Russians halt Nato Co-operation

Russia has told Nato that it is halting military co-operation over the continuing crisis in Georgia, an alliance spokeswoman has said.

The Nato spokeswoman said it had been notified of the decision through military channels. She said the alliance "takes note" of the decision but had no further reaction to it.

Nato and Russia began co-operating on various projects following an agreement in 2002.

Meanwhile, the separatist leaders of Georgia's breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have urged Russia to recognise their independence at mass rallies.

Story from BBC NEWS

U.S., Poland agree to missile defense deal

Russia infuriated with plan, had threatened to redirect missiles to Poland

WARSAW, Poland - Poland and the United States reached an agreement Thursday that will see a battery of American missiles established inside Poland — a plan that has infuriated Russia and threatened to exacerbate tensions with the region's communist-era master.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk — speaking in an interview televised on news channel TVN24 — said the United States had agreed to help augment Poland's defenses with Patriot missiles in exchange for placing 10 missile defense interceptors in the Eastern European country.

Tusk said the deal, to be signed later Thursday in Warsaw, includes a "mutual commitment" between the two nations to come to each other's assistance "in case of trouble."

The clause appeared to be a reference to potential challenges from Russia.

Moscow had threatened to redirect missiles toward Poland if the country agreed to host elements of the U.S. missile defense shield.

The recent Russian military incursion into Georgia, along with its bombing of Georgian military outposts and airfields, has rattled former Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe.

Poland said the conflict in Georgia underlined Poland's need for U.S. military assistance if it were to cooperate on the U.S. missile defense shield.

The United States has also reached an agreement with the Czech government to place a radar component of the shield in that country. That deal still needs approval from Czech parliament.

Source: Associated Press

Russia: 'Forget' Georgian territorial integrity

By CHRISTOPHER TORCHIA, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, August 14, 2008

Russia's foreign minister declared Thursday that the world "can forget about" Georgia's territorial integrity, and American and Georgian officials said Russia appeared to be targeting military infrastructure — including radars and patrol boats at a Black Sea naval base and oil hub.

An AP Television News crew in the oil port city of Poti saw one destroyed Georgian military boat, and two Russian armored vehicles and two Russian transport trucks. Soldiers who identified themselves as Russian peacekeepers blocked the crew from going further.

Russia's president met in the Kremlin with the leaders of Georgia's two separatist provinces — a clear sign that Moscow could absorb the regions. The comments from Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov appeared to come as a challenge to the United States, where President Bush has called for Russia to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Georgia."

The Russian refusal to withdraw from Georgia presents a challenge to the cease-fire agreement designed to end seven days of fighting. The EU-sponsored accord had envisioned Russian and Georgian forces returning to their original positions.

In Washington, an American official said Russia appears to be sabotaging airfields and other military infrastructure as its forces pull back. The U.S. official described eyewitnesses accounts for The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. The official said the Russian strategy seems like a deliberate attempt to cripple the already battered Georgian military.

The United States poured aid into the Georgian capital of Tbilisi on Thursday and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice launched emergency talks in France aimed at heading off a wider conflict.

Russia's deputy chief of General Staff Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn said he was not sure that the U.S. planes carried exclusively humanitarian cargo. "It causes our concern," he said.

At least 20 explosions were heard near Gori, along with small-arms fire. It could not immediately be determined if the blasts were a renewal of fighting between Georgian and Russian forces, but they sounded similar to mortar shells and occurred after a tense confrontation between Russian and Georgian troops on the edge of the city.

The strategically located city is 15 miles south of South Ossetia, the Russian-backed separatist region where Russian and Georgian forces fought a five-day battle. Russian troops entered Gori on Wednesday, after the two sides signed the cease-fire.

In Washington, a Pentagon official said U.S. intelligence had assessed that the number of Russians in Gori was small — about 100 to 200 troops. But the Russian presence in Gori, only 60 miles west of Tbilisi, was viewed as a demonstration of the vulnerability of the capital.

Nogovitsyn said Russian troops went to Gori to establish contact with local civilian administration and take control over military depots left behind by the Georgian forces. "The abandoned weapons needed protection," he said.

Georgian government officials who went into the city for the possible handover left unexpectedly around midday, followed by a checkpoint confrontation outside Gori which ended when Russian tanks sped toward the area and Georgian police quickly retreated.

A Russian general in Gori had said Wednesday it would take at least two days to leave the city.

Besides the hundreds killed since hostilities broke out, the United Nations estimates 100,000 Georgians have been uprooted; Russia says some 30,000 residents of South Ossetia fled into the neighboring Russian province of North Ossetia.

Russian troops also appeared to be settling in elsewhere in Georgia outside the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"One can forget about any talk about Georgia's territorial integrity because, I believe, it is impossible to persuade South Ossetia and Abkhazia to agree with the logic that they can be forced back into the Georgian state," Lavrov told reporters.

The White House bluntly rejected Lavrov's message.

"Our position on Georgia's territorial integrity is not going to change no matter what anybody says," White House press secretary Dana Perino said Thursday. "And so I would consider that to be bluster from the foreign minister of Russia. We will ignore it."

Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops had burned patrol boats and destroyed radars and other equipment at the port city of Poti, home to Georgia's main naval base and a major hub for oil exports to Europe. The APTN crew saw one destroyed boat, about 60 feet long.

On Poti's outskirts, the APTN crew followed a different convoy of Russian troops as they searched a forest for Georgian military equipment.

Nogovitsyn avoided comment on the Russian presence in Poti, saying only that Russian forces were operating within their "area of responsibility."

Another APTN camera crew saw Russian soldiers and military vehicles parked Thursday inside the Georgian government's elegant, heavily-gated residence in the western town of Zugdidi. Some of the soldiers wore blue peacekeeping helmets, others wore green camouflage helmets, all were heavily armed. The scene underlined how closely the soldiers Russia calls peacekeepers are allied with its military.

"The Russian troops are here. They are occupying," Ygor Gegenava, an elderly Zugdidi resident told the APTN crew. "We don't want them here. What we need is friendship and good relations with the Russian people."

Georgia, bordering the Black Sea between Turkey and Russia, was ruled by Moscow for most of the two centuries preceding the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union.

A steady, dejected trickle of Georgian refugees fled the front line in overloaded cars, trucks and tractor-pulled wagons, heading to Tbilisi on the road from Gori. One Soviet-era car carried eight people, including a mother and a baby in the front seat. The open back door of a small blue van revealed at least a dozen people crowded inside.

The Russian General Prosecutor's office on Thursday said it has formally opened a genocide probe into Georgian treatment of South Ossetians. For its part, Georgia this week filed a suit against Russia in the International Court of Justice, alleging murder, rape and mass expulsions in both provinces.

More homes in deserted ethnic Georgian villages were apparently set ablaze Wednesday, sending clouds of smoke over the foothills north of Tskhinvali, capital of breakaway South Ossetia.

One Russian colonel, who refused to give his name, blamed the fires on looters.

Those with ethnic Georgian backgrounds who have stayed behind — like 70-year-old retired teacher Vinera Chebataryeva — seem increasingly unwelcome in South Ossetia.

As she stood sobbing in her wrecked apartment near the center of Tskhinvali, Chebataryeva said a skirmish between Ossetian soldiers and a Georgian tank had gouged the two gaping shell holes in her wall, bashing in her piano and destroying her furniture.

Janna Kuzayeva, an ethnic Ossetian neighbor, claimed the Georgian tank fired the shell at Chebataryeva's apartment.

"We know for sure her brother spied for Georgians," said Kuzayeva. "We let her stay here, and now she's blaming everything on us."

North of Tskhinvali, a number of former Georgian communities have been abandoned in the last few days. "There isn't a single Georgian left in those villages," said Robert Kochi, a 45-year-old South Ossetian"

But he had little sympathy for his former Georgian neighbors. "They wanted to physically uproot us all," he said. "What other definition is there for genocide?"

___

Associated Press writers Misha Dzhindzhikhavili in Tbilisi; Mansur Mirovalev in Tskhinvali, Georgia; Jim Heintz in Moscow; and Anne Gearan, Matthew Lee and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report.

Georgia-Russia fight endangers U.S. oil goals

Jad Mouawad, New York Times

When the main pipeline that carries oil through Georgia was completed in 2005, it was hailed as a major success in the U.S. policy to diversify its energy supply. Not only did the pipeline transport oil produced in Central Asia, helping move the West off its dependence on the Middle East, but it also accomplished another American goal: It bypassed Russia.

U.S. policymakers hoped that diverting oil around Russia would keep it from reasserting control over Central Asia and its enormous oil and gas wealth and would provide a safer alternative to Moscow's control over export routes that it had inherited from Soviet days.

A bumper sticker that U.S. diplomats distributed around Central Asia in the 1990s summed up Washington's thinking: "Happiness is multiple pipelines."

Now energy experts say that the hostilities between Russia and Georgia could threaten American plans to gain access to more of Central Asia's energy resources in a year when booming demand in Asia and tight supplies helped push the price of oil to records.

"It is hard to see through the fog of this war another pipeline through Georgia," said Cliff Kupchan, a political risk analyst at Eurasia Group and a State Department official during the Clinton administration. "Multinationals and Central Asian and Caspian governments may think twice about building new lines through this corridor. It may even call into question the reliability of moving existing volumes through that corridor."

At the very least, they warn, Russia may figure even more prominently in shaping the region's energy future.

The latest struggle over Caspian oil started in the 1990s under President Bill Clinton, after the breakup of the Soviet Union. The building of the pipeline that passes through Georgia, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan line remains one of the signature successes of the American strategy to put a wedge between Russia and the Central Asian countries that had been Soviet republics.

Previous attempts to get oil out of Kazakhstan through a non-Russia route have failed. Most of the oil production from the giant field of Tengiz, for example, in which Chevron is the largest investor, now travels through a pipeline known as the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, which runs along the northern Caspian coastline to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk.

Some analysts believe the armed conflict between Russia and Georgia is rooted not only in historical enmity, but also an outgrowth of Russia's fears that Georgia, with its pro-Western bent, could prove to be a lasting competitor for energy exports.

"Russians treasured the fact they had a monopoly on oil and gas pipelines from Central Asia, as it gave them considerable clout," said Marshall I. Goldman, a senior scholar for Russian studies at Harvard. "By agreeing to having an oil pipeline, Georgia made itself more vulnerable." A big concern now centers over Kashagan, the giant oil field in the Caspian Sea that holds more than 10 billion barrels of reserves. Located off Kazakhstan, Kashagan is the most ambitious attempt to date by Western companies to develop new supplies in the Caspian.

It will be at least five years before oil starts flowing from there, but the operating consortium, which includes Exxon Mobil and ConocoPhillips, plans to transport Kashagan's oil through the BTC pipeline. That would involve building a new pipeline under the Caspian Sea, which might encounter opposition from Russia.

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, 1,100 miles long, transports 850,000 barrels a day of oil, or 1 percent of global supplies, from Azerbaijan through Georgia and into the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean. Much of the oil is bound for Europe and the United States.

The oil comes from several fields in Azerbaijan, offshore in the Caspian. When the pipeline was under construction, the West struggled to find routes that would avoid trouble spots.

The United States, for instance, did not want the line to pass through Iran. In the end, BP, which operates the pipeline, and other investors decided the line had to proceed on its current route, through three countries struggling with separatists.

It is time USA should call a spade a spade

Article by: Vladimir Anokhin

A new national defense strategy has been exposed in the USA. Defense Secretary Robert Gates directly referred to Russia and China as potential foes. However, the USA is not going to wage any wars against the world’s two biggest countries.

In spite of the fact that the Pentagon has not officially published the National Defense Strategy yet (the document was approved in June), several copies of the new document have been sent to the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Pentagon’s press secretary Geoff Morrell said that the document contained the content of Robert Gates’s speeches which he had delivered during the recent several months. The minister wrote that he considered his document to be a recipe for success for the next US administration.

Strategy has been an issue of paramount important for Robert Gates since the end of 2006, when he chaired the Pentagon. The concept of the strategy says that the United States must attract both military resources and the “soft power” to defeat a complex, transnational foe.

The document also contains appeals to develop non-standard warfare methods instead of focusing the USA’s strength on conventional armed conflicts with other states. Gates also recommends developing partnership with China and Russia to blunt their rise as potential adversaries and hedge against their increasing military capabilities.

Robert Gates points out India as an ally, which, as he hopes, will claim large responsibility as a country interested in the international system. However, the official sees the struggle with al-Qaida and other terrorist groups to be the prime goal for the USA during the forthcoming decades.

Even victories in Iraq and Afghanistan would not put an end to the long-standing war with armed extremist groups, Gates believes.

"For the foreseeable future, winning the 'Long War' against violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the U.S.," the strategy paper said, adding that Iraq and Afghanistan "remain the central fronts in the struggle."

But, it added that the U.S. "cannot lose sight of the implications of fighting a long-term, episodic, multi-front, and multidimensional conflict more complex and diverse than the Cold War confrontation with communism."

The 23-page document asserted: "Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning this conflict, but it alone will not bring victory."

To put it in a nutshell, Robert Gates believes that the USA should wage war by proxy.

Gates uses the term ‘long war’ introduced by his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld. The official uses the term to assimilate the war against terrorism to Soviet communism and German Nazism. Gates turned down the idea of giving the first priority to the preventive use of military force. He urges the current and the future US administration to cooperate with other countries to exterminate terrorism and conditions that lead to its development.

“The use of force plays a role but may be less important than measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies," the document said.

The national defense strategy, which US Defense Secretary submits to the Senate and the president of the United States once in two years, mirrors the evolution of USA’s degrading defense capabilities. The previous concepts expressed the nation’s readiness to struggle against international terrorism in any part of the world. The “success” of such struggle has undoubtedly undermined the reputation of the White House both inside and outside the United States, along with the reputation of NATO members which sent their military contingents to Iraq and Afghanistan. It is time for the USA to call a spade a spade.

When a military report names a country and defines it as a potential foe, one should read this as ‘enemy.’ Therefore, the USA has officially named Russia and China its official enemies. It goes without saying that the USA is not going to wage war against these two countries. It is hard to imagine what would happen to the US Army if the US administration declared war on China with and its 1.5-billion-strong population. To crown it all, Russia and China possess nuclear weapons. However, an official acknowledgment of China and Russia as USA’s enemies will give the USA an opportunity to deploy radar stations and missile defense systems anywhere in the world. Gates’s strategy is an unofficial declaration of war.

The USA’s economic state leaves much to be desired too. The opium war, which the nation unleashed in Afghanistan, can serve the best proof for that. Washington is unable to cover the military spending at the expense of its own industry. England used to succeed in the solution of its financial problems with the help of opium and opium wars in China.

If the USA is deprived of this source of income, the country will lack funds for unleashing local conflicts all over the world and maintaining the minimal battling capacity of its own army.

It is not ruled out that the new defense strategy of the United States is just another attempt of the country to preserve its image of world’s only superpower. In addition, the concept may also allow not to show any reaction to Russia’s initiatives. The USA simply declares that it can cope with Russia and China at once and thus creates a false impression of the world leader.

Terrorism focus of new US military strategy-report
Wed Jul 30, 2008 11:51pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/articlePrint?articleId=USN30468214

WASHINGTON, July 31 (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates last month approved a new National Defense Strategy that recommends making fighting al Qaeda and other militant groups the top military priority in coming decades, the Washington Post reported in Thursday editions.

The document, which has been shared with U.S. lawmakers but not published, calls for the military to master “irregular” warfare rather than focusing on conventional conflicts with other states, said the newspaper.

“Iraq and Afghanistan remain the central fronts in the struggle, but we cannot lose sight of the implications of fighting a long-term, episodic, multi-front, and multi-dimensional conflict more complex and diverse than the Cold War confrontation with communism,” the Post quoted the 23-page document as saying.

“Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning this conflict, but it alone will not bring victory,” it said.

Since taking office in late 2006, Gates has departed from his predecessor Donald Rumsfeld’s focus on preemptive military action, instead encouraging cooperation with other countries to eliminate conditions that breed extremism, the newspaper said.

“The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government and economic programs to spur development, as well as efforts to understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies,” the document said.

Georgia, Ossetia and Public Opinion

Article by: Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

If the people of the world are being asked to judge the actions of the Russian Federation through press reports based on the information that is presented to them, then it would be a good idea to begin from a viewpoint whereby the international media presents the truth and not some half-baked subjective attempt to package the story in a way that is hostile to Moscow.

For a start, Moscow has been careful to inform the world media through a tireless campaign from its press attaches at its Embassies, whereby the Russian Foreign Ministry has provided detailed information as to Moscow’s constant attempts to broker a peace deal in South Ossetia, constantly stressing the need to satisfy both Tbilisi (Georgia) and Tskhinvali (South Ossetia). Where has this information appeared in a single western news outlet? It has been systematically ignored in a massive attempt at misinformation.

Secondly, hours after it announced a ceasefire, Georgia instructed its peacekeeping forces to attack the Russian peacekeepers in the area, an act which raises questions as to the sanity of Georgia’s President Mikhail Saakashvili and more seriously, to the intentions of Washington, which along with Tel Aviv, has hundreds of military advisors supporting the Georgian armed forces. How could this attack not have received approval from the puppet-master who pulls Saakashvili’s strings?

Russia’s actions before the conflict broke out were under the sphere of a legitimate and legally backed peacekeeping force and its reaction to this cowardly act of murder by the Georgian armed forces continues to be that of a peace-keeper, while at the same time providing humanitarian aid for the growing number of refugees. Hospitals have been set up and Moscow has approved billions of RUR for a rebuilding fund, given that the Georgia military exacted tremendous damage on residential areas in Tskhinvali and the surrounding area.

Let the people of the world judge the actions for what they are, not what they are wrongly reported as being. When President Bush condemned Moscow’s reaction is unacceptable, was he then giving his tacit support to the acts of ethnic cleansing carried out by Georgian troops in the early hours of their cowardly back-stabbing attack under cover of night and salvos of missiles aimed at the heart of civilian residential areas in the capital?

When President Bush and Secretary of State Rice condemn Moscow, are they then giving their approval to the murder of 2.000 civilians by Tbilisi and the internal dislocation of 40.000 others? Do they then approve of Tbilisi announcing a ceasefire and then launching a massive attack against civilians?


Given their track record, what with the acts of torture by the CIA, the concentration camp at Guantanamo, the illegal act of butchery in Iraq, Lynndie England and her friends "just having fun" torturing people at Abu Ghraib, it would not be in the least surprising that in condemning Moscow, Bush and Rice do give their approval to ethnic cleansing against Russians. After all, what to expect from this pair and their regime?

However, one can only hope that someone in Washington has a brain and that this brain sees very clearly the situation for what it is, namely a very ugly and cowardly attack by a frustrated Tbilisi, using military forces against civilians, then attacking ambulances and doctors as they came to help the victims, and documented cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated by Georgia’s armed forces.

Let the people of the world judge events based on this true version of events, not the nonsense being reported in a biased and unfree western press. The fact of the matter is that Moscow is right and has done everything it possibly could to avoid conflict. The ones who started it were the Georgians, who now go whining to NATO.

NATO would do very well to remain silent and mind its own business, specially after lying about its expansion eastwards. Moscow is not afraid of NATO and has the capacity to neutralize any military situation to its advantage. However, it is not Moscow that is spoiling for a fight.

Civilian Genocide, Dead Americans Cost Of U.S.-Russia Proxy War

By: Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, August 11, 2008

The truth behind who is primarily responsible for the bloodshed unfolding in South Ossetia and surrounding areas has been buried by the western corporate media. Georgian forces, with a green light from NATO and the support of American and Ukrainian mercenaries, launched a brutal attack targeting civilians and Russian peacekeepers timed to coincide with the opening of the Beijing Olympics so as to temporarily deflect attention before the inevitable Russian response, by which time the global media machine kicked into high gear to smear Russia as the villains of the entire piece.

Georgia

Georgia is being used as a proxy client state through which the U.S. and NATO are advancing their geopolitical motives — to the cost of Ossetian, Georgian and Russian civilians alike caught in the middle of the carnage.
To accept such a characterization is not parroting Russian military propaganda, it is a reflection of the stone cold fact that Georgia was responsible for the first provocation - which itself amounted to a war crime - that launched the conflict.

That is not to hide from the fact that Russia’s unrelenting response continues to slaughter untold numbers of innocent people.

The initial Georgian bombardment of the provincial capital Tskhinvali was primarily directed to achieve maximum civilian casualties, with residential areas, hospitals and the university being targeted, leading to at least 1500 civilian deaths according to both western and Russian sources.

“The air and artillery bombardment left the provincial capital without water, food, electricity and gas. Horrified civilians crawled out of the basements into the streets as fighting eased, looking for supplies,” reported the Associated Press.

Reports of the initial carnage metered out by Georgian forces and the slaughter of Russian peacekeepers are difficult to find, because they have already been buried under the deluge of condemnation about Russia’s heavy-handed response.

An American man living in South Ossetia says U.S. and Georgian leaders are responsible for the violence that has killed 2,000 people in the region.

American citizen and resident of South Ossetia Joe Mestas described the war crimes he witnessed being carried out by Georgian forces, back by U.S. support, against innocent civilians. “I thought that since U.S. is supporting Georgia there would be some control over the situation in South Ossetia and that there would be a peaceful solution to the conflict. But what is happening there now it’s not just war, but war crimes. George Bush and [Georgian president] Mikhail Saakashvili should answer to the crimes that are being committed – the killing of innocent people, running over by tanks of children and women, throwing grenades into cellars where people are hiding,” Mestas said. “The war is when military fight against military. But the Georgian army is killing innocent civilians. This is genocide,” he added. A prime example of media bias in shielding Georgia from responsibility for the carnage is the fact that news outlets like the BBC continue to report that 1500 civilians have been killed in Georgia, with the obvious inference being that these are victims of the Russian onslaught. But these victims were not killed in Georgia, they were killed in Ossetia - by Georgian forces.

As the Chimes of Freedom Blog elaborates, “While the Ossetians claimed over 1000 dead the BBC neither reported this or any newsreel coming out of Ossetia showing the destruction caused by the Georgian shelling of the breakaway republic. All we are getting is one-sided reports of the destruction being caused by the Russians.”

“The BBC is giving carte blanche to the Georgian point-of-view to be aired on its services while nothing whatsoever is being heard from the Ossetian side. The BBC’s repetitive playing of a statement by George Bush, given several days ago, without balancing these against statements from the Russian side indicates where the BBC is coming from.”

Other mainstream news outlets are either aping the portrayal of Georgia, which enjoys the support of the American empire and NATO, as a poor isolated little country under brutal assault by the big bully Russia, or simply ignoring events altogether and obsessing about John Edwards’ extramarital affair.

In reality, Georgia is being used as a proxy client state through which the U.S. and NATO are advancing their geopolitical motives - to the cost of Ossetian, Georgian and Russian civilians alike caught in the middle of the carnage.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky explains, “Georgia is an outpost of US and NATO forces, on the immediate border of the Russian Federation and within proximity of the Middle East Central Asian war theater. South Ossetia is also at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.”

“Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate.”

The price of the U.S. and NATO’s latest proxy war is already being paid with the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians - along with American mercenaries supporting Georgian forces.

According to the president of South Ossetia, Eduard Kokoity, the bodies of black men were found at the site of one battle near a school.

Russian envoy Dmitry Medoyev indicated the men may have been American mercenaries.

“In yesterday’s attack, the advancing tanks were supposedly crewed by Ukrainians. Two unidentified bodies found today are said to have black skin. Possibly they are Americans but we can’t say for sure yet. We will be able to publish the official conclusions after carrying out special tests,” Medoyev said.

Last month, the United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Ukraine conducted Immediate Response 2008, a joint training exercise said to be in “spirit of the NATO Partnership for Peace program,” according to Blackanthem Military News. Immediate Response 2008 was held at the Vaziani Military Base in Georgia. In another report, a woman interviewed by Russia Today in Tskhinvali, South Ossetia, talked about the presence of Georgian troops with American insignias. “There are lots of bodies over there, a lot of people have been killed, mostly Ossetians, but also Georgians, they had American emblems on their forearms and they were in black uniforms,” she said.

Black uniforms are a trademark of Blackwater and DynCorp mercenaries (see Chris Hedges, America’s Holy Warriors). DynCorp’s presence in Eastern Europe is well documented, particularly in occupied Bosnia where it engaged in sex-trafficking and prostitution.

In a Friday press conference, Chairman of Russia’s State Duma Security Committee Vladimir Vasilyev said without U.S. aid, Tbilisi would have been unable to start military operation in South Ossetia. “The further the situation unfolds, the more the world will understand that Georgia would never be able to do all this without America,” said Vasilyev. “In essence, the Americans have prepared the force, which destroys everything in South Ossetia, attacks civilians and hospitals.”

It is entirely feasible the U.S. has “prepared the force” with mercenaries as well.

Michel Chossudovsky explores the reasoning behind Georgia’s act of provocation that launched the conflict.

US-NATO military and intelligence planners invariably examine various “scenarios” of a proposed military operation– i.e. in this case, a limited Georgian attack largely directed against civilian targets, with a view to inflicting civilian casualties.

The examination of scenarios is a routine practice. With limited military capabilities, a Georgian victory and occupation of Tskhinvali, was an impossibility from the outset. And this was known and understood to US-NATO military planners.

A humanitarian disaster rather than a military victory was an integral part of the scenario. The objective was to destroy the provincial capital, while also inflicting a significant loss of human life.

If the objective were to restore Georgian political control over the provincial government, the operation would have been undertaken in a very different fashion, with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial institutions, rather than waging an all out bombing raid on residential areas, hospitals, not to mention Tskhinvali’s University.

The Russian response was entirely predictable.

Georgia was “encouraged” by NATO and the US. Both Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels were acutely aware of what would happen in the case of a Russian counterattack.

The question is: was this a deliberate provocation intended to trigger a Russian military response and suck the Russians into a broader military confrontation with Georgia (and allied forces) which could potentially escalate into an all out war?

With rhetoric from figures like President Bush and Condoleezza Rice becoming increasingly heated towards Russia, the potential for an escalation in tensions is readily apparent. Only the most naive would believe that the U.S. missile defense shield is anything other than a bulwark against Russian military expansion, and Russia’s response in resuming bomber patrols across the Atlantic sends a clear message.

Knowing that Americans remain completely unconvinced about the necessity of attacking Iran, have the Neo-Cons in control of the White House lit the blue touch paper for a wider war that could swing the U.S. election in favor of pro-war candidate John McCain?

Or is this merely payback for Russia lending their expertise in building Iranian nuclear reactors?

The motives will become clear in due course but what’s certain is that innocent lives will continue to be lost as the American empire lurches into its next theater of conflict and the Neo-Cons play a deadly game that could have devastating wider consequences.

Ο νέος πόλεμος της Κριμαίας Που και γιατί χρειάζεται να προσεχθεί η όδευση του αγωγού South Stream

Ο νέος πόλεμος της Κριμαίας Που και γιατί χρειάζεται να προσεχθεί η όδευση του αγωγού South Stream


Του πρώην Βουλευτή Έβρου Χρήστου Κηπουρού

Οφείλω μια μεγάλη χάρη στο δίδυμο των Σημίτη και Παπανδρέου. Με ενέπνευσαν με τη στάση τους να γράψω όχι ένα αλλά δύο πολιτικά βιβλία για τους αγωγούς. Το πρώτο, είναι συμβατικό. Έχει ως τίτλο «Αγώνας για τη γεωοικονομική Δημοκρατία». Το δεύτερο, ηλεκτρονικό, με τίτλο «Σημειώσεις Πολιτικής Γεωοικονομίας». Αφορμή, ο κατ΄ ευφημισμό ονομασθείς Ελληνοτουρκικός αγωγός Προύσας {Καρατζαμπέυ}-Κομοτηνής {1} αφού το φυσικό αέριο που θα καταναλώνουμε ως χώρα, συμφωνήθηκε από την προηγούμενη Κυβέρνηση να το πληρώνουμε στην Άγκυρα, αντί βέβαια για το Μπακού, μια και λέγεται ότι είναι Αζέρικο. Πριν λοιπόν από όλα απεκάλυπτα αυτό που οι πρώην απέκρυπταν επιμελώς. Και που το έκαναν, με την αμέριστη συνδρομή των Μέσων. Από τα ενεργειακά ρεπορτάζ έως τα πολιτικά. Δηλαδή τα λογοκριτικά.

Κάτι το οποίο ενέτεινε το ενδιαφέρον μου να επεκταθώ, ψάχνοντας την ευρύτερη γεωοικονομική χωροταξία ολόκληρης της Ευρασίας. Προϊόν αυτής της προσπάθειας ήταν μεταξύ άλλων, ο Εύξεινος Αγωγός. Μια μελέτη του 2003 που με μεγάλη χαρά, οφείλω να ομολογήσω, είδα μετά από τρία τέσσερα χρόνια, να αρχίζει να συζητιέται ως North και South Stream. Αναδημοσιεύω μάλιστα με την ευκαιρία του σημερινού σημειώματος το χάρτη που είχα κάνει τότε, και βρίσκεται έκτοτε στην ηλεκτρονική σελίδα του Δημοκρίτειου Πανεπιστημίου Θράκης {2}. Ευτυχώς, γιατί οι διανοητικές ληστείες στην Ελλάδα, δίνουν και παίρνουν.


Δεν διεκδικώ δάφνες ή αξιώματα. Και την όρεξή μου από τη Βουβή Βουλή την πήρα. Η χαρά είναι αλλού. Βρίσκεται στην αρμονική σχέση των επεξεργασμένων σκέψεων και των συναισθημάτων που μόνο αυτή οδηγεί στην παραγωγή. Και βρίσκεται επίσης στο πολιτικό και στο ηθικό δικαίωμα να μιλώ. Αυτό άλλωστε και έκανα πάντοτε. Ένας λόγος περισσότερο τώρα, που οι εξελίξεις επιβεβαιώνουν τις προτάσεις μου. Μπορώ λοιπόν αλλά και οφείλω να επισημάνω άλλη μια φορά, το κενό που υπάρχει στο σχέδιο του αγωγού φυσικού αερίου South Stream. Γιατί σε πολλούς χάρτες που δημοσιοποιούνται, φαίνεται να παρακάμπτεται η Θράκη. Κάτι που στην ουσία, τη θέτει υπό την τουρκική ενεργειακή ομπρέλα. Καθόσον τα 750 εκατομμύρια κυβικά μέτρα αερίου που συμφώνησε επί Σημίτη να αγοράζει η Ελλάδα από την Τουρκία, διαμέσου του αγωγού Προύσας Κομοτηνής, χρησιμοποιούνται από το εργοστάσιο παραγωγής ηλεκτρικού ρεύματος, που βρίσκεται στην Κομοτηνή! Οπότε, οι όποιοι συνειρμοί και συμβολισμοί δεν έχουν την ανάγκη ιδιαίτερης φαντασίας. Τα γεγονότα είναι ομιλητικότατα.
Αυτό λοιπόν που οφείλει η κυβέρνηση με το σχέδιο του South Stream είναι να μην παρακαμφτεί η Θράκη. Ιδίως σήμερα που μετά από σιωπή τεσσάρων και πλέον ετών, ο Καραμανλής επέλεξε να μιλήσει για πρώτη φορά περί εισαγωγής φυσικού αερίου από την Τουρκία. Ίσως για να πέσει στα μαλακά το θέμα, εν μέσω της ευφορίας για την υπογραφείσα ενεργειακή συμφωνία του αγωγού South Stream. Ίσως και λόγω τύψεων από τα πρόσφατα εγκαίνια του αγωγού Προύσας Κομοτηνής, στους Κήπους, όπου έχανε τα λόγια του, δίπλα στον ακτινοβολούντα ικανοποίηση Erdogan.


Γιατί έστω τότε, όφειλε ο Έλληνας πρωθυπουργός να πει: «Ναι στον αγωγό Κασπίας Ευρώπης, τον I.T.G.I , ναι και στο τμήμα Προύσας Κομοτηνής αλλά η Τουρκία όπως η Ελλάδα να αποτελέσουμε χώρες διέλευσης. Transit Countries. Και όσες ποσότητες αερίου χρειαστούμε για την ελληνική κατανάλωση να τις προμηθευόμαστε από τις παραγωγούς χώρες, καταβάλλοντας απλά επιπλέον τέλη διέλευσης». Και όχι βέβαια να κινείται η Ελλάδα επί της πεπατημένης των πρώην και να επεκτείνει την εξάρτηση της από την Τουρκία και προς άλλες ενεργειακές μορφές, όπως η ηλεκτρική ενέργεια. Και μάλιστα να βαφτίζονται όλα αυτά διασυνδέσεις. Με άλλα λόγια, Γεωοικονομική Δημοκρατία αντί γεωοικονομικού κεμαλισμού, μετά των ομώνυμων εξαρτήσεων, που αυτός σχεδιασμένα προωθεί, αρχίζοντας από την στρόφιγγα στην Προύσα, και το κατά το δοκούν άνοιγμα και κλείσιμό της.


Αυτά και άλλα πολλά γράφω στα βιβλία μου και στα άρθρα. Αυτή όμως τη στιγμή με ενδιαφέρει άλλο. Το όλο ενδιαφέρον επικεντρώνεται στις συζητήσεις των μεικτών εξ ειδικών επιστημόνων επιτροπών για το South Stream. Εκεί, όπου οφείλουμε ως χώρα να θέσουμε τα υπέρ της όδευσης Βάρνας-Αλεξανδρούπολης πλεονεκτήματα. Αυτό διότι επί ικανό τμήμα, από το ύψος δηλαδή του Burgas έως την Αλεξανδρούπολη, ο αγωγός του φυσικού αερίου, όσο και ο ομώνυμος πετρελαιαγωγός -ανεξάρτητα αν εγώ δεν είμαι θιασώτης του- θα τρέχουν παράλληλα, ο ένας δίπλα στον άλλο. Οπότε και η Θράκη θα διατρέχεται από τον αγωγό South Stream αλλά και τα κόστη του θα είναι μικρότερα.


Εκείθεν, παράλληλα με την οδική Εγνατία, από τον Έβρο έως τη Θεσπρωτία, μπορεί πολύ πιο εύκολα και με μικρότερο επίσης κόστος να κτισθεί η Ενεργειακή Εγνατία. Από τη μια ο I.T.G.I. και από την άλλη ο South Stream {Εικόνα. 1}. Στη συνέχεια, από τα παράλια της Ηπείρου έως τις απέναντι ακτές της Ιταλίας, θα ακολουθήσουν οι υποβρύχιες ζεύξεις. Τι πιο λογικό άλλωστε και πιο συμφέρον από το να προταθεί αλλά και να κτισθεί όλο αυτό το σύστημα. Η μητέρα Εγνατία με τους δύο αγωγούς γιους, που θα λείπει μόνο το ζευγάρι της. Ο ομώνυμος ηλεκτρικός σιδηρόδρομος. Επίσης και κάποιες νεότερες τεχνολογικά συγγενείς, όπως η Νουμερική Εγνατία.


Τώρα θα πρέπει να καταλαβαίνουν όσοι μας προπηλάκιζαν και μας διέγραφαν, όταν τη δεκαετία του ΄90, κάναμε αγώνα για την Εγνατία οδό. Και που τον συνεχίζουμε, μέσα από την ενεργειακή, αλλά και τις υπόλοιπες εκδοχές. Δεν περίμενα βέβαια από τους παλιούς μου συντρόφους να μιλήσουν ή να γράψουν κάτι σχετικό με όλα αυτά. Πότε μήπως έγραψαν; Κρίμα που είχαν και αξιωματούχους που διετέλεσαν επίτροποι στην Ε.Ε. και δη στην ενέργεια. Γιατί και που έβγαλαν εκπροσώπους να σχολιάσουν τα της Μόσχας, με τα όσα είπαν, ότι δηλαδή δεν υπάρχει ακόμη μια ολοκληρωμένη εικόνα κλπ., έδειξαν ότι δεν είχαν να πουν τίποτε. Άλλωστε και τι να έλεγαν; Ότι ο αγωγός φυσικού αερίου Προύσας Κομοτηνής που τόσο προπαγάνδισαν, αποδείχθηκε τελικά ότι ήταν περισσότερο ένα τουρκικό σχέδιο παρά Αμερικανικό; Ότι, όπως έγινε ήταν σε κάθε περίπτωση, ένα εξωελλαδικό σχέδιο; Ή ότι υπέγραψαν την αγορά από ένα κράτος-μεσάζοντα αντί να ζητήσουν, όπως θα όφειλαν, από την Τουρκία να αποτελέσει Transit Country και όχι προαγωγό. Τουρκιστί, Davaci. Ή να εγκαλέσουν σήμερα την κυβέρνηση γιατί δεν θέτει θέμα για την παράκαμψη της Θράκης από τον South Stream;


Τέλος, υπάρχει ένας ακόμη λόγος για τη διαμέσου της Θράκης διέλευση. Σχετίζεται με τη Γεωοικονομία και τη Γεωιστορία της ευρύτερης περιοχής κατά το δεύτερο μισό του 19ου αιώνα, που απετέλεσαν μετά από τον Κριμαϊκό πόλεμο την αιτία ίδρυσης από Ρώσους μηχανικούς της Αλεξανδρούπολης. Η οποία αν είχε κτισθεί από πριν και είχε αποκτηθεί η δια αυτής προσπέλαση στο Αιγαίο, σαφώς και θα ήταν διαφορετική η έκβαση του πολέμου. Ας μην επεκταθώ και στην προ αρκετών δεκαετιών Ρωσική πρόταση για τη διάνοιξη διώρυγας στη Θρακική ξηρά. Ενός θαλάσσιου By pass των Δαρδανελίων. Ο Έλληνας πρωθυπουργός μπορούσε να τα υπενθυμίσει όλα αυτά. Θα κέρδιζε η ίδια η Γεωοικονομική Δημοκρατία. Και η Ρωσία αλλά και η Ελλάδα. Θέλω να πω δηλαδή ότι ο νέος πόλεμος της Κριμαίας που ήδη άρχισε, μπορεί να μην έχει την έκβαση του προηγούμενου. Άλλο Αλεξανδρούπολη, άλλο Σεβαστούπολη. Τρόποι και διπλωματικοί κανόνες για να εκφραστούν όλα αυτά, υπάρχουν. Και μάλιστα αποτελεσματικά. Και όχι μόνο να εκφραστούν αλλά και να εφαρμοστούν επιτυχώς, γιατί και οι άλλες πλευρές, δεν πρόκειται να καθίσουν με σταυρωμένα τα χέρια.

__________


Σημείωση {1}, Χρ. Κηπουρός, Νέος γύρος στη μάχη του Φυσικού αερίου, βλ. εφημερίδα Επενδυτής, 18 & 19 Αυγούστου 2001. Επίσης του ίδιου, Αγώνας για τη Γεωοικονομική Δημοκρατία, Εκδόσεις Γόρδιος, Αθήνα 2002. Βλ. επίσης την εικόνα 1.

Σημείωση {2}, ο. π. Σημειώσεις πολιτικής γεωοικονομίας, βλ. ιστοσελίδα Δημοκριτείου Πανεπιστημίου Θράκης, ΔΠΘ, http://alex.eled.duth.gr/kipouros/ Επίσης βλ. «Αγωγοί, παραγωγοί και προαγωγοί στην Ευρασία», εφ. Επενδυτής, 25 Αυγ. 2007. βλ. επίσης την εικόνα 2.