What's Bushs' game with Russia?...

[unkachuck]

We don't like al Qaida but we like Chechen seperatists? Are we provoking Russia by granting asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov foreign minister of the rebel government? Do we still see Russia as our main global adversary? Are we heading to a clash with Russia if Russia starts sending it's military anywhere it wants in the world to fight terrorism?

"Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace? Why don't you do that?" Putin said, according to The Guardian.

Why the double standard?

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/stories/2004/09/08/002.html

So, how soon after the election will World War 3 begin if Bushco is re-selected?

[punpirate]

1. Rice is the Soviet Union expert...

... why not ask the question of her? She's sure to give a truthful answer.... :eyes:

[htuttle]

2. I think there has been a goal to 'strategically surround' Russia

They've been pushing to get NATO troops closer to Russia in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, although it's also probably cheaper to station them in Eastern Europe.

The real game seems to be in southern and south-western Russia and former Soviet countries. That's where the oil is, or where the oil has to go through.

The 'big chessboard' here is control the production and passage of oil, not just to Russia, but more importantly to China. But the Bush administration's other hand is deep in China's pocket, so it's unlikely they will ever succeed in this. Not to mention all the people in the Administration working at cross purposes (such as when both Iranian and Israeli assets seem to have been involved in planning the war in Iraq).

[SomthingsGotaGive]

3. Maybe the old guard realizes this terra shit won't fly for 40 yrs

Maybe Bushco realized they had it easier with an enemy people could find on a map.

[Guaranteed]

4. Yeah...there's something odd going on here...

http://en.rian.ru/rian/index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=4814496&startrow=1&date=2004-09-06&do_alert=0

[Sufi Marmot]

6. "Caucasian accent"...

It sounds like there were multiple ethnicities taking part:


Aslanbek Aslakhanov, a Chechen, was on the site throughout the tragedy, and contacted the gang on the telephone. "The men were certainly not Chechens. When I spoke Chechen with them, they said they couldn't make out a word. 'Speak Russian,' they told me. Well, I did as they wished, though I speak Russian with a Caucasian accent," he said in his TV interview.

From NYT article:
"I tried to speak Chechen" he said. "But they said, 'We don't understand, speak Russian,' and those who spoke Russian, they spoke with an accent. I was sure it was a Caucasian accent, but I will not name the ethnic group, so as not to offend them.".

Which group, then? Ingushetia? Or are they going to try to blame Georgia(?)

-SM

[makhno]

7. The Georgian connection

The Georgian connection is a lead that's worth monitoring. Would "evidence" of Georgian involvement be sufficient for Russian military action in that country? The US has been particularly aggressive in the region lately, as demonstrated by Saakashvili's brash behavior in South Assetia, and so Russia might attempt to rein in Washington's imperial designs by destabilizing a key proxy.

A Chechen lead in the attack really doesn't give Putin much to work with in terms of foreign policy, while Ingush participation would likely be kept under wraps so as not to create the impression that anti-Russian sentiment is spreading beyond Chechnya's borders. Arab involvement might be more interesting in terms of tying the Chechen question into the US war on terror, but Powell's pronouncements this week don't seem to indicate that the US would be responsive.

That said, past experience suggests that Putin's early anger isn't going to have much in the way of practical follow-up. The rhetoric about outside enemies is most likely meant for internal consumption and not designed to augur any kind of dramatic policy shift.

[Sufi Marmot]

9. Intruiging but no evidence at the moment...

I don't see the Georgian government ever being involved in something like Beslan - I don't think Saakashvili would want to provoke Russia in in such a manner. And Georgia, like N. Ossetia, is mostly Christian, which removes the religious aspect of the conflict - I just don't see it. It would be ominous, however, if it came out that the terrorists were based in a remote corner of Georgia like the Pankisi Gorge, only nominally under control of the Georgian government. I agree that Moscow might make vague insinuations about Georgian complicity as a strategic move. Ironically, my understanding was that one reason we were cooperating militarily with Georgia was so that they could regain better control over places like the Pankisi Gorge without Russian involvement.

A Chechen lead in the attack really doesn't give Putin much to work with in terms of foreign policy, while Ingush participation would likely be kept under wraps so as not to create the impression that anti-Russian sentiment is spreading beyond Chechnya's borders. Arab involvement might be more interesting in terms of tying the Chechen question into the US war on terror, but Powell's pronouncements this week don't seem to indicate that the US would be responsive. This all sounds reasonable to me - my notion is that there are a lot of shadowy groups operating in the Russian Caucasus, comprising both Chechens and foreigners, sometimes cooperating, sometimes working at cross purposes. I keep hearing conflicting information about Islamists with Al-Qaeda ties wanting to set up a pan-Caucasian caliphate, and there have certainly been foreigners fighting in Chechnya against the Russians over the years. I suspect the situation is fairly fluid, with a number of factions trying to influence events to their favor.

That said, past experience suggests that Putin's early anger isn't going to have much in the way of practical follow-up. The rhetoric about outside enemies is most likely meant for internal consumption and not designed to augur any kind of dramatic policy shift. Good point - I personally don't think that the current tension between Georgia and Russia will come to anything militarily: Russia already has its hands full with Chechnya and Ingushetia, and any movement into Georgia would cause the entire Caucasus to erupt in conflict, which the US really, really doesn't want.

-SM

[Sufi Marmot]

5. My speculation...

I wonder if they're pushing for a settlement with Chechnya because they fear that increased chaos in the Caucasus will simply create another lawless breeding ground (cf. Afghanistan) for Islamists/Al-Qaeda/ miscellaneous Wahhabists - one which the US will not necessarily be able to go in and start bombing/invading (cf. Afghanistan) if future terrorist acts on US soil originate there. The Caucasus is one of the places in the world where the US cannot simply project power indiscriminately.

Also, they're probably worried about the stability of Georgia (borders Chechnya) and Azerbaijan (borders turbulent Muslim Dagestan), through which the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline will pass.

-SM

On edit: They also may have simply reckoned that a settlement between Russia and Chechnya is more likely to bring more stability to the region than continued war in Chechnya/terrorism in the Russian Federation. It will be interesting to see what happens to Putin if the rate of terrorism in the Russian Federation does not abate...

[sweetheart]

8. in a word, "Barbarrossa"

It is the name the germans used for their eastern front operations
against russia to take the oil fields of the caspian basin.

Our military has instead funded and created a network of islamic
militant extremists to work on "our" behalf in causing terrorism
and havoc the region over, so a forthright military operation is
not required.

As our state funded terrorists cause havoc, it gives us excuses to
move in the military under the WOT lie, and invade, just like the
Germans did, but with more political sneakiness. Then the russians
and locals practically invite the invading army in to repress
terrorism, instead of the more direct methods the germans once used.

Just ask our local terrorist: Zalmay Khalilzad or his once-boss
Brezinski.

See at link: Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear:
The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm