The war in South Ossetia is a war of medieval atrocity unleashed by a country whose culture is based on Orthodox Christianity, a country claiming to be “a young democracy” and seeing itself as part of the “humane” Europe. The aggression launched by the current Georgian regime and its puppeteers is marked by extraordinary cruelty and cynical lies. Tbilisi would have never dared to do what it did without the support of the US.
Even in Ancient Greece, there was an understanding that wars can be fair or unfair. The civilized West, part of which Georgia is trying to be, is obsessed by human rights and believes to be superior to the Greeks, but this does not prevent some (Georgia) from perpetrating genocide and others (Europe and the US) – from encouraging the aggressor.
The analysis of the way the aggression began – without a formal declaration of war – and of the overall conduct of the Georgian leadership makes one ask a number of questions. One of them is: can a crazy fanatic be regarded as a human being? The answer is – definitely not! The crimes committed in South Ossetia – the killings of women, children, and senior citizens, the deliberate extermination of civilians – are instances of inhuman conduct.
Specialists in ethical anthropology (Boris Didenko) either explain this type of behavior by brain disease or attribute it to the specifics of conduct of super-aggressive human species. In the latter case, their intentions simply cannot be changed. In the Russian language, such individuals are called non-men. These are monstrous creatures more dangerous than any wild beasts.
The protracted standoff in South Ossetia is something much greater than just a regional conflict. Nor has it ever been exclusively a conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia. It also has axiological, moral, and geopolitical dimensions. The unexpectedness and unjustifiable atrocity of the current war, the careful planning of its military and informational offensives show clearly that one of the objectives was to provoke Russia’s inadequate response. Moscow was expected to act inadequately, and those who planned the aggression calculated the options open to Russia.
Option 1: Russia’s nonintervention and a withdrawal of the peacekeepers (or the limitation of their activity to the defense of their checkpoints). By the way, this mode of behavior was typical for peacekeeping forces of various levels throughout the conflict in Yugoslavia. Operation Storm and Operation Flash launched by the Croatian army in May-August, 1995 against the unrecognized Republic of Serpska Krajina were particularly similar to the Georgian offensive in South Ossetia.
One of the results of the above operations was the total (and, as I firmly believe, deliberate) demise of the entire UN system of peacekeeping and region security measures. The world literally watched the flight of 250,000 Serb civilians and the bombardment of refugee convoys by Croatian warplanes. The Serb population in the region decreased by 90.7% following the Croatian offensive which was silently OKed by the international community (1)! Confident of the US support, Saakashvili’s regime hoped to achieve a similar result in South Ossetia. Croatia practically turned into a mono-ethnic state. No matter what had been promised, at that time Serbs saw no help from either the Serbian Republic or Belgrade. It is well-known what happened to the Pale and Belgrade leaders later – betrayal is never rewarded by happiness.
Russia chose to act otherwise.
In the horrible days of the tragedy, Russians not only truly fulfilled their peacekeeping obligations, but – above all – they also did not betray their countrymen in South Ossetia. This means a lot!
Option 2: desired by the US instigators of the war and the Georgian aggressor: Russia’s direct involvement in an armed conflict with Georgia. The failure of the expectation made Saakshvili change his plans on the first day of the war.
On August 9, the Georgian Fuhrer gave a 10-minute interview to CNN, which opened an obviously synchronized anti-Russian campaign in the Western media. Currently, the main theme is that Russia used all of its military might against the tiny Georgia. Having such dedicated followers could make Nazi propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels happy. As for Saakashvili, he has learned by heart not only Goebbels’s notorious commandment “A lie repeated 100 times becomes the thruth”, but also the ninth comandment of national socialism which said “Do what must be done in the name of the New Gemany without shame! ” (2). In the case of Saakashvili, it could read the same but with “the New Georgia” instead.
Over the past several days, the independent and objective Western media have been launching an all-out mankurtization campaign. The term mankurt was introduced into modern languages by well-know Soviet-era novelist Chinghiz Aitmatov in his The Day Lasts More Than a Hundred Years. According to an ancient Turkic myth, a fresh raw camel hide would be put as a cap on the thoroughly shaven head of a captive meant to be turned into a slave. The slave with his hands tied and with a large wooden stock around his neck preventing him from reaching his head would be left in a desert for several days. Once the hide would start drying it would shrink and bind to the head, thus causing intolerable sufferings further strengthened by thirst. In a while the victim either died or lost the memory of the past life and became a perfect slave having no independent will and totally subdued by its master.
In the modern world, the complex procedure of suppressing human will and ability to think and to analyze has become extremely simple and is known as brainwashing.
Judging by the dirty lies about the war waged by the Georgian leadership against civilians and Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia, the biased Western media and political leaders of the Euro-Atlantic civilization regard their own citizens as mankurts. The global success of brainwashing during the Croatian, Bosnian, Kosovo, Chechen, Iraqi, Crimean, Transdnistrian and other crises is renowned. The aggression of mankurts was invariably directed at the nations designated by the masters – Serbs, Russians, Iraqis… What could prevent Georgia from resorting to the familiar technology?
Here is an example: the interview given to CNN by Russian envoy to the UN Security Council V. Churkin, in which he condemned the barbarian conduct of the Georgian aggressor, was aired with a caption saying that Russia was bombing Georgian towns, and the title remained on the screen throughout the broadcast. German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer would have explained the current policies adopted by Western media as follows: “invariably, the source of lies is the intention to dominate others by suppressing their will in order to reaffirm one’s own. Consequently, lies as such stem from injustice, greed, and anger”.
Western journalists who never visited South Ossetia and used the footage from Russian media consistently avoided mentioning the following appalling figures: 2,000 people – over 15% of the population of South Ossetia – had been killed in less than 24 hours. The international community so preoccupied with human rights issues does not seem to be concerned about the people trapped without water, electric power, and food under the ruins of Tskhinvali.
Why is it that Russia is the only country to supply humanitarian aid to South Ossetia? What has happened to your hearts, humane Europeans? Have you forgotten how to use Internet? Do you no longer have satellite TV? Are you really so afraid of alternative information sources?
To an extent, my criticism of the Western media and their audiences applies to Russian news agencies and TV channels as well. We must be doing a fairly poor job if it is so easy to portray Russia as the aggressor and the suppressor of the Caucasus!
It is common knowledge that whoever has information has power. In the case of Russia, the issue is extremely serious: its national security and the protection of its national interests are impossible without informational security, which must be promoted by everyone here from the President to a provincial newspaper journalist. Anyhow, we are people, not mankurts!
(1) Z. Lilic. Prospects for Peace and Cooperation. Serbia, Belgrade, 1996, #29, p. 7.
(2) Thus Spoke Goebbels. Selected Papers of the Reich Minister of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda. //Goebbels J. Die ausgewählte Reden und Artikel. – http://hedrook.vho.org/download/goebbels.rar