Says it all really.

http://www.inoutstar.com/news/Vladimir-Putin-s-Gymnast-Girlfriend-Underage-When-They-First-Met-6562.html

Who start this conflick? Georgia, NATO & the US, read link by Pat Buchanan : http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan94.html and this video link here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBRl-BvKJII

And read what Ron Paul has said about NATO pushing into Russia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyJiWYmXGLY

Here is a couple of Americans living in Georgia admitting Georgia & the US started the conflicts with Russia and that Georgia was indeed killing Russian people inside of Georgia. Something the US bilderberg media is not going to air on US television news channels.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4DdRmALFYg

We have to understand that Russia is protecting itself from NATO.

NATO is an organization whose purpose ended with the end of its Warsaw Pact adversary. When NATO struggled to define its future after the Cold War, it settled on attacking a sovereign state, Yugoslavia, which had neither invaded nor threatened any NATO member state.

This current round of NATO expansion is a political reward to governments in Georgia and Ukraine that came to power as a result of US-supported revolutions, the so-called Orange Revolution and Rose Revolution. The governments that arose from these street protests were eager to please their US sponsor and the US, in turn, turned a blind eye to the numerous political and human rights abuses that took place under the new regimes. Thus the US policy of “exporting democracy” has only succeeding in exporting more misery to the countries it has targeted.

NATO expansion only benefits the US military industrial complex, which stands to profit from expanded arms sales to new NATO members. The “modernization” of former Soviet militaries in Ukraine and Georgia will mean tens of millions in sales to US and European military contractors. The US taxpayer will be left holding the bill, as the US government will subsidize most of the transactions. Providing US military guarantees to Ukraine and Georgia can only further strain our military. This NATO expansion may well involve the US military in conflicts as unrelated to our national interest as the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia. The idea that American troops might be forced to fight and die to prevent a small section of Georgia from seceding is absurd and disturbing.

By Congressman Ron Paul: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/04/01/ron-paul-disband-nato/

“Russia’s elite value their ties to Europe – their shopping and luxury weekends. We should look at the visa regime for Russian citizens. Russian armies can’t march into other countries while Russian shoppers carry on marching into Selfridges.”

Absolutely right Dave me old mate. Russia should be given a clear choice. Either they continue to be part of the West and enjoy that, or they will have personal problems in terms of money and benefits. No more hanging out on the French Riviera will upset their wives and girlfriends. Britain has other ways to make life uncomfortable for the Kremlin elite and the ranks of crony capitalists around them. Huge sums of Russian money are deposited with London’s finance houses, much of it from dubious transactions. If the UK financial authorities probed a lot of those dealings rigorously, it would make the Russian elite feel very uncomfortable.
It will work and is the only way.

We have a bellicose Russia that should not be appeased, Cameron’s proposal is an excellent first step to opposing Russia’s actions.

We will no doubt be at variance with Germany, France, Italy and Spain but will find the new EU members in the East falling in behind us.

This will mean strengthening our ties with the US, assuming that McCain is the next President, which looks increasingly likely.

Recently, President Medvedev related to western global economics being a threat to the GLOBE. His ambassador to the EU also related to the economic threat imposed by enlargement.
Then you have two guys in the audience at the Democrat Convention just yesterday referring to the Georgian President Saakashvili being the pawn of the New World Order.

I take you back also to 10th July and to Sarkozy giving his presidential speech to the EU when he indicated there were arguments from “two opposing economic theories” which we “need to debate”, and he clearly outlined his own position when he said he didn’t understand it but he wanted to listen, and that he knew there was a problem.

Sarkozy is undoubtedly aware having spoken with Medvedev, that our economic encroachments are a threat to world peace and they are a threat to democracy because they place capitalist policies before people.

This is why we people have no political power because every western country is threatened by economic change –
i.e. A pull out of investment if investors don’t like the “social policies” which are / were once shaped by democratic voices like ours.

This is how extreme rampant capitalism now plays the tune and how its march into other nations which don’t agree with it, must end in defeat for the prime capitalist motivator ( Milton Friedman’s theory and Maastricht ), or a defeat for the opposition – Russia!

Once you understand the monetary systems we use MUST have continual growth otherwise our economies will die at varying degrees of decline ( if alone in a cause to change them ), then you know they’ll eventually take our economic invasion forces into Asia and China and so on until the economic and political geo-sphere has been fully Globalized.

Hence rampant unfeterred capitalst growth under present economic policies will one day dominate all nations and threaten all national economies which oppose it.

The issue of turning “sovereign nations” into unions under the guise of freedom – globalization – free markets – inevitable consequences – global security etc etc etc, ( all the catchwords they can find with totally meaningless spin ), simply removes the capacity for a government to argue for change as power is placed into lesser hands, economic unelected bureaucrats and non-elected officials who take no responsibility.

Politicians are not really able to contest what’s happening because collectively they look to these non-elected “advisers” for guidance themselves as political life has become even more complicated by the geo-political and economic systems which appear too complicated for a politician to involve him/herself thus leaving it up to bureaucrats and advisers and no collective authority to change it by reason of a lack of skill and subject knowledge on the part of shorter term politicians who don’t want to upset the apple cart.

If you have “breakaways”, then the system would disintegrate, and if you have democracy it would stop altogether simply because social needs of the people would come first rather than the mean economic advantages or disadvantages worked out by non-elected “officials”.

It is a ruthless system and I doubt it was planned to be this way but unless politicians agree to tackle it and alter it back to more to socially accountable economics then it will engulf the remnants of our democracy and sovereignty, whole nations and will evaporate even our cultures.

Why ?

Because mass immigration is the essential means to create a mobile workforce to serve capitalism. To think economic advantage rather than social implication.
NO possible reckoning could have been made of any social factors when our country adopted monetarist policies ( Denis Healy 1976 ) – Hence we are without control now, without a distinct national awareness , we’re under constant economic threat, and people are completely at odds with their leaders which cannot change the system on their own, politicians are frustrated and turn to spin, and the inevitable globalizing of the planet as an affect of monetarism which MUST produce continual grow, will one day either dominate the planet or it will sell us into a war with those who oppose it et al Russia.

Social economics is the way to peace and to finding a return of democracy, and it is the means to secure good foreign relations between nations with common interests so we can share the world rather than seeking to dominate it wittingly or unwittingly it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that politicians begin to understand the natural end game of monetarism and begin to see that economics without a social conscience must fail simply because it is adverse to humanity itself and totally corrupting because it essentially produces elitism. Hence we have lots of billionaires in tax havens which the government is too afraid to tackle so instead outs the costs of social needs on to ordinary taxpayers for fear of the threat of investor pull-out.

How can it be changed ?

Politicians need to change Maastricht and make the trading area work for the people first and then for business. i.e. To remove the areas where an investor can take advantage where investors would otherwise continue to play countries “and economies” off against each other.

The world situation is changing and fast.
China is (an authoritarian-ed) state, based on (low cost-ed) labour (more or less), discipline and harsh government.
(Islamist terrorism fights against British troops in the Middle East -ed)
Russia has a lot of raw materials and trained KGB men in command.
The US is, as you say overreaching itself.
Europe is a talking shop but some of its nation states still have an army.
All five of these have a nuclear arsenal and large armies which work. And all four have totally different ideals and, indeed, religions.

We also have, as you say, a clash between the idea of self determination and the idea of the Cold War where frontiers were knows and respected. In Georgia, it was noticeable that the Georgians wore the same uniforms and had the same tanks as the Russians. They also invaded, just like the Russians did. In Georgia, Ukraine, Lithuania and Poland, these two factors clash horribly.

And, as ever, Mr Brown did not even contact Mr Saakashvili more than once during the crisis. He is, as usual, in hiding. He has not loved and cherished the soldiers in the same way that he cherished the Olympians. I do not see any of the people with medals getting the MBE, for instance. And I do not see Mr Brown greeting the coffins as they return home from the Eastern theatres of war.

There are various disputes over national boundaries and associated tribal affiliations, real or contrived, as mentioned above. But; the coming “land grab” will be sovereignty over the Continental Shelves by those Nations that have a shoreline with the wet bits of this planet. It appears that the current “Exclusive Economic Zones” [UN Law of the Sea], will take a lot of defending in the next decade. I reckon that the Arctic sea area will be the first battle ground, with Russia taking on the Canadians in round one.

There are about fourteen British Overseas Territories at the moment and one of them, the Argies still have their eyes on. You will be aware that The Falkland Islands are rumoured to be sitting on a lot of oil within its continental shelf area.

Somehow, I don’t see Miliband doing a Thatcher; that’s assuming we had the squadies, with enough kit, that Maggie had.

It’s time for The City to be involved. Clearly the Politicians are intent on fighting the wrong kind of war.

Although I agree that Russia has superior forces in the region than the West and we would be foolish in the extreme to challenge them, I disagree that she is a rising power. I would say Russia is a power whose long-term decline is merely masked by the current high price of oil. This is a country with an economy the size of that of S.E. England, the world’s fastest declining population and that has lost most of industrial base such that it is reduced to a supplier of raw energy commodities. Its absolute decline is made worse in relative terms by the long border its shares in the east with the rising power of China and instability along her southern flank with the Islamic world. The danger with Russia is the increasing unpredictability of its autocratic regime as its retreats from democracy.

I think we should be keeping Russia out of the G8 and WTO, but should not be offering Georgia NATO membership. Georgia is not a vital interest of the West sufficient that we would go to war to protect its independence. Politicians like Angela Merkel who are going around offering Georgia NATO membership should be asked if Germany is prepared to go to war with Russia in the event of repeat of its recent actions in South Ossetia. If not then what she is really promising is to undermine the credibility of NATO’s mutual defence. Better that Georgia (and the Ukraine) be offered free access to EU and US markets and the type of long-term military and financial support that has allowed Israel to maintain its independence outside of NATO. This should be accompanied by diplomatic measures to encourage Russia to return to the path of democracy as this is the measure that is most likely in the long-term to lead to sustainable peace with her neighbours.

Reply: Russia is also a country with a huge nuclear arsenal and a large army.

It has been said that this is the equivalent of the Sarajevo crisis of 1914. Happily I do not think so – it is much more the Morocco crisis of 1906 when Germany proved unable to exercise power in a far away country. However that did lead directly to 1914 because Europe was in a situation where international law or at least agreement (the Concert of Europe) had been replaced by a military calculation of, who or which alliance, had the power to tell others what to do.

We have 2 alternatives – either build up our military so that we think it can impose its will, as happened prior to 1914, or come together under a common acceptance of international law & a common European security network.

After the cold war we could have easily established this but instead we tore it up over Yugoslavia & then occasionally used the remnants to cover our naked aggression. The creation of a fraudulent war crimes commission (the UN Charter reserves that right to the General Assembly), its use virtually exclusively against Serbs & the suborning of the Hague court to refuse to rule on whether NATO’s war against Yugoslavia was illegal were all egregious outrages which did immense damage to the concept of legality, without which there is no basis for peace in any grouping.

Once we have come to an agreement on whether we should all be restrained by law & what it is & probably how the Hague court, or some new court, can be trusted by all parties, we should together look again at Yugoslavia, particularly the Serb areas of Kosovo & the “nation” of Bosnia, both of which, if we upheld the principles on which we encouraged secession, should in turn be allowed to secede & join Serbia. Also at some reasonable compensation for those “cleansed” from Krajina & the rest of Kosovo & some permanent international protection for the battlefield & the thousand year old Christian churches there, or at least those ones which have survived our occupation.

Reply: I do not wish to give anyone a sweet deal for bullying the neighbours – the question for you given the weakness of NATO’s position is which state will you be prepared to start a major war for? Not even Bush will go to war for Iran or Georgia

http://lettersfromatory.wordpress.com