It is hard to find a recent news story that has been given such different versions by the interest groups involved. Few of the world's "great" leaders have gone back (as I did in my last note on the subject) to the source of the trouble created quite deliberately by the most infamous son of Georgia, Josef Dzhugashvili (aka Stalin).
It is easy to understand why the Russian president Dimitri Medvedev reacted as he did to the equally deliberate further move to encircle Russia operated by the Bush régime in accordance also with the desire of his Zionist masters to create an increased threat to Iran. The Georgian régime must have known what the reaction would be to their move to seize South Ossetia by armed force, and this attack seems to have released terrifying revenge action by the worst elements among the South Ossetians who took advantage of Georgia's weakness to loot and kill in nearby Georgian towns. Obviously the Russians should have insisted on discipline among the militias whom they let loose, but horrors are commonplace once a war has been started, and the major blame seems bound to fall on the rulers of Georgia.
We cannot be surprised by the Russian threat in reply to recognise the independence of both South Ossetia (which will then most likely wish to unite with North Ossetia) and of Abkhazia. This would be a fitting answer to the recognition of the independence of Kossovo by the "West". I am not criticising any party unwillingly dragged into the turmoil deliberately stirred up by the Bush régime and its predecessors in the Balkans and the Caucasus. However, I find it hard to see how anyone can accept Mr Bush's declarations firstly on 12th August that Russian increases in its occupying troops in South Ossetia were "unacceptable" and then on 15th August that Russia must stop its "bullying and intimidation" after he and his "poodle" Mr Blair had done worse things when they bombed Serbia and even far worse still when they attacked and occupied Iraq. Until the USA and its servile "allies" have removed all their troops from Iraq, they have no conceivable grounds for criticising the Russian rulers when they in their turn perceive obvious moves to encircle their Empire.
The very existence of NATO is, quite understandably, perceived by the Russian leadership as hostile to its interests, and this, whether or not one admits that Russia has any right to exercise control over its former colonies or satellites, is almost certainly true. What many in the "West" seem willing to overlook is the obvious insistence by the rulers of the USA that their Empire is entitled to exercise strict control on countries all around the world. This is because, although they pay even greater attention to other countries in America, they certainly do not limit their contemptuous colonialist attitude to their immediate neighbours. This repulsive Empire shows every sign of wishing to control the whole world, and every other state has an interest in resisting this greedy desire by the rulers of the USA with the greatest determination, since it is much more far-reaching than the ambitions of the Russian rulers.
Our aim here in Europe should be to steer clear of subjection to either of these Empires, and to work towards having good relations with both of them, on the basis of equality and certainly not of subservience. It can do us no good whatsoever to go along with one or other of these entities, whose aims constitute a genuine threat to our political and cultural survival. In most ways the Russians, as well as being nearer to us geographically, are closer to us in many other ways, since they have a much closer historical and cultural heritage than the far away post-civilisation way of life imposed by their rulers on so many of the ordinary citizens of the USA.
I apologise for repeating so often the words "rulers of" and "régime" when describing the two Empires, but it is not altogether fair to refer to either the USA or Russia without making it clear that the ordinary people have little say under either political system, since neither can even remotely be described as being democratic in the modern sense of the word.
Mr George W. Bush and other members of his gang spout endlessly about bringing their brand of "democracy" to the rest of the world, but we quite simply just do not want it. We would prefer to have at least some say in our own future and not have it planned against our interests for their benefit by outside speculators of which notorious examples are the corporations linked with the Bush and Bin Laden families' Carlyle Group and such other corporations as are close to Mr Richard Cheney. Our worst troubles have come from the Quislings (or Trojan Horses if you prefer to go back beyond the Second World War to ancient history) which each of our countries has thrown up, and one of the first recent leaders of this inglorious band was Mr Anthony C.L. Blair, the former prime minister of the United Kingdom, followed more recently by our own president Nicolas Sarkozy and the latest recruits include Mr Mikhail Saakashvili, the president of Georgia and the presidents of such other countries as Poland and the Ukraine.
On this point of comparative democracy, it seems certain that the present Putin/Medvedev leadership is far more popular among the inhabitants of the Russian Empire than is the gang surrounding Mr George W. Bush among the citizens of the USA whom it treats as subjects having no rights.
It could perhaps put an end to all these disastrous tensions if all concerned agreed that the inhabitants of South Ossetia or Abkhazia have as much right to independence or to choose their own future as have the ethnic Georgians, or any other clearly different ethnic group anywhere in the world. However, it seems unlikely that Russia would wish to extend the principle, which could then be applied to nearby Chechnya. Powerful countries have a duty to use their power responsibly in the long-term interest of their own states and of the rest of the world. This should apply to all current and potential super-powers, but they all have severe doubts and we can see clearly the desire for various reasons, often economic and strategic, to seize land, or to retain that previously seized, and then to exert central colonialist control not only on the part of the USA and Russia, but also of China, India and Indonesia.
If we are going to criticise, we should do so fairly, and not jump onto the bandwagon of complaining about the other, in the case of the "West" Russia, and recognise the cynical efforts made by the administration of the USA to manipulate public opinion among its other victims, or potential victims such as ourselves.
We are simple folk and we want the tensions to end and all ordinary people to be granted genuine freedom.
© Copyright 2008 by AxisofLogic.com
This material is available for republication as long as reprints include verbatim copy of the article in its entirety, respecting its integrity. Reprints must cite the author and Axis of Logic as the original source including a "live link" to the article. Thank you!
