• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Putin: War in Georgia orchestrated by the US to help McCain

Cute move by Putin. Russia's getting spanked in the international press, by the EU, and even got rebuffed by some of its "allies," so I suppose he has nothing to lose by going the conspiracy route.
 
Just read this fresh news on Cnn:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

Please, read it, there is also a video.

I think it is obvious which one of the Presidential candidates Putin is referring to, and it is a fact that McCain is gaining on Obama recently: www.realclearpolitics.com.

The White House denies.
And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

This forum is allegedly peopled by skeptics.

Try it sometime, skepticism. We need to discuss the concept of confirmation bias. You need to learn how to recognize it when it is happening.

DR
 
Cute move by Putin. Russia's getting spanked in the international press, by the EU, and even got rebuffed by some of its "allies," so I suppose he has nothing to lose by going the conspiracy route.

Do you agree with Putin, Matteo?

And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

This forum is allegedly peopled by skeptics.

Try it sometime, skepticism. We need to discuss the concept of confirmation bias. You need to learn how to recognize it when it is happening.

DR

That attribute to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

I did not want to claim that Putin`s explanation is true (or false).
I was merely quoting what was the main news on the CNN today.

I am surprised how (American?) readers so easily dismiss Putin`s explanation without even taking into account the point he makes.

This, I think, makes the pair with the prompt acceptance (by the same people?) as "true" and "not-even-discuss-on" reasons to invade Iraq in 2003 made by the Bush administration.
 
I did not want to claim that Putin`s explanation is true (or false).
I was merely quoting what was the main news on the CNN today.

I am surprised how (American?) readers so easily dismiss Putin`s explanation without even taking into account the point he makes.

What point would that be? The point I took into account was his claiming that the U.S. intentionally orchestrated the conflict in Georgia to influence the U.S. Presidential election while providing absolutely no evidence.

What other point were we supposed to take into account?
 
What point would that be? The point I took into account was his claiming that the U.S. intentionally orchestrated the conflict in Georgia to influence the U.S. Presidential election while providing absolutely no evidence.

What other point were we supposed to take into account?

It depends what you consider as "evidence".
Did you listen to what Putin said, in first place?
 
Governments, and especially militaries, never do things for just one big reason. They have different interest groups pulling them in different directions, and their decisions are usually based on a rather large decision matrix. The timing (Georgia attacked Aug 7th) probably had more to do with distracting the world from China's super happy puppet show than anything else. Also, Saakashvili isn't as popular in Georgia as the Western MSM leads you to believe, and many see him as a dictator and a puppet of the west - helping him hold on to power might have been a factor also.
 
[..] Also, Saakashvili isn't as popular in Georgia as the Western MSM leads you to believe, and many see him as a dictator and a puppet of the west - helping him hold on to power might have been a factor also.

I have come to know from a friend who studies international politics (I do not want to bring this here as evidence, just as supposition), that he was put into power by the US, while Russia was sleeping, so to say..

She basically said exactly this:
"The famous ‘Rose Revolution of November 2003 that forced the ageing Edouard Shevardnadze from power and swept the then 36 year old US university graduate into power was run and financed by the US State Department, the Soros Foundations, and agencies tied to the Pentagon and US intelligence community."
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20569.htm

Whatever side you are on, the question remains: not many knew Saakashvili in Ukraine Georgia in 2003, how can he have been elected so young and half-unknown by the people of his own country?
 
Last edited:
What other point were we supposed to take into account?
The article itself mentions that "Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia."

And "U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict," Putin said. "They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader."

The first of those statements is arguably true, assuming we talk about unintentional encouragement. Because the US has certainly been guilty of sending mixed messages, and to someone with a strong confirmation bias that means encouragement.

The second statement is similarly true. The "area in conflict" eventually included much of Georgia, and we know that US military advisers were working in the country. So it is very likely they were indeed doing their job in parts of the country that came under attack. Note that Putin avoids the claim that US citizens were fighting Russians, he only says they were implementing their orders.

No real lies, just a little spin. Moving on...

On the other hand, there should be concern that Randy Scheunemann is both a paid lobbyist for Georgia, and McCain's advisor on foreign politics. That raises a serious possibility for conflicts of interest.
 
The article itself mentions that "Putin said the U.S. had encouraged Georgia to attack the autonomous region of South Ossetia."

And "U.S. citizens were indeed in the area in conflict," Putin said. "They were acting in implementing those orders doing as they were ordered, and the only one who can give such orders is their leader."

The first of those statements is arguably true, assuming we talk about unintentional encouragement. Because the US has certainly been guilty of sending mixed messages, and to someone with a strong confirmation bias that means encouragement.

The second statement is similarly true. The "area in conflict" eventually included much of Georgia, and we know that US military advisers were working in the country. So it is very likely they were indeed doing their job in parts of the country that came under attack. Note that Putin avoids the claim that US citizens were fighting Russians, he only says they were implementing their orders.

No real lies, just a little spin. Moving on...

On the other hand, there should be concern that Randy Scheunemann is both a paid lobbyist for Georgia, and McCain's advisor on foreign politics. That raises a serious possibility for conflicts of interest.
Looking at this another way, the US and some of its NATO friends have been playing a game of chicken with the Russians in the Caucasus, trying to see how close to the line they can walk before the bear growls.

Putin spins that as "they started it on purpose" which belies the fact that the Georgians do indeed have a desire to establish/reestablish their place in the world, and this time with a different big friend. The pot has been simmering for a while.

I recall a conversation over coffee with a Rumanian over a decade ago. He suggested that Russia (at the time going through its contraction and reinventing itself), behaved like a very large third world country, along the lines of Nigeria. It's energy reserves were enormous. The reserves in its old Stans and Republics, who had recently left, were likewise substantial. He compared it to Saudi Arabia, Russian Orthodox version, or a Persian Empire that spread to Cairo at one point, transplanted into the 20th century and itching to get back some of the Arab states that had revolted from the empire and taken their oil and gas reserves with them. He used Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait as the analog for the stans. Sort made sense then, makes even more sense now.

DR
 
Last edited:
LOL this coming from a famous liar like Vladimir Putin who is a former KGB agent and supporter of Ramzan Kadyrov in Chechnya. Lets not forget Putins two best friends. Vladimir Putin loves Oleg Deripaska and Roman Abramovich. Putin said that Viktor Vekselberg is a russian patriot. So let me get thos strait? Vladimir Putin is best friends with oligarchs? But Putin still destroys Yukos and puts Mikhail Khodorkovsky and wants to arrest Boris Berezovsky? Putin is a famous liar and so are his friends Andrei Lugovoi who probaly killed Alexander Litvinenko and then there is former KGB man Sergei Ivanov. Sergei Ivanov is hated in Qatar because of the Assassination of Zelimkhan Yandarbiyev.
 
many see Mikheil Saakashvili as a dictator and a puppet of the west? Proof please? Those are nothing but lies. Many people support Mikheil Saakashvili. Are you lying? Those are the kind of lies that russian agents like Irakli Okruashvili tells. Everybody in Georgia knows that Irakli Okruashvili is a russian agent and Badri Patarkatsishvili was a russian agent. Also many people know that Eduard Shevardnadze was a good puppet of the russians when he was president and the best friend of Mikhail Gorbachev.
 
I recall a conversation over coffee with a Rumanian over a decade ago. He suggested that Russia (at the time going through its contraction and reinventing itself), behaved like a very large third world country, along the lines of Nigeria. It's energy reserves were enormous. The reserves in its old Stans and Republics, who had recently left, were likewise substantial. He compared it to Saudi Arabia, Russian Orthodox version, or a Persian Empire that spread to Cairo at one point ...

(Romanians have a fair few centuries of history with the Russians, which is likely to colour their views :). Their shared history with the Turks goes back longer, of course, and is much more antagonistic. Neither Persians nor Arabs ever got that far.)

I think it's important to see Russia's behaviour in its historical context, if only because that's the way the Russians see it. Russia has been a European Power to be reckoned with since Peter the Great's days (early 18thCE) and they're not about to surrender that status by pandering to parvenu states such as Georgia or the US.
 
If you believe Putin about that then you should also believe Shelling of Mainila. Vladimir Putin thinks that Josef Stalin was a hero. Do you agree with Putin?
 
Looking at this another way, the US and some of its NATO friends have been playing a game of chicken with the Russians in the Caucasus, trying to see how close to the line they can walk before the bear growls.

Putin spins that as "they started it on purpose" which belies the fact that the Georgians do indeed have a desire to establish/reestablish their place in the world, and this time with a different big friend. The pot has been simmering for a while.
Exactly. Russia wants to re-establish itself as a Great Power, the US wants to maintain its (perceived) unipolarity, and Georgia wants to re-estabilsh its authority.

It was a powdercag waiting for a flash.

I recall a conversation over coffee with a Rumanian over a decade ago. He suggested that Russia (at the time going through its contraction and reinventing itself), behaved like a very large third world country, along the lines of Nigeria. It's energy reserves were enormous. The reserves in its old Stans and Republics, who had recently left, were likewise substantial. He compared it to Saudi Arabia, Russian Orthodox version, or a Persian Empire that spread to Cairo at one point, transplanted into the 20th century and itching to get back some of the Arab states that had revolted from the empire and taken their oil and gas reserves with them. He used Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE and Kuwait as the analog for the stans. Sort made sense then, makes even more sense now.
Russia distinguishes itself from third world countries by investing heavily in infrastructure and technology. I wonder how viable the former Soviet Republics are as independent states. I know little about them, but they may not function properly as modern nation-states.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom