But you agree that it was a defensive action? Of course. As NATO surrounds Russia by allying with insecure flexible ex Soviet states, deploying missile systems, etc. Russia is behaving predictably in terms of national security. And re-arming Saakashvili is disingenuous, just serves to fan the flames. Not at all. The point is the states directly bordering Russia are obviously important - stability and compliancy wise, from a Russian national security perspective no? As opposed to say Namibia? He is undoubtedly (IMHO) a consistent and gentle voice of reason and restraint - in contrast to the hysterical and predictable outpourings from Clinton, Hague, et al. Come on. The ironic and very strong possibility exists that Afghanistan will, at the very minimum, be partially or more realistically, be fully governed by the Taliban in the foreseeable future. Thus we come full circle and end up more or less at the starting point, no? Not really. Truth, lies and Afghanistan You call this success? There is little doubt that the world order and balance of power is evolving and changing and that the SCO is the most likely counter to dollar/NATO hegemony. That`s politics, propaganda and furthering agendas right? Like saying that Iran is a threat to international peace no? Why would Russia be any different? Then why not proffer requested guarantees or include Russia in the defense system as Medvedev has requested - repeatedly. More comprehensively - Russia wants to be the substantial regional player, and no doubt has aspirations further afield.
A look at the current "Iran Crisis" from another perspective: Written by a former Senator: http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/03/13/your-money-or-your-political-life/ Excerpts:
But according to your own reasoning, they should have bombed Iran, because that would result in the most pro-Israel government the US has ever seen.
Iran’s Nuclear Fatwa Times Report Distorts Its History http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/04/19/irans-nuclear-fatwa/
