old europe wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:well, I think it was an obvious provocative move against the US... but the US among others. I also agree with you that bush and his cronies and their maneuvering does us no good.
Well, Russia had 500 lightly armoured troops in South Ossetia on a "peacekeeping mission" - partly backed by Western countries. Russia had also, just on Thursday, introduced a motion in the UN Security Council to "appeal for an immediate ceasefire, an end to the fratricidal conflict and the resumption of talks".
Now, among the things that happened following this was that Georgia declined the Russian proposal. Following that, the Georgian Army started shelling the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali using heavy artillery, and, in the wee hours of Friday, apparently sent tanks and fighters to attack and capture the city.
According to South Ossetian sources, more than 1,600 people died in the Georgian attacks.
Russia's reaction was to sent troops, which had been gathering on the Russian side of the border to Georgia/South Ossetia for a while, into the province.
So, even if this was a provocative move against the US, I certainly wouldn't call it an "obvious" one. All it does is getting us into the post-9/11 territory, where any kind of action was seen and reported as an "Attack On America" - be it anthrax, Afghanistan or Iraq.
I don't think that the hyperbole has done anyone any good.
I bow to your superior knowledge on this subject but I stick to my conviction that this is, if not the primary reason for this situation (and I don't think it is) certainly a convenient opportunity to send a message. Wheels within wheels. I guess I'm saying I believe, that although it was a secondary part of strategy... even an afterthought.... it may be purposeful
