International Politics Thread

[akm74 1]

Quote[/b] ]How can you admit this website is government sponsored and yet not admit they are turning out propaganda?

I guess my English are so bad... you don’t even get the point.

[scubaman3D 0]

I guess my English are so bad... you don’t even get the point.

Sorry Misunderstood.

[Spokesperson 0]

I'm back for some speedy comments.

Quote[/b] ]Finally if Abkhazia is given it's right to independence so should Chechnya

Chechnya wanted to break away when muslim extremists ruled the republic. Things are different now. Grozny has been rebuilt, and the buildings are in a better shape than in most of Russia. How do you know if they want independence or not? They are almost independent already.

The west did definately not fund the Russian revolution or the civil war. Sure the reds might have had some business with people abroad, but that doesn't mean there's funding.

The UK actively supported the whites. They had thousands of troops deployed in Russia and built concentration camps for civilians in Siberia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....vil_War

American troops in Vladivostok:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force_Siberia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_Bear_Expedition

"The Allied commanders soon also came to the realization that they would not be able to raise an effective local force of anti-Bolshevik soldiers"

That's a few hundred times worse than what Russia does in Georgia right now. In fact you can't even compare the actions as Russia acted in self-defence.

That just shows how dangerous bolshevism was thought to be by the international bourgeoisie. They reacted just like they did in Paris and the commune. And that was far before Stalin.

Quote[/b] ]So, in order to reclaim its territory by using artillery and tanks, Georgia first should declare invalid all the peacekeeping agreements is had signed. At least it would be the very clear warning, and it would save the lives of so many people.

It would be honest too in respect to its own Georgian people -to tell the soldiers, reservists, that they're going to war.

Strangely the things happened in a very different way, sneaky, unexpectedly, at night. I don't think some country has the right to brake its words by sudden attacks such as this. That's simply criminal.

Yes, they were deliberately bombarding the peace-keeper building and the russian army from a hill.

If Germany or Japan attacked American soldiers on bases in their territory I'm sure the US wouldn't just stand by and look.

Western media is one-sided, and the politics show signs of hypocrisy. Propaganda is more sophisticated. Nobody tells you to think what's good or bad, but they make you think what's good and bad, based on the information they give you.

Who, in the west, condemned the war in Iraq? The invasion of Yugoslavia? Or the german recognition of Croatia when the croats themselves even didn't claim independence? And now they have an opinion about Georgia. Same thing with the UK. It was one of the first countries to recognise Kosovo. What about the new countries in Georgia? Germany says it's against international law to recognize the independence of other territories. What did they do all those years up till now? And besides it's perfectly legal.

Quote[/b] ]How can you admit this website is government sponsored and yet not admit they are turning out propaganda?

What is there to lose? If the state is working in the interests of the capital, it will only be as bad as the corporate media. If not, there's everything to win.

[-Snafu- 78]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

So Britain who had been allied with Russia against the Germans (and before that the French), decided to back the half of the Russian civil war that wasn't backed by the Germans. (The so called "counter revolutionaries").

You said that Britain backed the Russian Revolution which was during WW1. Remember Russia was on our side at this time tying a significant number of Germans down at the East. It would make no sense for Britain to support the revolution which would take Russia out of the war releasing loads of Germans to the Western Front.

Indeed, and didnt British and American troops back the counter-revolutionaries during the civil war in 1920?

Yes, quite a few countries did. To try and keep Russia in the war so the Germans would be tied down there. When WW1 ended there was no real reason to keep them there; the conflict was unpopular, war weary nations, US return to isolation and Britain had a situation with Ireland which was of more importance.

Spokesperson:

Quote[/b] ]Who, in the west, condemned the war in Iraq?

Open your eyes

Look at this

[scubaman3D 0]

What is there to lose? If the state is working in the interests of the capital, it will only be as bad as the corporate media. If not, there's everything to win.

You make it seem as if only businesses are corrupt. The fact is that with state-run media, its even easier to abuse your power if you can control or influence public opinion while making policy decisions.

The people who are [mis]informed by these state-owned outlets are the ones living under an illusion of "free press".

Only a fool can't see this.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Open your eyes

Look at this

Of course there was opposition, but no condemnations from the french and german side.

Where's the disapproval from Italy, Spain, UK, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, and Poland in that list? Just to name a few missing ones.

Compare it to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Ossetia

And naturally ordinary people in the west opposed the war.

Quote[/b] ]You make it seem as if only businesses are corrupt. The fact is that with state-run media, its even easier to abuse your power if you can control or influence public opinion while making policy decisions.

Business corrupts information, because information is made business. If there's something that is a threat to that business it won't be encouraged.

The "free" press is controlled by a few who have the same interests. They want to keep their power and wealth, but they also want to increase it. They are upper class. Private media manipulates public opinion to support the current society. Because they profit from it. Everything that doesn't match their world view is omitted from the information flow. A democracy requires free flow of information, that means democratic ownership. Private media is a threat to democracy.

American Journalist:

“I’m ashamed as an American. My country has been taken over by a private international military industrial complex, and they launched a sneaky attack on the Russian enclaves,†says Alex Jones, an investigative journalist from infowars.com.

http://www.russiatoday.com/guests/video/1511

While CNN and BBC interviews russian dissenters (like 95% of the time), RT interviews American dissenters 95% of the time. It's all so called "free" press.

That's how things work.

[-Snafu- 78]

Quote[/b] ]Open your eyes

Look at this

Of course there was opposition, but no condemnations from the french and german side.

Where's the disapproval from Italy, Spain, UK, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, and Poland in that list? Just to name a few missing ones.

Compare it to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Ossetia

And naturally ordinary people in the west opposed the war.

Then why did you ask if there was opposition?

France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

They supported it. Whopped-ee-doo if they went to war. Shit happens. Get used to it. The oh so gracious USSR did similar shit. The leading powers will almost always do what they want.

Jesus christ. Yes 'ordinary people' were against the war  . Many were for it. Fact.

<insert typical Spokesperson response here>

[scubaman3D 0]

I should also add that comparing Russia's unilateral action in Georgia shares no moral equivalents with the US in Iraq.

There were something like 14 or 16 UN security council resolutions against Iraq (all of which were supported by Russia) so there was an effort for diplomacy. Iraq broke ALL of them, so we went to war. Also, the US did not act unilaterally.

On the other hand, Russia did not take their alleged "concern" for the Ossetians to the UN or put forth any diplomatic effort to avert war. There were thousands of Russian soldiers massing at the border from months of planning. They also acted completely alone and their response was both disproportionate and inconsistent with their stated objectives. Even their recent recognition of the disputed territories in Georgia as sovereign is tantamount to idiocy and contradicts  several UN security council resolutions that they voted for, which affirm those territories as belonging to Georgia.

There is absolutely no question that the war they started with Georgia is a politically motivated pissing contest with the west(US).  

[Rhodite 3]

I have to admit I am honestly perplexed what russia hopes or wants to gain from all this?

I am no fan of some of the actions of our nations in the past and present, but what Russia is doing appears to defy logic.

Perhaps something more is at stake? or is it all about "we do as we please we are still a superpower thankyou!"?

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Disapproval and condemnation are two completely different things. Sure, they are on the list, but I checked the source for that claim. There was nothing there about any condemnations.

Quote[/b] ]There were something like 14 or 16 UN security council resolutions against Iraq (all of which were supported by Russia) so there was an effort for diplomacy. Iraq broke ALL of them, so we went to war. Also, the US did not act unilaterally.

There was no UN resolution for starting a war against Iraq. There was no UN resolution for starting a war against Yugoslavia. Breaking a UN resolution doesn't make it correct to invade. But hopefully it costs a lot counted in life and money.

Georgia started the war when they began to kill off 700 russian peace-keepers with tanks. Russia did the right thing.

[baddo 0]

They have money again to build a better military. They want to be a superpower.

They are afraid that the USA comes right to their doorsteps (NATO expansion and the planned new missile stations). I can understand why they are afraid. I hope the USA can act in such a way that more trust is created between them and Russia, I see that as a key thing to making sure that Russia doesn't go totally crazy with its military.

Right before Estonia joined NATO, there was a report that Russian military jets crossed into Estonian airspace. Surprise? Not to me, not at all. It was to be expected. Don't tell it was an accident!  

They sometimes tell Finland that "it was an accident", when their military airplanes (not fighter jets to my knowledge, in this century) cross into our airspace. Or they simply say "it didn't happen". But there have been instances when they have admitted it and even apologized

To me it is just one way from them to keep us on our toes. They test our radars and the time it takes from our military jets to get into the air and recognize their plane from a close distance. That's what they are doing as I see it.

A story I heard from a friend of a Finnish border guard. The border guard told that the Russians sometimes fly with their military jets in formation towards our border at high-speed. Then just before arriving at our border, they turn away. Imagine the hell this causes at our border guard and radar stations! They can see that a formation of Russian jets is coming at high-speed and if they don't turn away very soon then they are inside our borders. Pretty nerve-wrecking job to monitor such a radar... and think about it, every time that happens, they must alert our own fighter jets to get up in the air to prepare to meet the Russian jets, if they cross the border. They can not know if the Russian jets are coming over the border, because the distance is so short and the time is not much, they always have to send our own jets to the location. I see this as well so that the Russians are taking time how long it takes from us to notice what they are doing and how long it takes from us to get our own jets ready. It can also be a political tool.

I could live my life very well without all this, it is exactly what I don't need. Just stay the hell out and let me live in peace. Chances are high that most people in other Russia's neighbour countries have exactly the same feeling about it as I do. As an example, I can look to Estonia and I see them thinking the same way like I do about it. I guess all the countries which have been bullied by USSR or by Russia are in the same boat, having the same feelings, just stay the hell out with your military and everything is fine between me and you.

[kavoven 4]

Quote[/b] ]France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Disapproval and condemnation are two completely different things. Sure, they are on the list, but I checked the source for that claim. There was nothing there about any condemnations.

Quote[/b] ]There were something like 14 or 16 UN security council resolutions against Iraq (all of which were supported by Russia) so there was an effort for diplomacy. Iraq broke ALL of them, so we went to war. Also, the US did not act unilaterally.

There was no UN resolution for starting a war against Iraq. There was no UN resolution for starting a war against Yugoslavia. Breaking a UN resolution doesn't make it correct to invade. But hopefully it costs a lot counted in life and money.

Georgia started the war when they began to kill off 700 russian peace-keepers with tanks. Russia did the right thing.

Ah, finaly a post from you which doesn't steal me 10 minutes to read...

You're wondering that there was no UN resolution? Uhm, perhaps because the USA are able to put their veto in?  

Georgia didn't kill 700 russian peacekeepers. Thats simply a lie.

You say that the war with Yugoslavia was wrong? That means you supported the ethnic cleanings. Is Milosevic your personal hero? Like Stalin? Do you have a Mao poster in your room?

I have another question for you:

Do you really think, I mean, do you actually believe the stuff you're writing or are you getting paid for that? I first thought you were from Russia, but know I see you're from old Yugoslavia. What is your hate against the west based on? Was there a missle that accidently killed one of your family? Or is it true faith in the system that drives your motivations?

Russia did indeed the right thing. It was Georgia starting the war, it was cunning to do so during the Olympic games and it is one of the most stupid ideas to invite them into NATO. That fuels the relations between Russia and Western countries even more.

But the stuff you're writing is nonesense. You're comparing apples with eggs, you're twising words around and telling lies. You're wondering why no one is taking you serious? Oh, of course, it's our western arrogance.

No it is not. There are many people here who don't agree with the current politics made mainly by the US. The whole EU is in no position to pose any threats to Russia, since we depend on Russian oil. We WANT stable relations with Russia, as with the west of the world. Time of territorial aggression was 100 years ago.

Today the whole world is connected through our economical system. That's what our parents and our grand-fathers build up since WW2. We don't want that to change, it isn't in our interest. And do you know what I think? Our world today is a better place to be than 50 years ago. We do not have to live in fear of seeing an invading force of our neighbouring country the next morning. We can learn many things about other cultures because we're free to travel there. Nearly all important inventions of the past 50 years have been made in our countries and have improved the standart of living all over the world, because we have people with free minds.

I don't claim that we always did the right thing regarding continents like Africa. But neither Russia did. They're selling their weapons to everyone who asks for them(The US does the same). And that wasn't different during Soviet times.

Do you know the name Vogel? It was a German lawyer who was a close friend to Erich Honecker. He sold 215.019 citizens of the GDR to Western Germany. Thats capatalism in its purest form. Thats how our world works. Thats how human beings work. The system you're proclaiming doesn't work. It never will. Did you read The Republic by Plato? It is a dialoge between Plato and Socrates about a theoretical state. And what did it need? Perfect people. But there are no perfect people on this planet.

My old school organized each year a transport into the really poor places in Old East Prussia. They needed to cross the russian border for that and each time they had to bribe the guards to get across. For giving goods like cloth to the poor people, for bringing building materials to repair the roofs. And this wasn't different during Soviet times.

There has always been unjustice in this world. Your place of birth, which you can't change. Your family status, which you can't change. Are you female but you're father wanted a son? You can't change that. In India some people are stoned for loving the wrong person. In some Arabic countries women are held like animals. In others children are not allowed to go to school. In South America are huge favelas and many people there won't reach the age of 30. In China people can only have one child and sometimes their only child is taken to be trained for some Olympic Games. Everything people saw in Afghanistan for the last 30 years was war. Russia was the trigger for that first and than handed it over to the US. (Btw, did you watch "The war of Charly Wilson"? Really good movie!

In Iraq many, many children starved to death since they didn't get any food because of the UN sanctions.(Today they don't starve but are shot or die in a suicide attack. It's the fault of the US btw) And I can go on and on with this list.

Why don't you want to change their worlds, which are completly unfair?

But you're one of those who try to heat up everything. You're the little snake whispering false truths into the ear of you're leader.

But luckily there is no furtile earth anymore were you can place your communist seed. Today people have to work together, because we won't have any oil anymore in 50 years. In 50 years the population on earth will reach about 10 billion. Where do we get the food for all that? Will there be wars because of water? Whats about space for living? Global warming?

These problems of the future need intelligent solutions. And the best way to reach these solutions is competition. Scientific competion for money, that's how these problems will be solved. Rich people are already paying Russia for visiting space. It costs about 40 million to get there. And Russia is happy to get that money. Again, capitalism. This money will allow them to progress further in their approach into space. In five years other people will be in space for five minutes. Private companies, founded by capitalists with much money will allow this. The results of these visits, the knowledge will let us again push deeper into space.

I know that you'll take your time and oppose all of my statements, perhaps just for the reason of opposing. That's all right. We live in a free world. Everyone can have his opinion. But the question is, if you should rather keep your old fashioned views for yourself, because the day may come when there is nobody left to listen.

Good night.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ] Imagine the hell this causes at our border guard and radar stations! They can see that a formation of Russian jets is coming at high-speed and if they don't turn away very soon then they are inside our borders.

That seems plausible. But I doubt they do that against Finland on a regular basis. At least now. Finland has a bit more neutral stance (than other western countries) in world politics. No NATO-membership and somewhat more cautious statements.

If you look at Denmark or the Ukraine it's different. The relations between Russia and those countries are very bad, because Russia thinks it hasn't been treated in a fair way. Sending up planes to approach the russian planes costs a lot of money. That way relations get a price.

Quote[/b] ]You're wondering that there was no UN resolution? Uhm, perhaps because the USA are able to put their veto in?

No because Russia and China put their veto in.

I didn't say 700 peacekeepers were killed. About 20 were. What I said was that the Georgians moved into Tshinvali and started to shoot at them and kill them. What did you want the Russian troops to do? Die or fight back?

Quote[/b] ]He sold 215.019 citizens of the GDR to Western Germany. Thats capatalism in its purest form.

What's so strange about that? West and East swapped tens of thousands of prisoners. And trade has nothing do with capitalism.

Quote[/b] ]Did you read The Republic by Plato? It is a dialoge between Plato and Socrates about a theoretical state. And what did it need? Perfect people. But there are no perfect people on this planet.

They are both idealists. Their ideas of how a state should function does not apply to socialism. But, nevertheless, their thoughts are interesting.

Quote[/b] ] And this wasn't different during Soviet times.

Western Europe has always had higher standards than the East. But it was better during the Soviet times.

Quote[/b] ]Everything people saw in Afghanistan for the last 30 years was war. Russia was the trigger for that first and than handed it over to the US.

Russia didn't hand it over, they didn't have the motivation or money to stay there. The US have a different approach. Less troops, less presence. They use their air-superiority a lot more (the talibans dont have access to the same amount of AA-measures like in the 80ies). But things are getting "worse" there too. It took 10 years for things to get a lot uglier when the USSR was there. It was peaceful for many years. But the talibans have the ability to regroup and organize because of the Afghan climate. Winter affects that country quite a lot.

Quote[/b] ]There has always been unjustice in this world. Your place of birth, which you can't change. Your family status, which you can't change. Are you female but you're father wanted a son? You can't change that.

Sure. I'm not arguing against unjustice, because justice isn't objective. I'm arguing against the system that's based on exploitation. If that's unjust or not is of no matter to a marxist. But, even if things are "unjust" they can be made more "fair". Things can be improved. Just because something needs a lot of work it doesn't mean it's impossible to improve it.

Quote[/b] ]Today people have to work together, because we won't have any oil anymore in 50 years. In 50 years the population on earth will reach about 10 billion. Where do we get the food for all that? Will there be wars because of water? Whats about space for living? Global warming?

These problems of the future need intelligent solutions. And the best way to reach these solutions is competition. Scientific competion for money, that's how these problems will be solved. Rich people are already paying Russia for visiting space. It costs about 40 million to get there. And Russia is happy to get that money. Again, capitalism. This money will allow them to progress further in their approach into space. In five years other people will be in space for five minutes. Private companies, founded by capitalists with much money will allow this. The results of these visits, the knowledge will let us again push deeper into space.

That kind of problems are easily solved in a non-market economy. In this type of economy you have to wait until it doesn't get profitable enough to pollute or destroy. That time might not come.

According to WWF, Cuba is the only country with sustainable development in the world. Instead of having an endless debate about responsibilities and money, the cubans made it in 10 years. So yes, cooperation works better than market competition.

Quote[/b] ]We live in a free world.

Only if you own most of it.

[MehMan 0]

And trade has nothing do with capitalism.

You're contradicting your own statements here. Unless you're seperating free trade and trade, which is a bit odd. In which case, just ignore this.

[-Snafu- 78]

Quote[/b] ]France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

Disapproval and condemnation are two completely different things. Sure, they are on the list, but I checked the source for that claim. There was nothing there about any condemnations.

It was more than disapproval. They publicly said it was wrong. They voiced it in the UN and the relations between those nations deteriorated very quickly. Disapproval would be a few comments and nothing more.

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

[Baff1 0]

I pick up a translation of a Russian newspaper from time to time.

From the same group that prints here and in the U.S.

It's seems to be broadly comparable.

The same level of political debate. The same sort of subject material.

That said it's a broadsheet, judging from what the Russian chaps on the Stalker Forums say they are reading, the tabloid stuff is all pretty much extreme nonsense.

The bit about Saakashvili being a CIA agent and stuff I was having trouble swallowing, let alone the guy who thought there was seriously something to it.

I'm not really fanatical about freedom of speech / freedom of the media. There are pro's and cons. I think it's good to strike a balance. The problem is who can you trust to moderate it?

[Baff1 0]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

So Britain who had been allied with Russia against the Germans (and before that the French), decided to back the half of the Russian civil war that wasn't backed by the Germans. (The so called "counter revolutionaries").

You said that Britain backed the Russian Revolution which was during WW1. Remember Russia was on our side at this time tying a significant number of Germans down at the East. It would make no sense for Britain to support the revolution which would take Russia out of the war releasing loads of Germans to the Western Front.

I haven't studied the period, but in the movie (I know, I know) the machine guns they get to storm the palace with come from British backers at the embassy.

I think the bulk of the counter revolutionaries action takes place after the end of WW1.

From what I could find on Google it pretty much seemed to support your case for backing the counter revolutionaries. It didn;t seem to be a very united policy however, more sort of regionally based. Backing whatever particular warlord had control of the area's of strategic importance to us rather than a defined foreign policy towards a recognised government.

Still open to find out more, all hints gratefully recieved.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Open your eyes

Look at this

Of course there was opposition, but no condemnations from the french and german side.

Where's the disapproval from Italy, Spain, UK, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, and Poland in that list? Just to name a few missing ones.

Compare it to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Ossetia

And naturally ordinary people in the west opposed the war.

Then why did you ask if there was opposition?

France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

They supported it. Whopped-ee-doo if they went to war. Shit happens. Get used to it. The oh so gracious USSR did similar shit. The leading powers will almost always do what they want.

Jesus christ. Yes 'ordinary people' were against the war  . Many were for it. Fact.

<insert typical Spokesperson response here>

The largest ever public protest in the history of the nation.

They even passed law banning free protest here so they could arrest that anti war guy who kept up a vigil outside parliament.

The BBC isn't free press. It's state run media.

During the Iraq War it published evidence that the intelligence service had briefed the PM that they thought Saddam had no WMD. (and he went on to say they briefed him the opposite).

So they all got the sack and BBC had it's budget cut.

[-Snafu- 78]

Quote[/b] ]Open your eyes

Look at this

Of course there was opposition, but no condemnations from the french and german side.

Where's the disapproval from Italy, Spain, UK, Portugal, Turkey, Ukraine, Israel, and Poland in that list? Just to name a few missing ones.

Compare it to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....Ossetia

And naturally ordinary people in the west opposed the war.

Then why did you ask if there was opposition?

France and Germany were on the condemnations list. They actively spoke out against the war in Iraq.

They supported it. Whopped-ee-doo if they went to war. Shit happens. Get used to it. The oh so gracious USSR did similar shit. The leading powers will almost always do what they want.

Jesus christ. Yes 'ordinary people' were against the war  . Many were for it. Fact.

<insert typical Spokesperson response here>

They even passed law banning free protest here so they could arrest that anti war guy who kept up a vigil outside parliament.

This was refuted by Scary a while ago.

Here

[scubaman3D 0]

There was no UN resolution for starting a war against Iraq. There was no UN resolution for starting a war against Yugoslavia. Breaking a UN resolution doesn't make it correct to invade. But hopefully it costs a lot counted in life and money.

Georgia started the war when they began to kill off 700 russian peace-keepers with tanks. Russia did the right thing.

The point is there were many diplomatic efforts to avert war in Iraq.

Russia didn't make any diplomatic effort to avert war in Georgia.

You simply can't equivocate what the US did in Iraq with what Russia did in Georgia. You're grasping at straws.

Also, you're on crack if you think Georgia killed 700 Russian soldiers. Where'd you get that figure?

Russia states they've lost less than 100 soldiers total in the war.

[akm74 1]

Quote[/b] ]Russia didn't make any diplomatic effort to avert war in Georgia.

Because they do not have started this war?

[billybob2002 0]

Quote[/b] ]Russia didn't make any diplomatic effort to avert war in Georgia.

Because they do not have started this war?

Why are you ignoring what happened during the days leading up to the offensive? Russia hardly lifted a finger when the Georgians and the South Ossetians were sniping at each other.

[Second 0]

So the British who were allied with Russia against Germany decided to fcuk their ally by supporting the Communist revolutionaries while Germany fighting Russia on the Eastern Front supported the Monarchy which would keep them fighting the Russians?

So Britain who had been allied with Russia against the Germans (and before that the French), decided to back the half of the Russian civil war that wasn't backed by the Germans. (The so called "counter revolutionaries").

You said that Britain backed the Russian Revolution which was during WW1. Remember Russia was on our side at this time tying a significant number of Germans down at the East. It would make no sense for Britain to support the revolution which would take Russia out of the war releasing loads of Germans to the Western Front.

I haven't studied the period, but in the movie (I know, I know) the machine guns they get to storm the palace with come from British backers at the embassy.

I think the bulk of the counter revolutionaries action takes place after the end of WW1.

From what I could find on Google it pretty much seemed to support your case for backing the counter revolutionaries. It didn;t seem to be a very united policy however, more sort of regionally based. Backing whatever particular warlord had control of the area's of strategic importance to us rather than a defined foreign policy towards a recognised government.

Still open to find out more, all hints gratefully recieved.

Well atleast my country, Finland, got diplomatic shaking from UK goverment after ww1 as they were waging small (unofficial) war against Lenin's side in Karelia. Atleast if my memory serves right it was UK which did this.

About Georgia and Russia's motives.

Like Baddo stated earlier, Russia's actions in Georgia by far were related to NATO. We (atleast Finns and possibly Swedes aswell) have had quite harsh comments about joining into NATO, could say that they are quite openly threathining to reply with force. As long as i remember Russia's tone in this issue has not been so harsh and openly hostile as now.

[igor drukov 0]

The tragic irony of having communism praised and Western liberties bashed on a Czech forum...

As to the freedom of the Russian press, one knowledgeable person would be Anna Stepanovna Politkovskaya ...

[ShadowY 0]

Also, you're on crack if you think Georgia killed 700 Russian soldiers. Where'd you get that figure?

Russia states they've lost less than 100 soldiers total in the war.

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say 700 peacekeepers were killed. About 20 were. What I said was that the Georgians moved into Tshinvali and started to shoot at them and kill them. What did you want the Russian troops to do? Die or fight back

and again it says more about you as about spokesman.

start reading for once!?