.... space" matushka is in the process
of engulfing her neighbors yet one
more time. These activities need to
be closely monitored by the Balts. Akin
to the case in Georgia matushka planted
great numbers of her colonizing
kiddies in the Baltics (post war) and has been
making noises about "protecting her
compatriots" for some time now.
One should note, however, that rather than
the "bull in the china shop" approach used
in Georgia they are engaged much more
subtle moves.
Why - one might ask. The answer is very
simple the Baltic countries are in NATO
- even if largely symbolically. Thus the
Kremlin is not quite sure as to the reaction
of this organization to its more crass (and
more natural for russkies) activities. As a
result it has restricted itself to doing "spade
work" in preparation of getting the Baltic
countries into a Georgian position. It is
investing massive efforts (and funds) in
driving a wedge between the Baltic countries
and other club members within NATO as
well as the EU. This effort has been but
moderately successful. On the other hand
the Kremlin has lots of time.
Certainly Europe, Rather than being mesmerized
by the pornographic spectacle of the ongoing
krautoid-russkie fornication, needs to wake
up and understand that the Kremlin is playing
the same old russkie game - a game that has not
even gained much in sophistication over the many
centuries.
Surely even in societies, completely submerged
within a "I got mine/wanna get mine" mentality,
there must be individuals with enough
intelligence to recognize the game and enough
intestinal fortitude to condemn it and counteract
it.
That is all I ask.
Best - - Henry
For educational purposes only:
From: The Jamestown Foundation
(Eurasia Daily Monitor)
ANNEXATION AND MILITARIZATION OF
ABKHAZIA CONTINUE APACE
By Vladimir Socor
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Russia has again challenged Georgia and the West in Abkhazia,
this time with military action. Its first challenge had been
President Vladimir Putin''s April 16 decree, authorizing direct
official relations between Russian government bodies and the
secessionist authorities in Georgia's Abkhazia and South Ossetia
regions (see EDM, April 18). This unilateral move
amounted to official ""legal"" recognition in terms of Russian
law, formalizing Russia''s de facto annexation policy in the
two territories.
This move is now being followed up with overt militarization
and cross-border acts of aggression in Abkhazia.
On April 20 a Russian MIG-29 fighter plane shot down a
Georgian unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicle (UAV) over
the Gali district in southern Abkhazia, deep inside the
internationally recognized Georgian territory and airspace.
The Israeli-made, Georgian- operated UAV is an unarmed drone,
merely a flying photographic and video camera, used by
Georgia ''s Internal Affairs Ministry to ascertain Russian
military movements in Abkhazia. The drone transmitted in
real time the images of the Russian plane approaching and
firing an air-to-air missile at the UAV. Posted by Georgian
authorities on you.tube, the film corroborates Georgian radar
data tracking that same MIG-29 as it gained altitude over the
Russian-held Gudauta military airfield, flying over the Gali
district and then turning north into Russian airspace. Georgia
immediately proposed to Russia to exchange radar and any
other data on the incident. As of April 30 the Russian side
had not responded (Georgian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
statements, April 21, 26, 30; Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
statement, April 29).
Moscow claims that any one of the new NATO member
countries with residual MIG inventories might have staged
the incident in order to provoke Russia. Minister of Foreign
Affairs Sergei Lavrov told this tale to the European Union
during high-level meetings on overall EU-Russia relations
on April 29 and 30 in Luxemburg (Interfax, April 29, 30). This
claim brings a slight variation to the master theme that
Georgia fires at Georgian targets in order to accuse Russia,
as Moscow insisted after the Russian air attacks in March
and August 2007 over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, respectively.
Unwittingly contradicting Moscow''s version of the April 20
incident, Abkhaz authorities were quick to claim that they had
themselves shot down the Georgian UAV (Apsnypress, April
21). Although inherently absurd, this claim could have prompted
international inquiries to Russia about its illegal arms deliveries
to Abkhaz proxy forces, inside the internationally recognized
Georgian territory. Such inquiries have yet to come, however.
By shooting down the UAV, Moscow almost certainly aimed
to reduce Georgian (and, by implication, Western) ability to
monitor the next Russian military moves into Abkhazia,
which have been underway since at least April 29. On that date
Russian convoys of artillery, armored vehicles, and additional
troop units crossed the internationally recognized Russia-
Georgia border at the Psou River, into the secessionist territory.
Moscow has announced that its troops opened and are manning
a number of new ""border checkpoints"" on what Moscow
described as a Russian-Abkhazian border, which is actually the
Russian-Georgian border in international law (Interfax, April 29, 30).
Moscow claims, as Lavrov told the EU in the Luxemburg meeting,
to be ""preventing bloodshed"" and ""protecting Russia''s citizens""
in Abkhazia, in response to Georgian troop deployments in the
upper Kodori Valley. The United Nations Observer Mission in
Georgia (UNOMIG), however, indirectly refuted that accusation
by announcing that it had not observed any such Georgian troop
deployments. UNOMIG monitors the area alongside Russia''s own
""peacekeeping"" troops. On the whole, Moscow portrays its latest
military moves as an increase in its ""peacekeeping"" operation.
Russia did not prenotify, let alone request consent from, the legally
sovereign Georgian government or any international organization.
These moves violate multiple international legal norms and
specific agreements. Russia''s ""peacekeeping"" operation is
nominally a Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)
operation, an illusion accepted for convenience by the UN.
Although this cover does not make the Russian operation a
legal one in any sense (the CIS has no authority to mandate
peacekeeping operations), any additions to the operation
would necessitate approval by CIS countries'' heads of state,
at least on paper. Aware that it could not muster such approval,
Moscow has moved unilaterally, thus discrediting both the
CIS in its purported peacekeeping role and the UN for its
acceptance of that pretense.
Furthermore, Moscow is now openly erasing an internationally
recognized border through military force. It also exacerbates its
continuing breach of the Treaty on Conventional Forces
in Europe (CFE) by augmenting the Russian heavy weaponry
in Abkhazia, which is also Georgian territory from that treaty''s
point of view. Russia has deployed ""unaccounted-for treaty-limited
equipment"" (UTLE) in Abkhazia and other secessionist territories
for the past decade, above treaty ceilings and beyond international
verification. Some of that hardware (as well as lighter weaponry)
has been placed at the disposal of unlawful secessionist forces.
Russia also holds onto the Gudauta base and is apparently using
it, despite Moscow''s 1999 commitment to vacate the base by 2001.
International and Western organizations have, on the whole, tacitly
tolerated Russian militarization measures in Abkhazia from the
1990s to now. These organizations and leading Western nations
will risk their credibility if they continue such tolerance after
Moscow''s
latest, overtly military moves.
|
