Thursday, November 13, 2008

The Russian 'aggression' that never was

Thank goodness, they might be thinking at the US State Department and the British Foreign Office, for the financial crisis. Were it not for the ever-blacker news about the Western world's economy, another scandal would be vying for the headlines – and one where the blame would be easier to apportion. It concerns our two countries' relations with Russia and the truth about this summer's Georgia-Russia war.

It's now clear that Georgia started the war in South Ossetia. Why did US and British accounts give the impression that Russia was the guilty party, and Georgia a brave little democracy that big bad Russia wanted to snuff out?

asks Mary Dejevsky in the Independent.

Well not all 'US and British accounts' gave that impression; this blog told it as it was- and so too did our good friend The Exile, who deserves the Orwell Prize for blogging for his round the clock posts on the conflict this summer

How were we so sure that Georgia and not Russia was the aggressor?

Well, I can't speak for The Exile, but for me it was an easy one. The neocons said Russia was the aggressor and as I’ve said before on many occasions-we always know when neocons are lying: they open their mouths or start typing on a keyboard.

Dejevksy then asks:

So why were British and US officials so cagey about acknowledging, or perhaps even believing, what had really happened? Why did the Conservative leader, David Cameron, rush to Tbilisi to support Georgia as the unquestioned victim? And why – except to trump Mr Cameron – did the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, give a tub-thumping speech in Kiev shortly afterwards that perpetuated the impression (without actually using the words) that the war was all about Moscow's supposed ambition to reconstitute its empire.

That’s another easy one to answer. Cameron and Miliband are both members of Britain's neocon/neoliberal ruling junta. Baiting the Russian bear- and cheerleading for ‘plucky little Georgia', the neocons favourite ex-Soviet republic- is a compulsory part of their shtick.

But what about the non-neocon commentators who still parroted the ‘Russian aggression/plucky little Georgia’ claptrap. Why didn’t they understand better what was going on, as the Exile, blogging thousands of miles away from the action in Mexico, did?

For the answer to that one, we need to turn to a great American writer. As Upton Sinclair wrote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on him not understanding it".

Hat-tip for the Mary Devesky article: Charlie Marks.


olching said...

One of the most absurd events in a while. It was so bloody obvious to everyone that the little weasel Saakashvili had started this war whilst hoping for Sugar Daddy USA to back him up.

What's more, having then gone into to Georgia to dismantle his toys, the UK and US government have the gall to call Russia's actions 'disproportionate'. I mean, just think of the audacity of it...'disproportionate' after the last ten years of neocon foreign policy.

The 'plucky little Georgia' mantra was embarrassing. Of course it was utterly patronising to ordinary Georgians - denied due democratic processes thanks to Saakashvili's sleight of hand in the winter - and I hope that once the dust has settled, the majority of Georgians will seek to get rid of their 'freedom-loving' president and demand more respect.

Charlie Marks said...

Can't recall that short poem about English journalists not needing to be bribed...

A bit cruel, as we know its not the case - you're evidence of this Neil. Keep up the good work. Perhaps Mary Dejevsky is a reader of the blog?

David Lindsay said...

When the massively "elected", mind-bogglingly corrupt, mentally defective Saakashvili sent in his forces to exterminate the population of a territory which was never part of Georgia until Stalin (yes, Stalin) redrew the map, which had not been run by Georgia since the fall of the Soviet Union, and whose people were Russian citizens closely connected to those in the neighbouring part of Russia from whom and from which they had only ever been sundered by fiat of one of the worst mass murderers of all time, he did so in order to prevent that territory from taking a stand against the three closely interrelated forces of global capital, European federalism, and American "full spectrum dominance".

Between that day and this, all three of those have collapsed.

Think on.

Anonymous said...

Meanwhile,here is Luke Harding making sure we hate Putin, while loving Saakashvili:
People may like to add their comments. Ive already emailed his article to Ms Dejevsky