Long Live Western Lies!

The first anniversary of the war in South Ossetia has become the main topic of the week for the Western media. However, most articles can be characterized as anti-Russian as they were a year ago.
At the same time one has to say to say that, presently, Western journalists accuse Russia of attacking Georgia much less, than they did before. Moreover, they do not glorify and justify Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili.

The article, which has recently been published in The Los Angeles Times under the title “Year later, Russia's victory over Georgia cuts both ways” can be a good example of that.

On the one hand, the author of the article tries to prove, that Russia has found itself in isolation. “Last August, fresh off a swift, decisive military victory over U.S.-backed Georgia, the Kremlin basked in newfound international power and domestic prestige … One year later, the euphoria has evaporated. The war is still discussed in tones of righteousness, but the military victory left Russia isolated made formerly compliant neighbors reluctant to do Moscow's bidding,” the newspaper wrote.

At the same time, journalists did not claim that it was Russia that attacked Georgia, though Saakashvili was not called the offender. “The exact circumstances of the war's onset remain in dispute, but the most commonly held version of events is that Georgia launched a military operation to reassert control over the rebel province of South Ossetia, and Russia invaded, fighting on the side of the separatists,” the article said.

“In Georgia, the U.S.-backed leadership has been left to grapple with the painful reality of lost lands and shattered military infrastructure. Political instability intensified this year as massive demonstrations demanded Saakashvili's resignation, pointing to the war as evidence of his insufficiency,” the article says.

The New York Times also published an article about the war titled “Georgia. A year after” on August, 6th. Its authors do not sympathize with Russia. However, they declare that there is no necessity to idealize Georgia either.

“In the year since the war between Russia and Georgia, it has become clear that in addition to the vague intention of resetting U.S. relations with Russia, Washington must develop distinct policies for Georgia.

“While Georgia has indeed been a friend to America, demonstrating this by sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan, it is certainly not a pure democracy. Yet this is how Georgia generally has been viewed by the Obama and Bush administrations. This was especially true during the war with Russia, when Georgia was often simplistically touted as the democratic David battling the authoritarian Russian Goliath,” the newspaper wrote.

“United States must make clear to Tbilisi that — while it understands that Russia is a difficult neighbor — Washington has higher standards for its allies and will no longer accept empty promises of democratic advancement,” The New York Times wrote.

Several French newspapers gave the floor to the Georgian authorities and the latter used the opportunity to portray Russia as the aggressor.

For example, Le Monde newspaper published the interview with Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili and La Croix interviewed Georgia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs Ekaterina Tkeshelashvili.

However, Le Monde at the same time neutrally described the telephone conversation between the American Vice-President and the Georgian President.

“The American vice-president Biden called Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and expressed concern over the recent escalation in tensions and emphasized that all parties should avoid destabilizing actions,” the newspaper reported.

The German print media also paid attention to the anniversary of the Caucasian war. The Financial Times Deutschland newspaper published the article titled “Russia rattles the sabre in South Ossetia”. The article interpreted the recent provocations in the region from the anti-Russian point of view.

Another German newspaper, Frankfurter Rundschau, accused Russia of not sending the troops to South Ossetia prior to the military action.

At the same time, the author of the article accused his colleagues of presenting the events non-objectively.

Polish publications also attacked Russia, while writing about the anniversary of the conflict. For example, a weekly Polish newsmagazine compared Russia to a growling bear, demonstrating that it would not let anybody claim its sphere of influence.

South Ossetian politicians and Russian political analysts are outraged by the Western publications.

Inal Pliev, Assistant to the President of the Republic of South Ossetia, said that the publications in the Western media about the conflict were outrageous.

“The Western mass media ignored the major principle of journalism during Georgia’s invasion in South Ossetia - to speak the truth. They completely discredited themselves.

Many people in the West know, that their journalists lied about the war in Yugoslavia, about the war in Iraq and about the war in South Ossetia.

Most articles published by the Western media do not contain a single piece of truth. They only were published to abuse and humiliate Russia.

Vadim Trukhachev
Pravda.Ru

************************

Untimely Thoughts

Peter Lavelle's blog

As expected, opinions on who started the South Ossetian conflict a year ago and its meaning today divide the expert community and the commentariat. Everyone knows my positions on these issues, so I will not repeat them here. However, I will do what no one has attempted – a counterfactual analysis of the conflict under the assumption Russia did not intervene militarily. Put differently, what if Russia did not to react to the Georgian attack on Tskhinval?

First, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili’s operation “Clean Field” would have succeeded. And success would have been defined as the massive ethnic cleansing of South Ossetia. The Georgians did commit atrocities in South Ossetia last year, but if Russia had not intervened Tbilisi would have covered up all of this and spun a propaganda story that they were welcomed with open arms. Two crimes would have been committed – ethnic cleansing and then murdering the memories of the dead.

Second, Russian passport holders living on and beyond Russia’s borders would have come to the conclusion that their government would not provide military assistance to protect their own citizens. If Russia hadn’t intervened when Russian passport holders and Russian peacekeepers were attacked and killed, it would have meant that Russia does not adhere to the doctrine in international accepted concept known as “responsibility to protect” or “R2P.” This would have meant that millions of Russians living abroad would be at the mercy of governments that feel, to say the least, uncomfortable with some of their national minorities.

Third, much of the Western world, particularly the US and most of the EU, would have accepted and even applauded Saakashvili’s forced re-unification of his country if Russia hadn’t intervened. In Western capitals there would have been no talk of Tbilisi’s unilateral and disproportionate use of force against South Ossetia. In other words, the aggressor in this conflict probably would again have been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. But because of Russia’s actions, more and more people now know - including the Georgian people - Saakashvili started a military conflict that should never have happened in the first place.

Fourth, if Russia had abstained from intervening, the geopolitical dynamics of the post-Soviet space would have dramatically altered for the worse. Russia entered a military conflict with Georgia that Tbilisi started. Importantly, Russia had international law on its side. If Russia had walked away from its legal obligations regarding South Ossetia, then its credibility with its neighbors would have suffered a severe blow. In my humble opinion, Washington and its NATO partners were probably licking their chops hoping Moscow would not intervene, and if it did, would perform poorly. In the end, Saakashvili ended up destroying his NATO ambitions and dividing NATO.

Fifth, Russian public opinion would have been outraged if the Kremlin allowed Saakashvili to act with impunity against their own countrymen. And Russia’s military would have experienced still another humiliating setback. Russia’s neighbors, including China, would have deemed Russia too weak to take seriously as a partner. Bush’s neocons would also have seen yet another opening to meddle in Russia’s backyard.

I suggest everyone step back and reconsider the meaning of the South Ossetian conflict. Instead of continuing the blame game, everyone should consider the seriousness of Saakashvili’s very cruel folly. Had Russia not intervened, the world today would be far less safe and secure than today’s less-than-desirable realities.

http://www.russiatoday.com