skhara

Incidentally, read up on the commentary folks are leaving in the "have your say" section. I repeat that Russians never had a chance in the "western press". There is no tactic they can use here. Western press is a mouthpiece of hostile governments. Nonetheless, I am disappointed with the arguments they push. Russians should have tied their own security much to the issue here.

I am not saying it would happen, but the rhetoric that I heard from Russian officials seemed to lean that way, "ethnic cleansing", "genocide", "gather evidence of war crimes" "Saddam Husein" "Ad hoc tribunal". And the consequences of that would be what? Didn't "the west" do this with Serbia? Don't the Russians point to Serbia and Kosovo on every bit of criticism from the "west". The thing is that Moscow doesn't tolerate an openly declared enemy that has fashioned itself as a dagger pointed at their throat. Whose lack of tolerance should carry more weight in the region? I would imagine the one who can muster the most firepower in the region. In part, I think Russian's should push the wider confrontation argument, not just the "war crimes" and attacking "Russian citizens and peacekeepers". Quit simply they should push the argument that they cannot tolerate an open enemy on their border in the most sensitive area. The attitudes and actions of the western governments would not change anyway other than maybe "straining" some superficial relations that was of no real benefit to Moscow anyway. Russia cannot possibly be dominating the media war in the west if that's what you mean, but they certainly dominate elsewhere in this conflict. In the western media, Russia is so heavily outgunned that no tactic can possibly give them a desired result. As Churkin remarked, that the western media is well oiled machine.

I disagree. Remember screams of "western" governments and media of "genocide" over the photo-op of corpses of 20 or so dead Albanian terrorists gathered in a neat pile that DEMANDED intervention in Kosovo? Furthermore, if the alleged "massacre" of 8000 muslims was "genocide" how is the MASSACRE of alleged 2000+ Ossetians not? This is a battle with the media and repeatedly saying genocide is a tactic with an objective in mind. They may choose to indite Saakashvilli for war crimes and charge him for "genocide". Then launch an operation to capture him and bring him to a Moscow based court called the International Criminal Court for the former Georgia.

No, Russian's have nothing to lose in Georgian public opinion -- they are and were universally despised. No what Russians should do is stomp them hard, humiliate them completely and polarize Russians to "hate" Georgians in equal and opposite fashion (I suppose two can play the 'hate' game). The Georgians can discover that Russian "hate" directed at them is much more damaging to them then the puny little hate they can display towards Russia.

Exactly. I wish people would show a whole lot more political maturity. There are no "friendships", there are interests. Monte Melkonian spoke of this. He had little problem with certain Russian aid because of the direction that Azerbaijan is/was looking.

I am quite surprised by the lack of responses/debate about this. Yo people, this is extremely serious.

Well if Armenia was planning to abstain before, she should vote against Georgians after this little declaration. What gall.

I agree with everything you have written thus far. Bravo. I am also glad that the authorities in Yerevan are putting a hard clamp on the likes of "Z'areh". In practical geopolitics it makes perfect sense that Russia does not mention Artsakh on that list. If Russia succeeds knocking out western ambitions in Georgia and bringing Georgia back into the fold, S Ossetia and Abkhazia will not be on that list either. It does not mean however, that Russia will allow Georgia to re-take control of these break-away regions. Why would they ever give up their pro-Russian bargaining chips over Georgia. Perhaps this recent change in attitude by Sakashvilli towards Moscow is directly related to Moscow's threat of recognition. What's more important to Armenians? A word from Moscow - "Yes we officially recognize" or the transfer of a billion dollars worth of arms that helped the Armenians take full control of Artsakh and outlying areas + the security provided by the Russian Federation against the beasts to the west.

He is quite anti-Russia and anti-Iran from what I understand (perhaps its the 'Jew' in him) -- by that very reason I don't see how on earth he can advocate 'pro-Armenian' policy. Although him being anti-turk helps.

Obese men should not be elected into office.

Is this why Russians are celebrating?

Yeah that's all fine and dandy in a world where there is no double-dealing and arrogant hypocrasy. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say. The Germans aren't doing this for the love of Armenians, they have their own interests -- we can benefit from the damage to be inflicted on the enemy entity. I also remember reading that Germans are interested in the status of Artsakh from a pro-Armenian viewpoint. Good for the Germans.

I saw this advertised on google main page today. I was thinking if anyone tried it. If I get my broadband connection from the toilet, I'll be smiling.

By the way, this couldn't possibly have been inherited from Greeks since Greeks didn't do this after the adoption of Christianity. Byzantium existed for hundreds of years before any turk showed up. By the way, I'm pretty sure that in the European Union old men sodomizing young boys is considered criminal.

Seems like an ill-conceived plan. Obviously the turkic state would not accept the demands. The demands from their perspective greatly outweigh the value on not just one diplomat, but probably all their state reps put together. Although continuous an prolonged targetted assasinations of state reps should be fine. In fact, by the example of Israel and the US, this is the 'in-thing'.