Georgia’s World Bankroll
By Sean at 24 October, 2008, 12:30 pm
The BBC aren’t the only ones still sorting out South Ossetia. Mark Ames dismantles the NY Times coverage in “The Cold War that Wasn’t“. Like most American media, the Times was fully on board with the Russia = bad, Georgia = good crusade. That is until facts made it too difficult to blindly sustain that line. Even then, the Times made no overt self-criticism, and instead opted for articles showing that maybe Georgia wasn’t the glowing democracy that we all were made to believe it was. A good correction, though horribly academic when it was published two months after the conflict was over. Taking this as a cue, Ames rhetorically asks, then answers:
It’s interesting that the Times published this exactly two months after Georgia’s invasion of South Ossetia–a military decision so off-the-scale idiotic that to call it a “gamble” is an insult to struggling addicts like Bill Bennett.
The real question, then, is why the Times waited until this late to question its own position–why wait until the war was long off the front pages, to publish an article about what everyone with an ounce of journalistic curiosity already knew–that Saakashvili was about as much a democrat as he was a military genius?
The push in the West by outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post to get a new cold war on hinged on two major fallacies: (1) that Russia invaded Georgia first, totally unprovoked, because Georgia is a “democracy”; and (2), that Georgia is a “democracy.”
Justin Raimondo over at Antiwar.com tackles the Georgia issue by focusing on the fact that Saakashvili’s little war got him a big payout in return, proving the profitability of being recognized as a Western-style democracy. The World Bank donors’ conference in Belgium has $4.5 billion in Western money coming to the rescue to rebuild the Caucasian nation’s “infrastructure.” That’s about a billion more than the World Bank’s initial target. Though not intended for the Georgian military, one only assume that much of those funds will find its way weapons purchases. In more honest times, the US and its European allies would have just given weapons to Georgia. However, in these politically correct, “humanitarian” times, militarism must be shrouded in the facade of aid. And the fact that none of this money will go to the real victims, the South Ossetians, is a no brainer. As Raimondo concludes, the donor’s money will most likely slither its way
through Saakashvili and his cronies, who would rather leave the shattered infrastructure of bombed-out Tskhinvali as it is today, a stark reminder of what may very well reoccur should the Ossetians persist in going their own way. If anyone rebuilds, it will have to be the Russians. The private sector aid will be used to buy up Georgian assets on behalf of Western corporate interests. The difference between the World Bank figure and the number announced in Brussels – nearly half a billion – will cover bribes, covert action operations carried out by Western intelligence agencies, and other incidentals.When challenged, proponents of foreign aid programs invariably reply: yes, but look at the minuscule numbers! Why, foreign aid is less than one percent of the total overseas budget, including, one supposes, military expenditures – but so what? The point is that these programs do real harm, in most cases achieving the exact opposite of their intended purpose. And in this particular case, the entire package is premised on a lie, and a freshly debunked one at that. What’s really going on here is that the West is rewarding Saakashvili for his recklessness, and inciting him to commit fresh assaults. This course guarantees war.
Popularity: 7% [?]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
For a little Friday night humour: My BailOut Plan.
I’m sure some of this money will go to refugees. It is a cardinal rule that if you announce ‘aid’, you need to follow up a few months later with several photo-ops in the friendly media, maybe even an expo in the European Parliament. What depresses me is that UN programmes in Africa struggle every year for funds and end up half-baked because of it (like the mosquito nets to Nigeria(?) which hadn’t been impregnated with anti-mossie chemicals), not to mention that yet again there is another serious food shortage crisis brewing in Ethiopia.
I wouldn’t call ‘the West’ racist, but they seem to have no problem poneying up the money for strategic (usually nearby) allies (Georgia) and make financial promises to further flung and much poorer places (east Africa) yet don’t come up with the money…
Back to Georgia, there is little doubt that Georgia’s military weaknesses will be addressed as much as they can, though I do wonder whether the youth will still be as enthusiastic in enrolling in the summer patriot camps where they team build, bond, sing folk songs around the fire and learn how to train, strip & shoot… or whether these camps still/will exist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_camps
Supposedly military training no longer (though its location might have something to do with it):
http://bloguldegeorgia.blogspot.com/2007/07/night-at-patriot-camps.html
Toasted by Russian soldiers recently:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThSGftQGENc
UNHCR on child soldiers:
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,,GEO,4562d8cf2,486cb1011e,0.html
All male citizens and residents aged 18-27 were subject to conscription. Military service was for 18 months. Women, and men in the reserves after completing compulsory service, could join the army on a professional basis on a four-year contract….The government strongly supported and fully funded a number of Patriot Camps around the country, which offered ten-day residential programs in gun handling, sport and leadership training for young people (male and female) aged 15-20. Handling guns, including automatic weapons, was taught by military trainers.14 In 2005, 15,000 young people attended Patriot Camps, and in 2006, 30,000.15 In 2006 the government announced plans to hold a camp in the Kodori Gorge.16 Opposition politicians were critical of the militaristic nature of the camps
***
Of course this rebuilding will not mean much militarily unless it is underpinned with a promise of something much larger and hairier standing behind Georgia. Maybe not likely NATO, but the US??? Curioso. I suppose the question is what effectively can the US do to reverse its strategic reversals in the region.
Hopefully this will be just one more nail into the tomb of Western imperialism.
I guess you folks do know the War Nerd. Well, I love his column on this issue:
http://exiledonline.com/please-dont-help-the-georgians/
I doubt that promised money will materialized. A couple of hundreds millions – likely. But billions? Now?
“Обещать – не значит жениться”.
Another war? From very unlikely to zero chances. The last one was started with assumption that Russia wouldn’t respond.
But after the knock-out Saakashvilli would hardly find a battalion of “patriots” who would like to fight against Russia. This is simple rule of street fight. No need to graduate military academy. You must to knock down your enemy once but with force and no mercy – and your enemy will stay away from you if not forever then for very, very long time.
http://indefence.is/?PageID=769
about real terrorists
about real terrorists
That snowman looks really suspicious. I bet he’s a member of a deep freeze sleeper cell (canned laughter).
Isn’t a bit disingenuous for Icelanders to complain that they don’t understand why the British government is using that legislation on Landsbanki on October 8th, when the bank went into receivership on October 7?
Obviously, it was to allow Brits to get first dibs on their assets.
Protesting that you aren’t a nail, when someone uses a hammer on you, seems to be ignorant of the effectiveness of the hammer.
And the fact that none of this money will go to the real victims, the South Ossetians, is a no brainer.
It’s a no-brainer not because of some inhumane callousness or bias on the part of “the West” (which you imply without stating) but for two rather different reasons: 1) Russia has essentially run local affairs in SO for years and will continue to do so now that the region is “independent” and once it is incorporated into Northern Ossetia (which is the most likely long-term outcome for the territory’s formal status); 2) it’s difficult to imagine Russia allowing outside benefactors to get close enough to dispense aid, and any aid dispensed through the local authorities would be stolen by Kokoity et al. (if Moscow even let them get close to the cash flow) far more certainly than the same can be said about Saakashvili (assuming he’s even still in office when the money gets to GE).
And consider this – although I don’t think there are many valid points of comparison between Kosovo and SO, many Russians regard independent Kosovo as some sort of US project. With (IMO) somewhat more validity, “independent” SO is regarded by Western powers as a Russian project. So, to answer your question about how much aid the West should provide to “independent” SO, perhaps a starting point would be to ask how much aid Russia has given to Kosovo (not counting whatever it had to contribute toward the UN’s efforts there, if anything).
Raimondo’s analysis on this issue, if it can even be called that, is laughable. He seems to just make a bunch of shit up (e.g., his conclusion about “covert action operations”), but (of the bit you quoted) my favorite statement-of-the-obvious-masquerading-as-insight would have to be his observation that “If anyone rebuilds, it will have to be the Russians.” Well, duh. Since they claim all of those Russian passport-holders in SO are Russian citizens, since at least some of the damage to the region was caused by Russia retaking it, and since they’ve upped their troop presence there, showing they intend to stick around for awhile, who else should be paying for rebuilding SO?
This is not a question. Not at all.
The question is – why “The West” is promising (promising!) 4 billions to Georgia? And what for?
That’s why the question of mine which you quoted is what’s called a “rhetorical question.” I think the question you asked falls into that category as well.
Then all three new Baltic democracies – Estonia, Latvia and Litva – might come to the idea “Let’s attack Russia and get 4 billions!” as a solution for their coming economic doom
Because this is just pure logic!
Then all three new Baltic democracies – Estonia, Latvia and Litva – might come to the idea “Let’s attack Russia and get 4 billions!” as a solution for their coming economic doom
Oh, how elastic this whole thing has become. So, now by this comparison Georgia attacked Russia and not its own separatist enclave that Russia has cultivated all this time and basically occupied under “peacekeeping” pretense?
I think the question you asked falls into that category as well.
I don’t think that ivanov’s question is rhetorical. It is quite valid and has fairly clear answers that have been discussed here and elsewhere quite a lot. Either ivanov does not know these answers or he would not accept them as valid. Georgia is a jigsaw piece towards the Caspian. Russia has not delivered anything of value to the West recently, moreover, it has been attempting to use energy supplies as political pressure. The only serious help US wanted from Russia was with Iran. Instead Putin has painted Russia into the corner with friendly pariahs and is trying to do exactly the opposite – building a cartel with Mahmud and Hugo.
Is it too difficult to understand that giving $4B to Georgia (1/750th or thereabouts of the US annual federal budget) is quite an affordable investment.
Cyrill.
I know that Georgia was lucky. I mean – three new democracies will have to invent something else to justify bombing civilian targets. I guess Estonia could start with Narva with hope that Russia will send tank to protect ethnic Russians (unfortunately for Estonia they didn’t get Russian passports).
But they should think fast as their economies are real bubbles.
Whose piece? I thought that Caspian belongs to Kazakhstan, Iran, Azerbaijan and Russia. Georgia=Black Sea…check Google map
Should we? Let me give you Soviet – “Kiss my ass”
Frankly? after these words I see no reason to “argue” with простой парень из деревни and New American Patriot…
PS. US “giving $1 bln only. The rest is “promised” by european friends of Saak.
Yes, Cyrill, of course there are reasons, which have been exhaustively discussed here and elsewhere. I guess what I meant was that, in context, the question as put forth by ivanov seemed rhetorical.
But enough about the topic of the thread.
ivanov, what do you think about this theory of the reasons behind the Russia –> Iceland bailout? Or, to paraphrase you, why is Russia promising 4 billion [Euros, in this case] to Iceland? And what for?
Lyndon.
For the record. I’ll answer your question this time. But next time – do not refer to new Times, Albatz, Morar & Co. Ok?
“Хвалу и клевету приемле равнодушно
И не оспаривай глупца” А.С. Пушкин
No about your question.
1. Russia IS NOT promising anything to Iceland. Russia received a plea from Iceland and agreed to receive delegation to discuss the matter.
I haven’t been digging in to the reasons why local PM said what he said. But from the list of “delegation’s” members – just 4 people and its head is just a Head of Department (of 300.000 clients “bank”) – I could say “Bullshit”. You won’t sent “head of department” to ask for 4 billions. Unless you know the answer.
3. If you want to dig any further – I can give a phone number of one member of that delegation – Helga Tatjana Zharov. Lawyer. She speaks Russian, English and Icelandic.
PS. If I was Dima or Vova – I would give such loan.
UPD.
Just in case.
Lyndon. Do you know the difference between 4 bln help and 4 bln loan?
PS. Russian Navy’s ships are visiting Iceland (and getting fuel etc.) on regular bases.
Frankly? after these words I see no reason to “argue”
Then don’t argue. That passage was not addressed to you at all. Your responses are way too predictable to argue with and way too easy to skid into emotes and trivial quotes to be taken seriously.
ivanov, why such hostility and снисхождение in response to a rather innocent question?
Did you read the article beyond the first paragraph? Do you think 1. that the NT reporters fabricated their info or 2. that their info is irrelevant or its importance exaggerated (or perhaps it’s 3. that they are simply “глупцы” and therefore not worth reading – or was that term of endearment meant for me?)?
N.b., I’m referring not to the bit in the first paragraph of the article that you nitpicked but to the stuff later on about Icelandic investors’ involvement in JVs authorized by Putin’s office when he was in SPB (sort of tenuous links in that portion of the article, to be sure) and about Iceland being a stealth tax haven and a popular offshore destination for Russian wealth. Perhaps you didn’t read that far or didn’t think those bits worth commenting on.
Anyway, I guess your point is that this is a transaction entered into on an entirely commercial basis/rationale. Perhaps. I found the NT article interesting precisely because it didn’t repeat all of the chitchat about Arctic resources and “bailing out a NATO member” but instead seemed to follow the money in the manner of investigative/yellow journalists everywhere and ended up suggesting a different – non-commercial but also non-geopolitical – rationale for the loan.
In response to the question in your second comment, of course I know difference (how polite of you to ask), but as I’m sure you know, “loans” which are given for (geo)political purposes are sometimes not expected or required to be paid back (at least not in cash).
Like you (at least if I interpreted correctly your remark about Russian ships), I’m not convinced that this is necessarily a 100% geopolitically motivated loan, which is sort of why I asked my question in the first place. Forgive me for expecting some insight from you on a Saturday night.
It’s interesting that the question of why Russia would do this has already been asked and answered by an intrepid RIA Novosti columnist. On the other hand, that article is two weeks old now and seems a bit dated, as it refers twice to Russia as an “island of stability” (without apparent irony).
After Friday’s repeat bloodbath on the Moscow markets, that analysis seems a bit dated. On the other hand, I guess keeping the markets closed until Tuesday (as the Russian authorities are apparently planning to do) is one way of ensuring that at least Monday is an “island of stability.”
PS please do not taint Pushkin for me by dragging him into your polemics.
Lyndon, I admit I hate дур и дураков. Albatz – дура.
And Yes, I read the article.
Lyndon, I forgive you
As I said I hate duraks only.
1. Pushkin vs Albatz. I prefer to quote Pushkin. That’s it, nothing special.
2. Georgia started the war and got reward in form of 4 billions promise.
Iceland didn’t start any war and just ask for the loan. And there is no even promise yet.
Feel the difference?
3. As I said – I would give such “loan”. Anyway it would be something that is been kept now in some western bank. Most funny would be to move them from British bank to Iceland
))
4. The low level of Icelandic delegation might mean two things
- to save the face of local politicians who announced that rumor. And the No answer was known before “delegation” left to Moscow.
- the delegation was just a “messenger” to deliver detailed report about situation. So Russia indeed could look into the matter and is considering such loan.
And of course – just a rumor about Russian loan to Iceland (NATO member) – has some geopolitical importance. No doubt about that.
PS. Insiders information. For you only
Iceland is very popular among bad rich guys. Why? It’s easy to hide here from f&^%ng “mass media”.
I just wonder what rumors would be there if “mAss media” knows who is visiting Iceland… There are a lot of own “Albatz” in US
*ranges totally off topic*
Sean, does this NYT piece mean it’s time for a follow-up to your recent post on demographic trends?
Iceland didn’t start any war and just ask for the loan. And there is no even promise yet.
Well, I know nothing is final yet, but it seems some promises (or at least rather definitive statements) have been made:
With Iceland teetering on the brink of default, Russia’s stabilization loan of four billion euros is a lifebelt, and a very sizeable one (on the evening of October 7, Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin acknowledged Russia’s readiness to pay, although previously he had denied such claims by Iceland’s National Bank).
First, Russia’s ambassador to Iceland, Viktor Tatarintsev, announced that Russia would approve Reykjavik’s request for a loan. That was followed by confirmations from Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin and then-Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, according to the website of Iceland’s Central Bank. (the last phrase makes the whole sentence suspect)
And if news like this > continues, maybe Russia will have better things to do with its money than save Iceland, regardless of the geopolitical benefits.
And of course – just a rumor about Russian loan to Iceland (NATO member) – has some geopolitical importance. No doubt about that.
Indeed, no doubt – my only question was what other factors made Russia decide to do this. Today’s Russian gov’t often mixes geopolitical and commercial interests. Sometimes the two are inseparable (e.g., Gazprom & Europe), but in this case what would usually be quite costly – turning a NATO member into a financial dependent – might actually be profitable or at least might be a break-even proposition for Russia.
Lyndon, what would you do without me? Rhetorical question of course
“The Russian delegation was headed by Mr. Dimitry Pankin, Deputy Minister of Finance and the Icelandic delegation was headed by Mr. Sturla Pálsson, Director of International and Market Operations of the Central Bank of Iceland.
The discussions in Moscow centered on exchange of information between the parties, the analysis of the current situation in the financial markets and the Icelandic situation in particular. The parties have agreed to continue their discussions.
Mr. Pankin stated: “The meetings were held in a very friendly manner and we have learned a lot about the current situation in Iceland, the banking system and the Icelandic economy. We are working from our end on further exploration of the issues before we can reach a final decision.”
http://sedlabanki.is/?PageID=287&NewsID=1917
No need to read Albatz & Co.
You also could check Russian Minfin at http://www.minfin.ru
BUT! But if Iceland would sink a British ship then be bombed by RAF and then Russia promises 4 billions for aid – only then it would be correct to compare apple and orange. I mean Georgia, US, “West” (whatever it means), Russia and Iceland. And bombing Icelandic towns would be really good – it will solve they bubble in construction industry (it’s dead now with thousand of new unsold houses, flats and offices).
And Yes – it’s a good idea to transfer some Russian reserves from Britain to Iceland. In the long run Iceland is a SavePlace (good name for a new bank). Food, heat, electricity, water and two jeeps per person – what else do they need in Iceland?
PS. Iceland is producing 64,000 tons of aluminum monthly (and more to come) At $2,500 per ton it’s $160,000,000 per months. Not that bad for 300,000 people.
I wouldn’t call ‘the West’ racist, but they seem to have no problem poneying up the money for strategic (usually nearby) allies (Georgia) and make financial promises to further flung and much poorer places (east Africa) yet don’t come up with the money…
You really think that not much western money gets ploughed into Africa?
I suppose if we’re being encouraged to read idiots like Chomsky and Raimondo, then such views will take hold.
“Sean, does this NYT piece mean it’s time for a follow-up to your recent post on demographic trends?” – Lyndon
Eberstadt is either a Russophobic ideologue or an idiot. Probably both since they overlap frequently.
“With such a brutally high burden of premature mortality and such a radical foreshortening of working life, the cost-benefit calculus for higher education or additional training tilts against investments in knowledge and skills for the work force.”
Which must explain why 25-34 year olds in Russia have the world’s highest levels of tertiary education attainment (http://oberon.sourceoecd.org/vl=5897660/cl=12/nw=1/rpsv/factbook/090103-g2.htm) and why post-1998 growth has overwhelmingly been due to productivity improvements. Also, Russia’s high mortality rates actually improve help prune its future dependency ratio.
Eberstadt fails, again and on multiple levels, just like all the other neocon freaks and retards at the American Enterprise Institute and elsewhere.
“You really think that not much western money gets ploughed into Africa?”
Yes. And I don’t have to read Chomsky for it, just some official stats will do.
“Russia has essentially run local affairs in SO for years”
No it hasn’t, any more than the US runs Georgia. It has a lot of influence, but that is not the same thing.
Chris, with all due respect, if you are comparing the degree of US influence over Georgia’s leadership over the past 15 years with Russia’s influence over SO’s leadership (a leadership which has included currently serving members of Russian silovye struktury) during the same time period, I don’t think you know what you are talking about in this case.
I’m no fan of Saak and his gang, but I agree with Lyndon: to say that Russia’s influence in South Ossetia is about the same as the US’s influence in Georgia is a huge overstatement.
Da Russophile, I was impressed by your pieces on Russia’s demographic situation. That’s why I’m disappointed by your ad hominem attack on Eberstadt. One thing is to disagree with him, another is to say he’s a “Russophobic ideologue or an idiot” and a “retard”.
By the way, Da Russophile, what’s your opinion on the work of the demographer Anatoli Vishnevsky? This is not a “trick question”, I’m just curious about your honest opinion.
“but I agree with Lyndon: to say that Russia’s influence in South Ossetia is about the same as the US’s influence in Georgia is a huge overstatement.”
I didn’t say it was the same; I said Russia does not run South Ossetia. It does not; South Ossetia is run by South Ossetians.
I realize that the existence of these people is uncomfortable because it means that more players exist than Moscow, Tbilisi, and Washington, but they are real.
Chris, I figured that was your point and almost mentioned in my last comment that I’m not trying to negate the agency of the local population. I was trying to keep my previous comment brief, but here I have unfortunately fallen into my old habit of perhaps writing a bit too much.
You’ll also notice, I hope, that I didn’t really pass any value judgment here on the fact that Russia fully uses the massive leverage it has over SO. This leverage exists – and has existed – for simple reasons of geography and troops on the ground. The fact that Russia has to be involved in SO (i.e., to a certain extent, it must use the leverage it has) in order to prevent destabilization of the North Caucasus is also a result of geography.
In any event, I realize that many matters in SO are no doubt decided on the ground by the local population, and I don’t find that to be “uncomfortable” at all. But I understand what you mean. I was recently at a conference and witnessed an Ossetian try to explain some of the nuances to panelists who should (based on general worldviews) have agreed with him – instead they basically cut him off.
I still think your assertion that Russia does not essentially run things in SO is wrong. The debate may hinge, in Clintonian fashion, on what the definition of “runs” (or “essentially runs,” which is what I actually said in my first comment) is.
The fact is that Russia has sufficient leverage over SO to make sure that no significant decisions (e.g., decisions regarding the territory’s status or regarding the presence of Russian troops there) are taken by the local population against Moscow’s wishes. This is now even more true, as Georgia (mistakenly, IMO) is now moving to isolate SO and the border between SO and Georgia proper will be much more of a hard one than it was before the August conflict.
I would also point out in passing that when there was a dispute over election results in Abkhazia (which has more room to maneuver independently of Moscow than does SO) in 2004-05, Russia ultimately insisted on its chosen candidate being included in a power-sharing arrangement with the guy who actually won the elections, but not before cutting off pension transfers to its “citizens” in Abkhazia. Such is Russia’s respect and concern for its passport holders, and such is its leverage and ability to “run” things in these regions.
Russia’s leverage over SO is rooted in simple geography, but it also includes a strong economic carrot/stick aspect – the subsidies which come from Moscow can always be withdrawn if the locals decide they would like to pursue a course that diverges from the one set by Moscow. So of course local elites have some leeway, but they need to keep in mind that if they lose Moscow’s political support, they will also lose Moscow’s economic support. And how essential is that support?
Russia has provided financial, military and political support to South Ossetia, as well as another separatist-held Georgian territory, Abkhazia, since the early 1990s. [In 2007] alone, Russia spent an estimated $66 million in subsidies for South Ossetia, [Znaur] Gassiyev[, speaker of South Ossetia's legislature,] said.
The territory has no economy of its own and Russian subsidies are its only source of income, officials here said. (link)
$66 million (and bear in mind that’s apparently the figure from before the conflict) might not seem like much, but since the population of SO is around 70,000 – on a per capita basis that is actually about the same amount as $4 billion for Georgia.
Ultimately, whether you think Russia or Russians “run” SO may also depend on what the definition of “Russian” is – since the South Ossetian individuals who nominally run the place are all proud holders of Russian passports and have been for years. I leave you with a couple of block quotes. From a 2004 Crisis Group report on SO:
Kokoity, though originally from South Ossetia, is a Russian citizen and lived there from 1997 to 2000. At the end of May 2004 South Ossetia appointed as its new de facto minister of security Majorbek Bishikuyev, who previously was deputy head of security in North Ossetia. Anatoli Barankevich, though born in Tskhinvali, was a colonel in the Russian army when Kokoity appointed him de facto defence minister on 20 September 2004. These officials are considered to have regular and close contacts inside the Russian government. Kokoity himself has travelled to Moscow for consultations at least monthly since May 2004.
From a 2006 policy paper by the CEPS think tank (citations omitted):
[S]ome of the security institutions of the de facto states are ‘outsourced’ to the Russian Federation. ‘Outsourcing’ is used
in business jargon to describe a situation in which the organisational functions of an enterprise are transferred to a third party or country. A somehow similar phenomenon is occurring with the ‘state’ institutions of the secessionist entities. They are ‘outsourced’ to Russian state institutions.
However, if ‘outsourcing’ in businesses presupposes that the ‘outsourcer’ keeps overall control of the organisational and
production functions of the enterprise, this is not always the case in the secessionist entities. While they initially ‘outsourced’ such functions as defence and intelligence
institutions to the Russian Federation, they have to a large extent ceased to control them.
The local ‘security’ institutions in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria are often headed by Russians or officials who are de facto delegated by state institutions of the
Russian Federation. This most often includes staff in the local intelligence services and the defence ministries.
Examples of Russians de facto delegated to the secessionist entities include defence ministers Anatoli Barankevich (South Ossetia) and Sultan Sosnaliev (Abkhazia), local intelligence chief Iarovoi (South Ossetia) and Interior Minister Mindzaev (South Ossetia).
But Russian presence is also visible beyond the security services. An Abkhazia Prime Minister in 2004/2005 Nodar Khashba came from the Russian ministry of emergency situations. The incumbent Prime Minister Morozov in South Ossetia is also from Russia. The ‘outsourcing’ of the institutions of the secessionist entities to Russia is at its most prevalent in South Ossetia, somehow less so in Abkhazia, and relatively little (beyond the security services) in Transnistria. Such arrangements are not necessarily welcome in the secessionist entities themselves, especially in Abkhazia and Transnistria, but are, according to officials, desired mainly by Russia.
“Da Russophile, I was impressed by your pieces on Russia’s demographic situation. That’s why I’m disappointed by your ad hominem attack on Eberstadt. One thing is to disagree with him, another is to say he’s a “Russophobic ideologue or an idiot” and a “retard”.” – Kolya
I need to live up to the self-styled designation of myself as the antithesis to La Russophobe. So shut up, you craven Russophobe shill or else your neocon chickens will soon come home to roost.
“By the way, Da Russophile, what’s your opinion on the work of the demographer Anatoli Vishnevsky? This is not a “trick question”, I’m just curious about your honest opinion.” – Kolya
Haven’t heard of him. Although there’s a lot on him on Google. Is he famous for some particular in demography? And why do you think that I think this is a trick question?
This is in defense of President Obama when he abandons his allies and lets Putin kill innocent Georgians and Saak and his government officials. Obama can say, well, Georgia was not a Democracy anyway. Russia will do a better job controlling Georgia which is not really in our sphere of influence. Now, did I tell you about my new 3 pt. jumper.”
If you care about Russians and Georgians, Please Vote McCain on Nov. 4th.
”If you want to dig any further – I can give a phone number of one member of that delegation – Helga Tatjana Zharov.”
Is she good-looking, ivanov? If thats the case you can give me her number
sorry, couldnt resist!
”PS. Iceland is producing 64,000 tons of aluminum monthly (and more to come) At $2,500 per ton it’s $160,000,000 per months. Not that bad for 300,000 people.”
Where do they get their aluminium oxide from? Oleg Deripska’s huge Aughanish plant here in Limerick coverts the red-earth from Jamaica into Al2O3 before sending it away for electrolysis to Al. Maybe it goes to Iceland.
” The only serious help US wanted from Russia was with Iran. Instead Putin has painted Russia into the corner with friendly pariahs and is trying to do exactly the opposite – building a cartel with Mahmud and Hugo.”
I would agree Cyrill that Russia has chosen dodgy bedfellows, and wonder why they did it – at the end of the day Russia has commercial involvement with Iran and Venezuela, who need Russia more than Russia needs them, and I cant see why the Russians bother backing them against the US. I think much of this is down to the fact that the US has consistently annoyed Russia since 9/11 inspite of Russian help in the period immediately after the attack. I think Russia and the US are likely to never be friends, unfortunately, and the best that can be hoped for is that they never have a serious falling-out. A Bush in the White-House and a Russia with small dick/big car syndrome – it was always likely to end in tears (Kosovo, Georgia, missile shield etc).
far too many bukaff, Lyndon…far too many
Huge? Overstatement?
Then read this and try to re-estimate your huge overestimation…
http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/mikhail-saakashvili/early-career.html
And he was born in 1967…not bad for 28 years old foreigner to joint PBWT…and suddenly return to the deep shit…sorry… to Georgia.
And one more thing, Lyndon, since you are so informed in the matter.
It’s about last negotiation between Georgia and Russia. I understand what UN and EU were doing there – international armed conflict of two European countries. I understand what SO and A guys were doing there.
But what the hell were US guys doing there? Keeping in mind that in the reports of the media it always sounded like US delegation was to meet with Russian delegation and they were accompanied by G and SO/A respectively.
For such independent country like Georgia having US at your side is looking … strange.
No problem, bro.
http://www.audur.is/um-audi/folkid/
Look for Zharov
BUT! Don’t tell anyone that it was me…
No idea where they are getting ore from. Alcoa doesn’t work with Deripaska I guess.
Find Iran and Russia on the map – and you’ll understand why Russia has chosen at least Iran. If some idiots in US has a mental problem with the word “Iran” – it doesn’t mean Russia has to drop its interest just to please these idiots. Unless these idiots are ready to please Russia
Venezuela – as I said before – they are free to waste their money in any way. if they want to buy 100,000 Kalashnikovs – fine with Russia. More work for Russians. Pure business (and some fun to poke some idiots in US).
For such independent country like Georgia having US at your side is looking … strange.
Not at all. The US has for years been attending the periodic talks in Geneva on resolving the Abkhazian conflict as an observer. The different negotiating format which had existed for SO (which Georgia tried to change on many occasions) had, if I recall correctly, representatives from Russia, North Ossetia, South Ossetia and Georgia (so, 3 against 1, basically) and was organized by the OSCE. Obviously, neither of the old formats worked.
I’ve been sort of nomadic in the past couple of months, so I haven’t followed the process that led to the abortive talks in Geneva as closely as I would have liked to, but I can only assume the format was a new one created by mutual agreement (swiftly followed by mutual disagreement who could be at the table). Anyway, the difference with SO remains – Georgia was able to choose between tilting towards Russia or the US; SO had no such choice.
…not bad for 28 years old foreigner to joint PBWT…
Actually, it’s hardly unusual. I have friends who joined US law firms at younger ages than that after receiving LLM’s in the US. By the way, whatever one thinks of Saakashvili, the idea that he was programmed to be a Bushite drone (which somehow happened during the Clinton years – oh, wait, I forgot that in your worldview they’re all the same) is just silly. I’m sure that many years later some folks in DC decided he would be useful, but I don’t think those people cared too much about his legal education.
Not to belabor the point, but international and human-rights law professors (especially French ones!!) are the last people in the world you would want grooming the acolyte of American empire some think Saak has become (again, since you’re tone-deaf to such nuances, Bushites generally think that “international law” = v. bad and constraining). So the idea, which you seem to imply, that he was some kind of US plant planned almost a decade in advance, is – again – just silly.
And you are being insulting to people from the region if you assume they’re incapable of getting jobs with US law firms absent some nefarious plot. Saak was ambitious, accomplished and well-connected at home (grandfather and uncle were GBshniks), and often the people who come on these fellowship programs have one or more of these qualities. The same qualities make them attractive to US employers.
…and suddenly return to the deep shit…sorry… to Georgia.
Oh, and these same people then go home with their LLM or other professional degrees, because the condition of the visa they’re issued is that they can only remain for a year of work after they complete the degree, after which they must return home. Sorry that the truth is so unexciting.
Da Russophile, a few months ago, when I tried to find stuff in Russian about Russia’s demographic situation references to Vishnevsky were the most common ones. I glanced over some of his figures, but didn’t read any of his papers. Around the same time, though, I read some comments against him in a pro-Putin site (don’t even remember which one.) I don’t recall the details. It was clear that the anti-Vishnevsky writer was not a demographer and that his main complaint was that Vishnevsky was somehow being too negative and, by extension, “anti-patriotic” in his assessments. Since people here know that I’m not fond of Putin, and knowing that you view him quite positively, I decided–just in case–to add my “no trick question” remark.
And you are being insulting to people from the region if you assume they’re incapable of getting jobs with US law firms absent some nefarious plot. Saak was ambitious, accomplished and well-connected at home (grandfather and uncle were GBshniks), and often the people who come on these fellowship programs have one or more of these qualities. The same qualities make them attractive to US employers.
Unfortunately Saakashvili can not win. When it is convenient, then he is a fool and a drug addict, when something else is convenient – he is a conniving bastard on take from the West. Like: даже на конкурсе дураков ты че сможешь выйграть золото потому что ты дурак.
Insulting to people from that region? I doubt this would be understood Lyndon. General attitudes towards non-Russians south of the border are well known. My own father told me six months ago: Uzbeks need a Russian foreman, otherwise they would just lay bricks with no mortar. Granted, he is a grumpy 70-year old, angry at the whole world but that only is a matter of level in condescension I feel coming out of Russians of all stripes and colors.
No, that was not my idea at all. It was a kind of a silly trap
Sorry…
BUT! I didn\’t answer to the question – what the F*&^% US was doing in Geneva last time?
Georgia is not NATO member, US has no bases there, no common border, NOTHING while all other participants were sides of the conflict or international – international! – bodies that are supposed to mediate.
So what the f&^% was US doing there? Except being грузинская крыша – nothing comes to mind
PS. As to visas – Saak must have live US after graduation. And he did. He joined PBWT on working visa (as I assume). I know something about it as US government paid once for my training as well
)))
Legal note: none of relatives served in kgb, comparty, government agencies etc.
UPD
“BUT! I didn\’t answer to the question -”
should be
“BUT! You didn’t answer to the question -”
Sh*t…
“Must have to leave US …”
No it hasn’t, any more than the US runs Georgia. It has a lot of influence, but that is not the same thing.
I guess the billions and billions of aid which has been spent in Africa over the years, and largely squandered, was collected locally.
I have no idea how I managed to quote the wrong bit there. What I mean to quote was:
Yes. And I don’t have to read Chomsky for it, just some official stats will do.
Africa has lots of problems for lots of reasons, lack of money thrown at it by the west is not one of them.
Add another USD $100m for Georgia to the pile:
http://cryptome.info/0001/mcc103108.htm
From the US Govt ‘Millennium Challenge Corporation’, as reported in the Federal Register.
There must be a lot of these small sums floating around the US Govt bureaucracy. Scandalous.
Doom wonders if anybody has seen the recent BBC show on Georgia. Doom has not seen it himself, but the Mad Thinker has assured him that it completely contradicts the line the BBC was putting out during the events in question.
(Doom is concerned about media coverage. Latveria has its own territorial disputes.)
bbc report
And NOW!
The Georgian Circus! The best Circus in the world! The last World Tour! Don’t miss!
civil.ge article
Still think Saak isn’t insane?
Feel free to think so…
PS. The BBC text on their site was changed since first appearance. It’s more negative towards Georgia now. .
Given Saakashvili’s erratic behavior, Doom wonders if those rumors of his heavy substance abuse are true.
May supervillains have come to bad ends when they began sampling their own wares.
And here comes the clown.
Chief of Staff Testifies Before War Commission
Wow! Really the most peaceful joint staff in the world…
I love it. I guess he could make excellent грузинский тост from anything…
Well, everyone knows that the only person in the world who is more brave than the bravest Georgian soldier is ….of course, of course – their president.
Who was that Mr. Who?
O love these Georgian jokes. “Suppressing” Kalashnikovs with GRADs.
Genius! Napoleon!
US Army is outdated against Georgians! Precision claster bombs and GPS guided GRADs’ missiles!!!!
he was playing for KVN (КаВээН) team for sure. “I was seen often with her together but I’ve never been with her in the operations headquarters…oops I mean in the bed”
He just hilarious.
So M4 is too complicated for the best soldiers in the world? LOL
shit… missed closing brackets
As Saak didn’t refute it neither BBC did – it must be true.
Saakashvili: Georgia Needs Clear Signal from NATO
Due to the lack to translators from Norwegian to Georgian I took responsibility to translate.
“Dear mister president! Fuck yourself! Sincerely Your Nato”
записки из сумасшедшего дома : ))))
Georgia saved the world from Putin! : )))
—————————
At the same time he (Saakashvili) thanked the former chief of staff and hailed the Georgian army’s “furious resistance,” which he said had stopped the advance of the Russian army.
“Neither Bush, nor Sarkozy and Merkel nor anyone in the world could have stopped [Russian Prime Minister] Vladimir Putin, if he did not have a deep conviction that he would have met a furious resistance of the Georgian army in case of attempting to advance towards the Georgian capital and in case of attempting to overthrow the Georgian government.”
http://civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=19885
————–
What does he smoke?
full version
Doom is curious whether anyone else has noticed a marked shift in the Anglophone media’s coverage of Georgia recently. First the BBC, then the NYT, and now things like this:
Two former British military officers are expected to give crucial evidence against Georgia when an international inquiry is convened to establish who started the country’s bloody five-day war with Russia in August.
Ryan Grist, a former British Army captain, and Stephen Young, a former RAF wing commander, are said to have concluded that, before the Russian bombardment began, Georgian rockets and artillery were hitting civilian areas in the breakaway region of South Ossetia every 15 or 20 seconds.
Their accounts seem likely to undermine the American-backed claims of President Mikhail Saakashvili of Georgia that his little country was the innocent victim of Russian aggression and acted solely in self-defence.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne…icle5114401.ece
Doom just forwarded a link to an article for your attention, but it appears to have been caught by Sean’s nefarious spam filter. Sean, Doom recommends that you keep an eye on your AI. Learn from the tragic experience of Henry Pym.
Thank you Doom. Apparently Ultron was manifesting himself by blocking several comments.
Other things have kept me from posting on this about face on Georgia. My first impression is how sadly academic it is three months after the conflict. As always, the NYT et al did their duty for the war machine when it mattered. I’m starting to wonder whether Baudrillard’s notion that the “The Gulf War Did Not Take Place” might have some application here.
Doom.
I’m just curious. Do you read others or are you a writer only?
“Генералиссимус Брежнев on November 7, 2008 7:36 am
Ryan Grist, a former British Army”
“Chris Von Doom on November 10, 2008 7:10 am
Ryan Grist, a former British Army captain,”
PS. Brezhnev is not dumb
Doom may have to smite you, Ivanov.