins to make sense. The US needed to make Russia’s opinion on Iran irrelevant because Russia was against American belligerent plans to subdue that unruly country. By dragging Russia into war and then launching a successful propaganda campaign against Russia, the US managed to turn Russia into an international outcast whose opinion is not worth a cent, so the US is free to do with Iran whatever they please. If the news about the US fleet in Persian Gulf is true, than the US certainly did not waste any time to capitalize on the Georgian tragedy.

I hope that Georgians will understand that they were played like a bunch of kids; they were used and cheated in a much bigger global game for the US dominance. Russia was played too. Two nations that lived side by side peacefully for centuries were turned into enemies by strategists in far away Washington.

I hope they rot in hell.

Here is something on it. They are currently verifying whether it's true.

U.S. Armada En Route to the Persian Gulf: "Naval Blockade" or All Out War Against Iran? (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20080813&articleId=9817)

shrek
14-08-2008, 15:40
This is what I got from one of my long-standing American pen pals: "we are much concerned about your
country as our President wants peace to happen with your countrymen as he
considers your President and PM our friends in the world".

Ha-ha-ha... I can't believe someone's mind could be as much brainwashed.

I would try to explain hem how the US have worked under cover to start this war.

shrek
14-08-2008, 15:59
Earlier today I read some reports claiming that the US and its NATO allies are amassing fleet in the Persian Gulf supposedly to start a naval blockade of Iran. I do not know if this news will be later verified, but if it is true, than the whole little war in Georgia begins to make sense. The US needed to make Russia’s opinion on Iran irrelevant because Russia was against American belligerent plans to subdue that unruly country. By dragging Russia into war and then launching a successful propaganda campaign against Russia, the US managed to turn Russia into an international outcast whose opinion is not worth a cent, so the US is free to do with Iran whatever they please. If the news about the US fleet in Persian Gulf is true, than the US certainly did not waste any time to capitalize on the Georgian tragedy.

I hope that Georgians will understand that they were played like a bunch of kids; they were used and cheated in a much bigger global game for the US dominance. Russia was played too. Two nations that lived side by side peacefully for centuries were turned into enemies by strategists in far away Washington.

I hope they rot in hell.

The US are preparing a september/october surprise... stay tuned!!

However I don't think Russia was played: they have a clear vision of what is happening around the world and they are playing their game, I'm sure their reaction was accurately planned.

vladimir_seroff
14-08-2008, 16:13
The US are preparing a september/october surprise... stay tuned!!

However I don't think Russia was played: they have a clear vision of what is happening around the world and they are playing their game, I'm sure their reaction was accurately planned.

I would agree. I think it worked out quite well for Russia.

Here is an article in FT that offers a thorough analysis of the conflict and its' ramifications:

FT.com / Comment & analysis / Analysis - The message from Moscow: Resurgent Russia bids to establish a new status quo (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a9a19efe-689d-11dd-a4e5-0000779fd18c.html)

A quote from it: "In other words, Moscow has achieved a stunning military victory, at a surprisingly low cost to its international position."

kirk10071
14-08-2008, 17:22
I would try to explain hem how the US have worked under cover to start this war.

According to a well-respected newspaper in Romania, the was was started by Russian secret services who managed to steer the Georgian President into a trap in order to trigger the crisis.

Adevarul (http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/razboiul-din-georgia-provocat-de-serviciile-secrete-rusesti/365560)

The article cites sources close to the Kremlin and says it was all dreamed up in the laboratories of the FSB "to remove Saakashvili from power and to discourage Georgian ambitions to join NATO."

The Ukrainian and Slovak press is not very complimentary either, although Slovakia's president tends to support Russia.

Or are these countries part of the "Western" press? In any case, I comment neither way, but point out another news report for your consideration (I know many of you do not read Romanian, but I post the link for those of you who do and to prove I am not making it up, like TGP does).

TGP
14-08-2008, 17:29
Do they really think that? I have watched the news carefully both inside and outside Russia, and I don't have that impression. Is this from some source or another product of your closed little paranoid mind that you dream up sitting home alone at night with your coffee and cat. I would be very surprised to learn that "people in other countries think Russians killed all the inhabitants..."

Yes, I think the Western media has its point of view, but you exaggerate this, like you do everything else, as part of your sad, bitter outlook on life.

Wow, you sound like Saaka! What an ardent speech of a real democrat! :applause: This is so typical for a "democratic" viewpoint: to call names those who have different opinion, because they just don't have right for it! :irule:
Tut, tut, Kirk....

TGP
14-08-2008, 17:38
According to a well-respected newspaper in Romania, the was was started by Russian secret services who managed to steer the Georgian President into a trap in order to trigger the crisis.

Adevarul (http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/razboiul-din-georgia-provocat-de-serviciile-secrete-rusesti/365560)

The article cites sources close to the Kremlin and says it was all dreamed up in the laboratories of the FSB "to remove Saakashvili from power and to discourage Georgian ambitions to join NATO."

The Ukrainian and Slovak press is not very complimentary either, although Slovakia's president tends to support Russia.

Or are these countries part of the "Western" press? In any case, I comment neither way, but point out another news report for your consideration (I know many of you do not read Romanian, but I post the link for those of you who do and to prove I am not making it up, like TGP does).


:7525:

:D

Adamodeus
14-08-2008, 17:57
The article cites sources close to the Kremlin and says it was all dreamed up in the laboratories of the FSB "to remove Saakashvili from power and to discourage Georgian ambitions to join NATO."
That's kind of silly. If there were a better way to push Georgia towards NATO, I can't think of it. :10293:

quincy
14-08-2008, 18:01
Yushchenko tries to check-mate Russia's Black Sea fleet

Ukraine snubs Moscow on port
By Roman Olearchykin Tbilisi

Published: August 14 2008 02:53 | Last updated: August 14 2008 02:53

Victor Yushchenko, on Wednesday announced restrictions on use of the Crimean port of Sevastopol by Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, a move that follows a challenge by Kiev this week to Moscow’s naval operations off Georgia’s coast.

The surprise decree by Ukraine’s pro-western president requires Russian naval vessels to request permission 10 days in advance before returning to the strategically important port, which Russia leases from Ukraine. Russia’s defence ministry quickly denounced it as “not serious”.

Transparent Theatre
14-08-2008, 18:33
According to a well-respected newspaper in Romania, the was was started by Russian secret services who managed to steer the Georgian President into a trap in order to trigger the crisis.


The idea that Romania even has any "well-respected" newspapers is already pushing the limits of credibility to the outermost. Anti-Slavic feeling in Romania is so rife... and support for the neocon numpties so cravenly supine.. that if there was a story alleging Putin was the Spawn Of Satan, it would have an "authenticated by God's Herald Upon Earth George Bush" byline.

Does this "well-respected" newspaper give any sources for this gutless pro-neocon drivel, or is it just accompanied by a picture of Medevedev with horns and a spade-shaped tail by way of "factual" support?

What's printed in a Bucurest scandal-sheet to boost circulation-figures shouldn't be given more credence than The National Enquirer.

Transparent Theatre
15-08-2008, 02:40
I'm glad to see that the Boys at the Foreign Office in Britain are still recruited from the Brightest & Best.

Since I'm subscribed to their website, I get Travel Advisory updates automatically, and have just received this one, which I cut and paste:


This email is to advise you that an article matching one of your interests has been published: Georgia.


This advice has been reviewed and reissued with amendments to the Summary and Local Travel Sections. We advise against all but essetial travel to Georgia. (see travel advice legal disclaimer)


So it's ok to go to "Essetia", then? North, or South?

kirk10071
15-08-2008, 10:36
Wow, you sound like Saaka! What an ardent speech of a real democrat! :applause: This is so typical for a "democratic" viewpoint: to call names those who have different opinion, because they just don't have right for it! :irule:
Tut, tut, Kirk....

You make up stories, I make up stories. It's all in good fun, no? Only mine are true.

kirk10071
15-08-2008, 10:39
The idea that Romania even has any "well-respected" newspapers is already pushing the limits of credibility to the outermost. Anti-Slavic feeling in Romania is so rife... and support for the neocon numpties so cravenly supine.. that if there was a story alleging Putin was the Spawn Of Satan, it would have an "authenticated by God's Herald Upon Earth George Bush" byline.

Does this "well-respected" newspaper give any sources for this gutless pro-neocon drivel, or is it just accompanied by a picture of Medevedev with horns and a spade-shaped tail by way of "factual" support?

What's printed in a Bucurest scandal-sheet to boost circulation-figures shouldn't be given more credence than The National Enquirer.

Adevarul is not a Bucharest scandal sheet. I don't deny that there is a certain anti-Slavic feeling there. I lived in Central Europe long enough to know how many of them feel about the west and the east. I posted that just no show that there are lots of theories out there for who is doing what "secretly" to cause trouble in the region. Some perhaps more credible than others. The point was that there are many different points of view. And for every "Washington is behind it" there is a "KGB is behind it." The truth is probably that everyone is right.

Transparent Theatre
15-08-2008, 13:51
Adevarul is not a Bucharest scandal sheet. I don't deny that there is a certain anti-Slavic feeling there. I lived in Central Europe long enough to know how many of them feel about the west and the east. I posted that just no show that there are lots of theories out there for who is doing what "secretly" to cause trouble in the region. Some perhaps more credible than others. The point was that there are many different points of view. And for every "Washington is behind it" there is a "KGB is behind it." The truth is probably that everyone is right.

I am sure that Adevarul might be respected within Romania - but this says nothing in support of its entirely hypothetical conspiracy-theories calculated to appeal to kneejerk anti-Russian hatreds. Sells newspapers :(

If we're swapping conspiracy theories, the London GUARDIAN is an interesting case. It's a newspaper which has traded its formerly lefty-intellectual viewpoint for a radically neocon position in line with the Labour Govt's horse-jump to riding shotgun for Bush - "whatever will keep Labour in power" is their new doctrine. Columnists like Nick Cohen and Martin Kettle bang the drum for the Pentagon. But it was Deputy Editor Simon Tisdall's piece which interested me. On August 4th he ran - a propos of nothing whatsoever - a huge piece about "The Return Of The Russian Bear". No incident whatsoever prompted this piece - it was a tirade against a resurgent Russia, couched in terms which really challenged the credibility of an allegedly "intelligent" newspaper. I said at the time (in the Comments below the piece, although I think the Guardian actually removed it later) that it almost reads as though Tisdall (who gets all his briefings from Chatham House) had been told to begin a smear-campaign early against Russia because the US planned some kind of stunt. At the time I thought it was going to be an announcement of the Missile Shield inception, since the stalemate along the Ossetian border had dragged on for months with no sign of action... and only a lunatic would actually have begun an attack.

And then, well.... a lunatic did begin an attack.

Robert Gates was doing his finest impersonation of Goebbels yesterday as he vowed vengeance on Russia that would last for generations. Meantime Condi has come to Tblisi today to pretend to look disapproving of the military actions she ordered. I expect that she's left the Congressional Medal Of Honor behind her, though, given that the result was entirely different to the one she'd hoped for.

Let's hope that Georgians are able to get rid of the unwanted CIA-imposed tyrant foisted upon them by neocon nincompoops, and return to self-governance sometime soon.

Meantime, freedom reigns in Abkhazia, so there is a double cause for celebration
:10518: :celebrate: :10518:

quincy
15-08-2008, 16:05
i must say many Georgians feel at home in Russia, and their restaurants have been really popular. Georgian musicians and singers have a ready audience in Russia. Who would pay attention to them if they went to the US or the UK? Maybe older people who in their later life look for something different, or those with an academic interest in world music ? - we are talking about a tiny minority here.

Unfortunately many Georgians appear to have been duped by their erratic president and his media. In the end nations are better off finding accomodation with their immediate neighbours

Adamodeus
15-08-2008, 17:43
i must say many Georgians feel at home in Russia, and their restaurants have been really popular. Georgian musicians and singers have a ready audience in Russia. Who would pay attention to them if they went to the US or the UK? Maybe older people who in their later life look for something different, or those with an academic interest in world music ? - we are talking about a tiny minority here.

Unfortunately many Georgians appear to have been duped by their erratic president and his media. In the end nations are better off finding accomodation with their immediate neighbours
How very true! Georgia's main export - wine - is much too sweet for the western palate accustomed to something much more dry. Au contraire, Russians just love sweet Georgian wines. Leaving the CIS was an emotional decision, but a big mistake economically.

shrek
15-08-2008, 20:34
Adevarul is not a Bucharest scandal sheet. I don't deny that there is a certain anti-Slavic feeling there. I lived in Central Europe long enough to know how many of them feel about the west and the east. I posted that just no show that there are lots of theories out there for who is doing what "secretly" to cause trouble in the region. Some perhaps more credible than others. The point was that there are many different points of view. And for every "Washington is behind it" there is a "KGB is behind it." The truth is probably that everyone is right.

what about "Israel is behind it"?? :D

However Russian-Georgian conflict has been widely used by western media to describe Russia as the old evil-empire, and this was probably part of washinton's game. The match is just started, we'll see what the future will bring...

Gypsy
15-08-2008, 23:15
Let's leave out the Russia media for a minute. After seeing the TV images of the terrible destruction in South Ossetia by the Georgian army can you imagine anything more propagandistic than media and politicians still singing the praise of the Georgian regime and its "liberal democratic" values?

is there any difference between sections of the western media and the soviet media?

Yes there is a difference and an important one.

In the western media you have many different opinions, according to the "bias" of the outlet. So you are exposed to many different views-in russia you have the state view and no other. It may be right - but without opposition how will you know?

The fact that the Telegraph and the Guardian have diametrically opposing views, and the other papers fit themselves somewhere in the middle shows that our media is free.

The other reeason we can be sure that generally the UK media is free - why? Because they make programmes like Spitting Image and Headcases that lampoon the ruling party and royal family mercilessly. just watch the latest episodes of Headcases,or even TopGear - where they mocked Gordon Brown as the new Stalin - and try and imagine that happening here.

TGP
15-08-2008, 23:30
A CZAR IS BORN: BAD VLAD WINS WAR, DUPES WEST & PROVES HE'S GENIUS

STALIN STYLE: Defying the truce, a Russian convoy (above) rolls deeper into...


Posted: 3:43 am
August 14, 2008

THE Russians are alcohol-sodden barbarians, but now and then they vomit up a genius.

Prime Minister - and now generalissimo - Vladimir Putin is Mother Russia's latest world-class wonder.

Let's be honest: Putin's the most effective leader in the world today.

That doesn't mean he's good news for anybody - not even for the Russians, in the long run. His ruthless ambition and gambler's audacity may end terribly.

But, for now, give the devil his due: After a long string of successes, from his personal mastery of Russia's government and media to his coldblooded energy brinkmanship, Putin has capped his performance with a stunning success in Georgia.

Not a single free-world leader currently in office can measure up to Czar Vladimir the Great.

Following his turnaround of Russia from bankrupt kleptocracy to flush-with-cash autocracy, he's now openly determined to restore Moscow's old empire.

And he's getting away with it.

As a former intelligence officer, I'm awestruck by the genius with which Putin assessed the strategic environment on the eve of his carefully scripted invasion of Georgia.

With his old KGB skills showing (he must've been a formidable operative), Putin not only sized up President Bush humiliatingly well, but precisely anticipated Europe's nonreaction - while taking a perfect-fit measure of Georgia's mercurial president.

Putin not only knew what he was doing - he knew exactly what others would do.

This is intelligence work at the hall-of-fame level. (For our part, we had all the intelligence pieces in our hands and failed to assemble the puzzle.)

On the military side, the months of meticulous planning and extensive preparations for this invasion were covered by military exercises, disingenuous explanations - and maskirovka, the art of deception the Red Army had mastered. The Russians convinced us to see what we wanted to see.

Equally as remarkable was the Kremlin's ability to lead the global media by the nose. (Oblivious to the irony, a BBC broadcast yesterday portrayed tiny, poorhouse Georgia as a propaganda powerhouse and Russia as an information victim - an illustration of the Russian propaganda machine's effectiveness.) From the start, every Russian ministry was reading from the same script (try to orchestrate that in Washington). Breaking off his phony play date with Bush in Beijing, Putin rushed back to the theater of war.

Upon arrival, he publicly consoled "refugees" who had been bused out of South Ossetia days in advance. Launching the war's Big Lie, Putin deployed dupe-the-rubes code words, such as "genocide" and "response."

Wearing his secret-policeman's stone-face, Putin blamed Georgia for exactly what his storm troopers were doing to the Georgians. And lazy journalists around the world served as the Kremlin's ad agency.

Strategy and conflict hinge on character. Putin's character is ugly, but he's certainly got one: On the world stage, he comes across as a man among munchkins. When French President Nicolas Sarkozy flew in to Moscow to demand a cease-fire, Putin - busy with his war - couldn't be bothered.

He fobbed Sarko off on Russia's play-pretend president.

Sarko thought he was grandstanding as a statesman, but Putin saw him as a "useful idiot" (in Leninist parlance).

Carla Bruni's husband got the cease-fire the twittering European Union demanded, all right. He returned to Paris holding in his hands a piece of paper that "guarantees peace in our time." Putin's thugs kept on killing. And they're still killing as I write.

Putin makes promises blithely to make flies go away. But the promises are worthless.

Russia's troops will find excuses to stay right where they are - or they'll fake a withdrawal, leaving behind "South Ossetian volunteers" from Russian airborne units.

Want a straightforward indication of what the Russians intend? Putin's code-name for this operation is Chistoye Polye. Literally translated, that means "clean field." In military parlance, it means "scorched earth."

The empire of the czars hasn't produced such a frightening genius since Stalin.

Ralph Peters' latest book is "Looking for Trouble: Adventures in a Broken World."

Gypsy
15-08-2008, 23:42
"Western media" is a useless description.

Your problem TGP is that you regard the western media exactly as you do the russian.

It is not the same - it is not one body controlled by a government as is russia's. It is many dozens of different companies all with different agendas. Most tend to support their government's view - about 60:40 I would say -but even the papers that support the UK government will have articles criticising it.

For every article you pull out saying this is the "western media" there will be ten putting the opposite view.

There is no unified media in the same way as in Russia.

shrek
16-08-2008, 00:11
"Western media" is a useless description.

Your problem TGP is that you regard the western media exactly as you do the russian.

It is not the same - it is not one body controlled by a government as is russia's. It is many dozens of different companies all with different agendas. Most tend to support their government's view - about 60:40 I would say -but even the papers that support the UK government will have articles criticising it.

For every article you pull out saying this is the "western media" there will be ten putting the opposite view.

There is no unified media in the same way as in Russia.

If you believe that...
The way western media are controlled is less evident but really effective.

Gypsy
16-08-2008, 00:50
If you believe that...
The way western media are controlled is less evident but really effective.
Then why do the elements of the western media disagree so much?

For every paper trotting out the UK government line there is one disagreeing with it. And the TV is even more anti government.

Do conservative governments - and Blair's -use the Daily Mail as their mouthpiece? Of course they do. But the Mirror takes the opposite standpoint, as does the Guardian, and most TV outlets.

If they were being controlled wouldn't it make sense to have them all saying the same things? And all agreeing with the government. - as for example in russia? And probably georgia for all I know.

It is the FACT that there is so much disagreement among the papers and TV that lets us know they are free.

quincy
16-08-2008, 01:43
The fact that the Telegraph and the Guardian have diametrically opposing views, and the other papers fit themselves somewhere in the middle shows that our media is free.

.

I wish they did, but they don't have opposite views. That's the problem. Much to the contrary.

If you take the 2006 invasion of Lebanon by Israel, their views were identical.
(neither took a position, editorially, against it)

Same goes for the Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

And NATOs bombing of Yugoslavia with claims that there was 'genocide' against the Kosovars (no more than 2,000 dead were found subsequently over several years of skirmishing from both sides)

They both avoided condemnation of the school massacre in Beslan by Chechen warlords in 2004.

And so on.

Transparent Theatre
16-08-2008, 04:50
Do conservative governments - and Blair's -use the Daily Mail as their mouthpiece? Of course they do. But the Mirror takes the opposite standpoint, as does the Guardian, and most TV outlets.


This may have been the case 2-3 years ago, but isn't now.

The Guardian is now as neocon as it gets. The reason's clear, and follows this line of thinking:

Britain now (under Blair, as it was when the jump was made) has a neocon Govt that blindly supports US neocon policies
The Guardian supports a Party, not Policies - so the Guardian will abandon its policies and principles, and instead embrace those currently held by the Labour Party (despite the fact that these policies have 0 to do with Labour politics)
The job of the Guardian is not to comment or criticise, or to support matters of principle - but to get New Labour reelected, whatever policies New Labour may be embracing at the time.



If that sounds too cynical, then look at what's actually being written IN the Guardian by Martin Kettle (resolutely neocon through-and-through), Nick Cohen (vicious assaults on every aspect of socialism, embraces Iraq War, writes thundering anti-Islamic rants) and Simon Tisdall (undigested regurgitated neocon babble from Chatham House).

quincy
16-08-2008, 19:19
Do conservative governments - and Blair's -use the Daily Mail as their mouthpiece? Of course they do. But the Mirror takes the opposite standpoint, as does the Guardian, and most TV outlets.

.

The Mirror was the only paper that opposed the Iraq war. And after a short time its editor (Piers Morgan) was forced to quit. The establishment doesn't like dissenters

Yes there is diversity in the UK but as I said on certain geopolitical issues the views are pretty uniform. And yes the Russian media does need to make itself a lot more lively and investigative

RRM
16-08-2008, 19:35
Media is nice to have but one can never know the truth. People select a news channel and speak their views after. How many have already met with a Georgian or Russian living in these parts and asked them what they saw and think ? How many actually do their research by reading books written by people in these conflict zones or people who have worked in this part and made a sound judgement. When you actually do that, one begins to wonder it is no more black and white.