The Russians are doing their version of spin-doctoring which the New York Times—to no one’s surprise—was quick to point out:
Under the presidency of Vladimir V. Putin, Russia had already been granting citizenship & distributing passports to virtually all of the adult residents of South Ossetia & Abkhazia, the much larger separatist region where Russia had also massed troops over the weekend. The West had been skeptical of the validity of Russia’s handing out passports by the thousands to citizens of another nation.
“Having a document does not make you a Russian citizen,” one American diplomat said in 2004, as Russia expanded the program.
But whatever the legal merits, the Kremlin had laid the foundation for one of its public relations arguments for invading: its army was coming to the aid of Russian citizens under foreign attack.
One Russian commentator put forward in a bellicose tone his agreement with this justification of the Russian military response:
Is Moscow capable to learn at least anything from the recent past? In 1995, the UN “peacekeepers” opened the way for the Croatian army which was killing Serbs, & these days we see Russian & Ossetian peacekeepers helplessly watch the Georgian artillery hammer residential quarters in Tskhinvali. In the Caucasus, the consequences of such helplessness are going to be catastrophic—there will be no respect for the weak country unable to normalize the situation at its border & to protect its citizens.
As expected, the U.S. & British media are doing their not-unexpected spin-doctoring:
We keep being told that around 1500 have been killed in Georgia, the inference being that this has resulted from Russian bombing.
Not so, the casualties are in Ossetia.
While the Ossetians claimed over 1000 dead the BBC neither reported this or any news¬video 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.
…
Meanwhile, a BBC News 24 reporter, Lyse Doucet, tried to suggest that Russia had attacked Abkhazia by sending troops into that breakaway republic! That was soon put into doubt by another BBC reporter from Moscow who speculated that the sending of Russian troops into Abkhazia was not an attack but intended to protect its citizens & holiday-makers there.
On Saturday, China’s Xinhua news service reported, “Abkhazia launches operation to force Georgian troops out” & “Georgia defeats Abkhazia’s attacks”. And previous news from Russia Today had announced Abkhazia’s attack on Georgia. So was the BBC’s Doucet confused or deliberately confusing the facts?
But the BBC is hardly alone with turning reality on its head. A photo essay in The New York Times title Troops, Rubble & Grief in Georgia fails to note that many of the photos of “Rubble & Grief in Georgia” would be less deceiving if they were labeled, “Rubble & Grief in South Ossetia”.
The New York Times also chose a different tact, flagrantly calling it a “Russian invasion”:
But while the immediate causes & the intensity of the Russian invasion had caught Georgia & the Western foreign policy establishment by surprise, there had been signs for years that Georgia & Russia had methodically, if quietly, prepared for conflict.2
Furthermore, the NYT had the audacity to propagate the fiction that the conflict is between a Russian Goliath & a Georgian David, with an insignificant gripe between them—“small border skirmishes”—that Goliath has overreacted to:
As the bloody military mismatch between Russia & Georgia unfolded over the past 3 days, even the main players were surprised by how quickly small border skirmishes slipped into a conflict that threatened the Georgian government & perhaps the country itself.2
Michael McFaul, a Stanford political science professor & Obama campaign advisor, took the basically the same tact:
It is the first time since the fall of the Berlin wall, where Russian forces have been very active— air & land attacks—against a sovereign country…Can we allow the use of force by big countries against little countries to stand?
Moscow plays the same cat-&-mouse game as the U.S. but on the opposite side—both carefully avoid making too much of a fuss over the longstanding issue of U.S. encroachment of Russia’s oil-rich southern flank & both shun any mention of pipelines. In so doing, Moscow & the U.S. collaborate in maintaining the fiction that the fight is only about “borders” & “defense of citizens”.
In a way, the British press, however, is more realistic about the situation, though not without the distortion needed for proper spin-doctoring—the August 11th London Telegraph article, BP on alert as Russian jets attack pipeline in Georgia, opens with the very alarming statement, that
BP is facing a 2nd front in the former Soviet Union after Russian jets were reported to have launched a bombing raid on its main pipeline in Georgia, raising fears that Moscow was moving to increase its stranglehold on Europe’s energy supplies.
The oil giant is the biggest of more than 100 British companies operating in Georgia that have unwittingly become embroiled in the war between Russia & its neighbour.
The FTSE company is already fighting a protracted battle with 4 Russia oligarchs for control of TNK-BP. Robert Dudley, the chief executive of the joint venture, was last month forced to go into hiding, while the company’s chief financial officer, James Owen, stepped down last week.
BP, which employs hundreds in Georgia, owns a 30% stake in the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, the world’s 2nd longest. It carries more than 1% of the global oil supply or 1m barrels a day from Azerbaijan to the Mediterranean & was attacked unsuccessfully by Russian jets on Saturday.
Local reports recorded 51 missile strikes that left craters less than 100 yards on either side of a pressure vent.
But the very next sentence does a curious about-face:
A BP spokesman said that, after thorough checks, the company had “disclosed no bombing in the vicinity of the BTC line”.
So we have this completely contradictory account of Russian jets attacking the pipeline but did not bomb it! Perhaps they attack the pipeline with words? Or by spraying it with an unnamed noxious substance? Still, a glimpse of the stakes involved is revealed.
High Stake in the Caspian Sea Basin—“Happiness is multiple pipelines”
True, the size of Georgia pales in comparison to the vastness of Russia & true, on the surface of the conflict, the Georgian army is by no stretch of the imagination any kind of match for the Russian army. Also on the surface, the conflict is ostensibly a “small border skir¬mish”.
But all of this is very glib fluff—behind the Georgian army & the Saakashvili presidency stands the U.S., NATO & Israel. Furthermore, the conflict, far from being a mere “border skirmish”, is about control of a vital region of the world & its long historic importance in the geo-political economy of oil. Actually, this conflict does far more than merely threatening “the Georgian government & perhaps the country itself”. There is the ominous possibility that it will ignite a far wider & far more devastating conflagration, not just throughout the Caucasus & the Central Asian Republics or the entire Middle East, but globally. This, at least, is the opinion of economic historian William Engdahl:
The dramatic military attack by the military of the Republic of Georgia on South Ossetia in the last days has brought the world one major step closer to the ultimate horror of the Cold War era—a thermonuclear war between Russia & the United States—by miscalculation. What is playing out in the Caucasus is being reported in US media in an alarmingly mislead¬ing light, making Moscow appear the lone aggressor. The question is whether George W. Bush & Dick Cheney are encouraging the unstable Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili in order to force the next US President to back the NATO military agenda of the Bush Doctrine. This time Washington may have badly misjudged the possibilities, as it did in Iraq, but this time with possible nuclear consequences.
Even a brief glance of the map of the region shown here makes a crucial point obvious—the overall reason for the long-standing contention between Russia & Georgia, as a proxy for the U.S.: Georgia, together with Israel, is an important part of U.S. plans & maneuvers to control the oil & natural gas reserves of the Caspian Sea Basin:
Back in early 1990s, in the immediate aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union, when Western companies for the first time had the possibility of exploiting Caspian energy, sharp-eyed observers inside the Beltway could spot a bumper sticker proclaiming, “Happiness is multiple pipelines.” The slogan referred to Washington’s preference for Caspian energy exports to flow westward via a skein of new pipelines designed with two purposes.
First, to isolate Iran, subject to the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, designed to punish naughty Western companies seeking a foothold in Iran’s hydrocarbon sector. Second, to break Russia’s stranglehold monopoly on Caspian exports, which in 1991 forced Azerbaijan to use the Baku-Novorossiisk pipeline, a privilege for which Russia charged extortionate transit fees.
The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipe¬line linking the Caspian sea to the Eastern Medi¬ter¬ranean was inaugurated on July 13, 2008, fulfilling a long-held dream of Big Oil & the U.S. government:
The fondest U.S. dream remains a Caspian undersea set of east-west natural gas & oil pipelines terminating in Baku, which would allow Kazakh, Turkmen & Central Asian hydro¬carb¬on exports to bypass both the former Evil Empire & Axis of Evil charter member Iran to flow across Azerbaijan through staunchly pro-Western Georgia & Turkey, to enrich them with transit fees & benefit Western consumers.
As noted by Michel Chossudovsky, the inauguration was attended by
… British Petroleum’s (BP) CEO, Lord Browne together with senior government officials from Britain, the US & Israel. BP leads the BTC pipeline consortium. Other major Western shareholders include Chevron, Conoco-Phil¬lips, France’s Total & Italy’s ENI…
Israel’s Minister of Energy & Infrastructure Binyamin Ben-Eliezer was present at the venue together with a delegation of top Israeli oil officials.
The attendance of the Israeli delegation comes as no surprise—Israel is a major player in its own right in the region, besides being a major “button”—to use a Mafia term for a hitman—for the U.S.:
DEBKAfile discloses Israel’s interest in the conflict from its exclusive military sources:
Jerusalem owns a strong interest in Caspian oil & gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan & Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey & thence to Israel’s oil terminal at Ashkelon & on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas & oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean.
Chossudovsky went on to explain that
The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. It transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan & Georgia, both of which have become US “protec¬torates”, firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US & NATO. Moreover, both Azer¬baijan & Georgia have longstanding military cooperation agreements with Israel.
The stage for this was set by the collapse of the Soviet Union, thereby giving the U.S. the opening it sought for snatching the entire southern flank of the Russian empire & its potentially abundant oil & natural gas reserves:
Since the British imperial moment of the late 19th century, the image of much of the world —especially Central Asia & the Middle East—as but a set of pawns in a “Great Game” on a geopolitical “chessboard” where the great powers of whatever era are at play has been a com¬monplace. Many have died in one version or another of this “game,” which, if you don’t happen to be in an office in London or Washington or Moscow thinking strategic thoughts, has always had such a distinctly unplayful aspect to it, but the image persists.
In our time, that “chessboard” was revived by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Carter, who made it the title of a 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy & Its Geostrategic Imperatives. It has since been picked up by the Bush administration whose key officials, thinking such grand thoughts, had little doubt that, a decade after the Soviet collapse, the U.S. would have its way in the energy-rich former SSRs of Central Asia.
Brzezinski’s strategy of suckering the then-Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan is sometimes credited with triggering this collapse. Whether it is true or not, a statement attributed to Brzezinski on this issue is “We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.”
However, what is so striking about the events of the day is that Russia is now “feeling its oats”—or should I say, its kasha?—for the first time it is pushing back hard against the U. S. incursion into its backyard.
A Fight Long in the Making
By early May of 1992, 12 of the 15 Soviet Socialist Republics, including Georgia, had declared their independence, thereby definitively marking the total collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. However, even prior to the total collapse of the Soviet Union, in November, 1989, South Ossetia declared its autonomy from the Georgia, thereby touching off 3 months of fighting. The fighting was renewed in December, 1990 & continued to June, 1992, when an armistice was signed by Russian, Georgian & South Ossetian leaders & a peacekeeping force of 500 soldiers from each side was created. In December, 2000, Russia & Georgia agreed to re-establish the economy in the conflict zone & in January 2005, Russia “[gave] guarded approval to Georgia's plan to grant broad autonomy to South Ossetia in exchange for dropping its bid for independence.” However, by April of 2007, when the Georgian parliament enacted a law to create a temporary administration in South Ossetia, it was clear that the armistice was in grave jeopardy. In June, 2007, shortly after this maneuver, South Ossetian separatists claimed that Georgia launched a mortar & sniper attack on Tskhinvali, a claim denied by the Georgian government. By October, 2007, talks hosted by the Organisation for Security & Cooperation in Europe between Georgia & South Ossetia collapsed. In the wake of Kosovo’s secession from Serbia, a move supported by the U.S. & NATO, South Ossetia pressed its case for independence from Georgia in March of 2008. In the same month, Georgia’s attempt to be part of the NATO alliance was turned down. This enboldened the Kremlin to recognise the independence of South Ossetia & Abkhazia. An attempt by Georgia to keep South Ossetia from seceding was rebuffed this past April. This set the stage for the outbreak of the Georgian invasion of South Ossetia.
The signs that the situation was unstable were evident throughout this history of the relation of Georgia & South Ossetia. They became alarming this July as Russia began the large-scale military exercise, Caucasus Frontier 2008,
…in several regions of the Southern Federal District, which includes the highly volatile North Caucasus republics…Chechnya, North Ossetia, Ingushetia, Kabardino-Balkaria, & Karachayevo-Circassia.
The pretext for this exercise was identical to that used by the U.S. for its machinations—the War against Terrorism, though with a Russian spin:
The main goal of the exercise …is to practice interoperability between federal troops, interior ministry’s troops, border guards, & the Air Force in special operations against militants & the defense of Russia’s state borders…
According to statistics, 80% of terrorism-related crimes in Russia occur in the Southern Federal District, which includes the North Caucasus republics of Chechnya, Daghestan & Ingushetia.
However, this was not a one-sided affair:
Meanwhile, another large-scale military exercise began in the region on Tuesday [July 15] as Georgia & the United States started Immediate Response 2008 near Georgia’s capital, Tbilisi.
A total of 1,650 personnel, including troops from Armenia, Azerbaijan & Ukraine, are taking part in the $8-million drills, planned by the U.S. Armed Forces European Command & financed by the U.S. Defense Department.19
On July 12, the Georgian Ministry of Defense announced that U.S. & Georgian troops were to “train for 3 weeks at the Vaziani military base” near Tbilisi. These exercises were completed a mere week before Georgia’s August 7 attack on Tskhinvali & were very likely nothing less than a dress rehearsal of the assault. It strains credulity to deny that the Pentagon was not deeply involved with the planning.
The Israeli site DEBKAfile reports that
Last year, the Georgian president commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored & artillery combat tactics. They also offer instruction on military intelligence & security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence & electronic warfare systems from Israel.
These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army’s preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday.
Chossudovsky reports that
Israel also supplied Georgia with Hermes-450 & Skylark unmanned aerial vehicles, which were used in the weeks leading up to the August 7 attacks.
Georgia has also acquired, according to a report in Rezonansi (August 6, in Georgian, BBC translation) “some powerful weapons through the upgrade of Su-25 planes & artillery systems in Israel”. According to Haaretz (August 10, 2008), Israelis are active in military manufacturing & security consulting in Georgia.
Russian forces are now directly fighting a NATO-US trained Georgian army integrated by US & Israeli advisers. And Russian warplanes have attacked the military jet factory on the outskirts of Tbilisi, which produces the upgraded Su-25 fighter jet, with technical support from Israel. (CTV.ca, August 10, 2008)
In addition, Interfax News Agency, Moscow, Aug 7, 2008, reported (in Russian) that
Georgia has received 206 tanks, of which 175 units were supplied by NATO states, 186 armored vehicles (126—from NATO) , 79 guns (67—from NATO) , 25 helicopters (12—from NATO) , 70 mortars, 10 surface-to-air missile systems, 8 Israeli-made unmanned aircraft, & other weapons. In addition, NATO countries have supplied 4 combat aircraft to Georgia. The Russian Defense Ministry said there were plans to deliver to Georgia 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns & mortars, 14 combat aircraft including 4 Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, 6 surface-to-air missile systems & other arms.
Thus both sides were already prepositioned for conflict to break out.
On Monday, August 11, it was reported that
An American mercenary has been captured by Russian forces along with a number of Georgian soldiers according to a report from the Russian news website Izvestia, providing more evidence that the U.S. & NATO are covertly supporting the Georgian army in a proxy war with Russia.
According to the report, the mercenary is an African-American who is a NATO instructor & an ordinance specialist. He has now been transferred to the Russian base of Vladikavkaz.
The story also backs up previous reports of dead black Americans having been found in Tskhinvali, the capital city of South Ossetia.
U.S. soldiers recently conducted training programs where they instructed Georgian soldiers how to deal with unexploded ordinance as part of the Georgia Train & Equip Program.
As part of the Black Sea Security Program, the Georgia Train & Equip Program, begun in 2002, involves far more than this. Its mission is described in typical double-speak:
…to help Georgia provide better internal security & to promote a more secure region, U.S. European Command developed & ran the Georgia Training & Equip Program. The program enhanced the capability of select Georgian military units to provide security & stability to the citizens of Georgia.
The “security & stability to the citizens of Georgia” indeed!! As fodder to be sacrificed for U.S. acquisition of Caspian Sea hydrocarbon reserves?
In a rare moment of candor the New York Times readily admits that
…the United States did not merely encourage Georgia’s young democracy, it helped militarize the weak Georgian state…
At senior levels, the United States helped rewrite Georgian military doctrine & train its commanders & staff officers. At the squad level, American marines & soldiers trained Georgian soldiers in the fundamentals of battle.
Georgia, meanwhile, began re-equipping its forces with Israeli & American firearms, reconnaissance drones, communications & battlefield-management equipment, new convoys of vehicles & stockpiles of ammunition.
The public goal was to nudge Georgia toward NATO military standards. Privately, Georgian officials welcomed the martial coaching & buildup, & they made clear that they considered participation in Iraq as a sure way to prepare the Georgian military for “national reunification”— the local euphemism of choice for restoring Abkhazia & South Ossetia to Georgian control.
According to the Russia daily Kommersant
…thousands of mercenaries from numerous different countries are fighting on the Georgian side & are being “commanded by the U.S. military instructors.”
“The U.S. military instructors directly command & coordinate actions of mercenaries without being involved in actual fighting, the source specified. According to intelligence data, there are roughly 1,000 military instructors of the United States in Georgia”...
U.S. involvement in the current situation also includes transporting the Georgian troops stationed in Iraq back to Georgia:
The U.S. military began flying 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq on Sunday, military officials said, after the Georgians recalled the soldiers following the outbreak of fighting with Russia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia.
The decision was a timely payback for the former Soviet republic that has been a staunch U.S. supporter & agreed to send troops to Iraq as part of the U.S.-led coalition.
Georgia was the third-largest contributor of coalition forces after the U.S. & Britain, & most of its troops were stationed near the Iranian border in southeastern Iraq.
Indeed, “the former Soviet republic…has been a staunch U.S. supporter…” What is more to the point, however, is that the current regime headed by Mikhail Saakashvili was installed by the U.S. through the “Rose Revolution”—“democratically”, of course.
Using Democracy to Defeat Democracy—the “Rose Revolution” & the Rise of Saakashvili
During the social upheaval in the U.S. called “the 60’s” a torrent of examination of & protest against the repressive & covert actions of the U.S. government was unleashed. The coup d’etats that overthrew Mohammad Mossadegh (Prime Minister of Iran, 1951 - 1953), Jacobo Árbenz Guzmán (President of Guatemala, 1951 – 1954), Patrice Lumumba (Prime Minister of the Republic of the Congo for 10 weeks in 1960, imprisoned & then assassinated in 1961) & Salvador Allende (President of Chile, 1970 - September 11, 1973)—engineered by the CIA against democratically elected heads of governments—outraged & radicalized a significant section of American society. All in all, “according to William Blum & Dr Danielle Ganser, since 1945 this much neglected [U.S. government’s antidemocratic] history has seen the US government attempt to “overthrow more than 40 foreign governments”, “crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements” & provide support to right-wing terrorist…armies in every European country.” Something had to be done to allow U.S. imperial interests to be pursued under better cover. The think-tanks, through studies & discussions during the 1970’s, eventually converged on the necessary rhetoric & conceptual framework to be used for the task:
…in the 1970s, a number of thinkers and activists began considering how the United States might openly assist human-rights activists & democrats living under totalitarian or authoritarian regimes. This "new thinking" about encouraging democracy abroad was, to be sure, done in the context of the Cold War. Beneath it lay a concern that the West was too flaccid in defending its own political values and institutions, and that this weakness was causing the West to lag behind Communism in the global struggle for hearts and minds. But it was also shaped by a concern for peace: since democracy is the world's most successful system of nonviolent conflict resolution, the cause of peaceful international relations would presumably be enhanced by a dramatic increase in the number of genuine democracies in the world.
Their primary solution was the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), founded under Reagan in 1982, an organization with a name that does honor to George Orwell’s novel, 1984—which was off by only two years. NED is
…an Orwellian ‘nongovern¬mental organization’ that was formed in the early 1980s to wage the cultural cold war that was formerly fought by the CIA. William Colby, who directed the CIA from 1973 until 1976, noted that the beauty of the NED’s PR-friendly approach to imperialism is that: “It is not necessary to turn to the covert approach. Many of the programs which…were conducted as covert operations [can now be] conducted quite openly, & consequentially, without controversy.”
The NED has had a very busy & very disgusting history which we cannot go into here, from its 1984 funding “of a Panamanian presidential candidate backed by Manuel Noriega & the CIA”, the 1990 elections in Nicaragua where it channeled millions to the campaign of Anti-Sandanista presidential candidate Violeta Chamorro, whose party won 55% of the vote, to its attempts in manipulate the political situations in the Caribbean, Western Europe & Eastern Europe.
Nowhere were the results achieved by the NED more “impressive” than in the “revolutions” that spread across Eastern Europe in quick succession—the “Rose revolution” in Georgia (2003), the “Orange revolution” in Ukraine (January 2005), & the “Tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan (April 2005). The Rose revolution was most immediately crucial, given that the oil pipeline through Tbilisi was planned for completion by 2008. It is also for this reason that “Georgia was the second largest per capita recipient of American aid (after Israel) having received over US$1.8 billion from the US in the past decade.”
After widespread calls concerning electoral fraud in the 2 November 2003 parliamentary elections in Georgia, weeks of protests culminated in protestors storming Parliament & forcing the resignation of President Eduard Shevardnadze…Following the removal of Shevardnadze, presidential elections were held (on 4 January 2004), & Mikhail Saakashvili, leader of the united opposition groups, was elected president. This picture of the revolution was painted for most of the world by the media. Behind the scenes though, the US had applied its entire panoply of “democracy promoting” devices to ensure, that the revolution was successful on their terms (these of course, included the NED & USAID). Forbes magazine warmly described the revolution as “the toast of the West” led by a “handsome, American-schooled young leader named Mikhail Saakashvili, supported by an international democracy lobby.”
As in previous “revolutions” overt support to opposition groups was crucially supple¬mented & strengthened through diplomatic & economic coercion. …In 2003 the World Bank & International Monetary Fund (IMF) suspended their support for development projects in Georgia (however, once Shevardnadze resigned, both organisations announced their intentions to re-engage with Georgia) & just before the elections on 24 September, the US’s State Department made the surprise announcement that they would be halving their financial aid to Georgia, which had stood at $100 million in 2003. The resulting financial pressure must have been disastrous for a country heavily reliant on foreign aid…
It is clear, then, that the installation of Saakashvili as president of Georgia had a very high priority for the U.S., a fact underscored by the enormous importance of the region in geo-political & economic terms.
Control oil & you control nations; control food & you control people. (Henry Kissinger)
The Baku oil field began to emerge as an important prize in 1872, when the Tsarist regime “auctioned the parcels of oil-rich land around Baku to private investors.” This was the beginning of the period of the explosive scramble for colonies in Africa & Asia by the European powers, the period of the rise of modern imperialism. Perhaps it was not said as pithily or as consciously as Henry Kissinger put it in 1970 but by 1885, after Gottlieb Daimler developed the internal combustion engine, the importance of controlling the oil resources of the world already begun to take hold in the dreams of imperialists.
William Engdahl’s “A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics & the New World Order” is a very provocative recounting of the rise of the importance of oil, its central role in both World Wars, as well as how the question of oil continues to drive current world events, as it did much of the geo-politics & economics of the past century. He writes that during World War I,
Between 1914 when fighting began & 1918 when it ended, petroleum had emerged as the recognized key to success of a revolution in military strategy. In the age of air warfare, mobile tank warfare & swift naval warfare, abundant & secure supplies of the new fuel were becoming increasingly essential. (p. 37)
…
Rarely discussed, however, is the fact that the strategic geopolitical objectives of Britain, well before 1914, included not only the crushing of its greatest industrial rival, Germany, but through the conquest of war, the securing of unchallenged British control over the precious resource which, by 1919, had proved itself as the strategic material of future economic development—petroleum…
A study of the major theatres of the 1914 – 1918 war reveals the extent to which securing petroleum supplies was already at the center of military planning… The German campaign in Romania…had the priority of reorganizing into a single combine, Steaua Romana, the previously English, Dutch, French & Romanian oil-refining, production & pipeline capacities …The Dardanelles, the disastrous defeat at Gallipoli, was undertaken to secure the oil supplies of the Russian Baku for the Anglo-French war effort…
By 1918, the rich Russian oil fields of Baku on the Caspian Sea were the object of intense military & political effort on the part of Germany & also of Britain. Denial of Baku was a decisive last blow against Germany, which sued for peace some weeks later, only months after it had seemed that Germany had defeated the Allied forces… (p. 38)
On the TV news in the U.S., we have been inundated in the past few days since August 8th with strident denunciations of the Russian invasion of Georgia, a tiny democracy that favors the West & its great values, for which reason it is hated by Moscow. It is claimed that Putin harbors great personal animosity to Saaskavili & sometimes, that Saaskavili personally hates Putin. All the while, the centrality of oil & the Caspian Sea Basin to the what is happening is simply dropped—as though the conflict is strictly a matter of ideology or personalities &—heaven forbid!—not cold hard cash & control of the world economy. While the Russian imperialists are not exactly the nicest guys on the block, it is important to strip away the cover of the sanctimonious patter about democracy by defenders of U.S. imperialism. Both sides are contending for domination of the world economy in a zero-sum game—what one side gains, the other side loses. Why support either set of gangsters?
Some Unanswered Questions
There is a plethora of questions whose answers are yet to be definitively determined. Here are a few of mine.
Q: Who started this conflict?
A: The U.S., Israel, NATO & Georgia say that “Russia did!” Russia says “The U.S., Israel & NATO, acting in concert with each other did, through its proxy, Georgia!” My reaction to all this is that when it comes to gangsters fighting each other over turf & loot, there is invariably such a totally tangled history of attacks on each other, each justified on the basis of some alleged previous attack by the other side, that it becomes completely impossible to untangle who really “started the beef.” Furthermore, their contention serves their conflicting imperialist aims & not the welfare of the people of the world. So who really gives a damn which side started it first? They both did!!
Q: Was Georgia really trying to occupy South Ossetia in their August 7 assault on Tskhinvali?
A: No, I don’t think so. I agree with Michel Chossudovsky:
The aerial bombardments & ground attacks were largely directed against civilian targets including residential areas, hospitals & the university. The provincial capital Tskhinvali was destroyed. The attacks resulted in some 1500 civilian deaths, according to both Russian & Western sources. “The air & artillery bombardment left the provincial capital without water, food, electricity & gas. Horrified civilians crawled out of the basements into the streets as fighting eased, looking for supplies.” (AP, August 9, 2008). According to reports, some 34,000 people from South Ossetia have fled to Russia. (Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, August 10, 2008)
…
A humanitarian disaster rather than a military victory was an integral part of the scen¬ario. 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 govern¬ment, the operation would have been undertaken in a very different fashion, with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks & provincial institutions, rather than waging an all out bombing raid on residential areas, hospitals, not to men¬tion Tskhinvali’s University.
Q: Did the U.S. encourage Georgia to attack South Ossetia?
A: Yes, I believe so. What makes it difficult to pin down is that the U.S., in its role as a Mafia don, is more likely to say to one of its capos, “I’ve got a problem…”, than to ever directly order a certain crime to be committed. Instead we are treated to scene from The Sopranos by the oh-so-objective New York Times, who explain how Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice so righteously cautioned President Saakashvili to avoid confrontations with Russia:
During a private dinner on July 9, Ms. Rice’s aides say, she warned President Mikheil Saakashvili of Georgia not to get into a military conflict with Russia that Georgia could not win. “She told him, in no uncertain terms, that he had to put a non-use of force pledge on the table,” according to a senior administration official who accompanied Ms. Rice to the Georgian capital.
What is really telling is that after the attack, this alleged remark of Rice was totally ignored. Instead, we have been hosed off in all forms of media by basically the same message as Bush delivered:
Mr. Bush, little more than an hour after returning to Washington from the Olympic Games in Beijing, bluntly warned Russia that its military operations were damaging its reputation & were “unacceptable in the 21st century.”
“Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intent in Georgia & the region,” he said. “These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world, & these actions jeopardize relations with the United States & Europe.”
If the U.S. did seriously warn Georgia not to attack South Ossetia, then Bush might have, instead, said something like, “We have given repeated warnings to Saakashvili not to act precipitously, which he chose to ignore. He should have known better than to pull the tail of the Russian bear. However, Georgia is a democracy & we will stand with them against the unpardonable Russian invasion of Georgia.”
Furthermore, the presence of NATO & Israeli military advisors & instructors among the Georgian forces that attacked Tskhinvali provides circumstantial evidence that Georgia got the greenlight from Washington to launch the attack.
Q: You’re saying that the U.S. wanted Georgia to attack. Why would they want to? Why now?
A: It seems to be true that the U.S. provoked the attack. Chossudovsky points out that
Barely a few months ago, in early May, the Russian Ministry of Defense accused Washington, “claiming that [US as well as NATO & Israeli] military assistance to Georgia is destabilizing the region.”
Chossudovsky also raises the question,
Are we dealing with an act of provocation, with a view to triggering a broader [Russia-US Military] conflict? Supported by media propaganda, the Western military alliance is intent on using this incident to confront Russia, as evidenced by recent NATO statements.
However, Chossudovsky never answers the questions, “Why would the U.S. want to trigger a broader conflict? What would the U.S. & its allies gain from doing this? Why would they want to do that now?” The same kind of questions should also be posed over the Russian claim that U.S. “military assistance to Georgia is destabilizing the region.”
One highly speculative but hardly outlandish answer was suggested to me by a friend: Surely the U.S. expected Russia to react the way it did. Was this a matter of setting up a climate of public opinion against Russia, partially to divert attention from their intentions of unleashing their attack-dog, Israel, on Iran, but also to create a climate of how prone to war that region of the world is & that the U.S. needs to be ready to deal militarily with whatever arises there? Even as we write,
…the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN71) & its Carrier Strike Group Two (CCSG-2) are now headed towards Iran along with the USS Ronald Reagan (CVN76) & its Carrier Strike Group Seven (CCSG-7) coming from Japan.
They are joining 2 existing USN battle groups in the Gulf area: the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN72) with its Carrier Strike Group Nine (CCSG-9); & the USS Peleliu (LHA-5) with its expeditionary strike group.
Likely also under way towards the Persian Gulf is the USS Iwo Jima (LHD-7) & its expeditionary strike group, the UK Royal Navy HMS Ark Royal (R07) carrier battle group, assorted French naval assets including the nuclear hunter-killer submarine Amethyste & French Naval Rafale fighter jets on-board the USS Theodore Roosevelt. These ships took part in the just completed Operation Brimstone.
The build up of naval forces in the Gulf will be one of the largest multi-national naval armadas since the 1st & 2nd Gulf Wars. The intent is to create a US/EU naval blockade (which is an Act of War under international law) around Iran (with supporting air & land elements) to prevent the shipment of benzene & certain other refined oil products headed to Iranian ports. Iran has limited domestic oil refining capacity & imports 40% of its benzene. Cutting off benzene & other key products would cripple the Iranian economy. The neo-cons are counting on such a blockade launching a war with Iran.




Sources:
Andrei Areshev, Strategic Culture Foundation, 08-09-08: South Ossetia—The War Has Begun.
In Georgia & Russia, a Perfect Brew for a Blowup
See Note 1.
The BBC is deliberately distorting the News from the Georgia Region.
Why Georgia-Russia Conflict Is Significant For U.S.
Note added: BP stands for British Petroleum.
Note added: “The FTSE 100 Index (IPA: /ˈfʊtsiː/, footsie, abbreviated Financial Times Stock Exchange Index) is a share index of the 100 most highly capitalised companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FTSE_100_Index.
Note added: “TNK-BP Ltd. (RTS:TNBP) is a major Russian vertically integrated oil company that was founded on the British Virgin Islands in September 2003 as a result of the merger of the oil & gas assets of British Petroleum with assets of Access/Renova Group & Alfa Group…Pursuant to the second stage of corporate restructuring in August 2006, all the assets of the company will be consolidated in TNK-BP Holding, which is registered in the village of Uvat in Tyumen Oblast in Russia.
…
“The Ukrainian enterprises owned by TNK-BP; RUSIA Petroleum (developer of the Kovykta gas condensate deposit); Slavneft (half of which belongs to Gazprom Neft); & STBP Holdings (British Petroleum's filling station franchise in Moscow, & a blocking package in which belongs to Shalva Chigirinsky) were all not included in TNK-BP Holding. TNK-BP had announced that, after the second stage of restructuring, it would continue the consolidation of its production assets, although there are no concrete plans for that at the moment.
“Today, TNK-BP is Russia's third largest oil company. The company employs close to 100,000 people & operates in nearly all of Russia's major hydrocarbon regions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNK-BP.
The Caucasus—Washington Risks nuclear war by miscalculation
Analysis: Happiness is Multiple Pipelines
Ibid.
Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon & the Battle for Oil. He also notes that “Israel has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some 20% of its oil.” Michel Chossudovsky is the author of the international best seller “The Globalization of Poverty “ published in 11 languages. He is Professor of Economics at the University of Ottawa & Director of the Center for Research on Globalization, at http://www.globalresearch.ca. His most recent book is America’s “War on Terrorism”.
Israel backs Georgia in Caspian Oil Pipeline Battle with Russia
Tomgram: Michael Klare on Playing Chess with Iran
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan & starting the whole mess, in Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76.
This statement is a backhanded way of recognizing how deeply the Vietnam War & the protest movement that developed in the U.S. rattled the powers-that-be.
Georgia-South Ossetia: conflict chronology
This entire paragraph is mainly a rehash of note 11.
Russia begins active stage of Caucasus 2008 military exercise
Ibid.
See Note 13.
War in the Caucasus: Towards a Broader Russia-US Military Confrontation?
Ibid.
NATO instructor taken hostage with Georgians amid reports of U.S. military commanding thousands of mercs in proxy war
The photo is from http://www.harvard-bssp.org/files/2003/program.pdf.
See http://www.eucom.mil/english/Media_Gallery/Video/gtep/gallery.asp, which has many videos of the training of the Georgian Army.
See Note 2. The last paragraph is somewhat remarkable in its candid admission that the Georgian assault on South Ossetia was actually encouraged by the U.S., buried though it is near the bottom of the article.
Human Rights & Media Manipulation From Pinochet to ‘Human Rights’ in China
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Political_Foundation#_note-3.
NED has its counterparts sponsored by other countries: “Other groups undertaking similar activities around the world based in other developed countries include: the Australian Centre for Democratic Institutions (CDI); the Westminster Foundation; the Canadian International Center for Human Rights and Democratic Development: & the Netherlands Institute for Multiparty Democracy. Another similar US group was also formed in 1984 called the Center for Democracy.” In addition to these governmental bodies, private organizations such as George Soros’ Open Society Institute collaborate with the efforts of the NED & the other governmental groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_Democracy#Central_America.
Cited in Note 23.
See Note 25.
See Regulating revolutions in Eastern Europe. I will quote this article extensively on the question of the Rose Revolution & Saakasvili but it is a useful source for a brief description of the other “revolutions”. In passing, it should be noted that the NED has been very active in hijacking righteous sentiments against oppression to serve U.S. imperial interests, such as in the Free Darfur & the Free Tibet movements.
For a list of the other groups involved see Graeme P. Herd, ‘Colorful Revolutions & the CIS: “Manufactured” Versus “Managed” Democracy?’, Problems of Post-Communism, Vol. 52, No. 2 (2005), p. 6.
Matthew Swibel, ‘Reform, caucasus-style; change in Ukraine? A cautionary tale from Georgia’, Forbes Magazine, 10 January 2005, p. 78.
Natalia Antelava, ‘Georgia: Shevardnadze’s Dilemma’, Transitions Online, 30 September 2003; Nick Ashwell, ‘World Bank ready to co-operate with Georgia’, WMRC Daily Analysis, 28 November 2003.
Fred Weir, ‘Leader of Georgia’s bloodless coup set for election victory’, The Independent (UK), 1 January 2004, p. 9.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku
The British operation in the Baku region was an important part of the legend of British spy, Sidney Reilly, who is thought to be the inspiration for Ian Fleming’s James Bond. See Robin Bruce Lockhart, Reilly: Ace of Spies, Penguin Books (New York, 1967). Lockhart’s father, Sir Robert Bruce Lockhart, was head of the British mission in Moscow at the time & worked extensively with Reilly. The book was the basis for the series of movies by the same title. A less romanticized description of the Baku operation & of Reilly can be found in Michael Sayers & Alfred E. Kahn, The Great Conspiracy: The Secret War Against Soviet Russia, Proletarian Publishers (San Francisco, 1946).
A Calypso song popularized by Harry Belafonte in the mid-1950s captures an aspect of this situation—Mama, look a boo-boo. The 2nd verse is
I couldn't even digest me supper
Due to the children's behavior
John (Yes, pa)—come here a moment
Bring de belt, you're much too impudent
John says it's James who started first
James tells the story in reverse I drag my belt from off me waist
You should hear them screamin' round de place
After Mixed U.S. Messages, a War Erupted in Georgia
Russia Steps Up Its Push; West Faces Tough Choices
Russia Claims Georgia in Arms Buildup, Wired News, May 19, 2008.
See Note 22.
Massive US Naval Armada Heads For Iran