Abkhazia, Ossetia, Georgia, Russia, Europe, USA, Turkey, and the Yet Untold Truth

Open a Microsoft Word document; try to write the name of a country, the name of a recently, widely mentioned land: Ossetia. Try eventually to write the name of the indigenous nation, a very ancient people, the Ossetians. You will immediately notice that both names are red underlined, which means that you probably wrote a mistake, eventually misspelling the ethnographic terms. Do not try it with one s; this would be the real orthographic error. What happens then?

Very simply, you discovered, without even knowing it, the very complicity of the Western World. For the Microsoft Office software, the very ancient Caucasian nation, whose customs have been described by Apollonius Rhodius in his memorable Argonautica, simply does not exist. This is a shame, one should tell them. Tell to whom?

To Bill Gates and his successors at the top of the software giant? To the State Department where so numerous, so excellent experts failed to notice the ‘detail’ in a Word document and immediately report the error and thus convey the message about the necessary rectification? To whom?

Most probably to all!

Ossetia and Abkhazia are – beyond anything else – another failure of the fake Orientalism of the West, another lacuna of Western educational system, which has continually been based on an erroneous, anachronistic and racist concept, the Greco-Romano-centrism, and another demonstration of the disastrous manner by which secretive societies with calamitous agendas inflect the foreign policy of America and the major European states.

Yet, above anything else, Ossetia and Abkhazia are a mere demonstration of the Western political immorality, duplicity, hypocrisy, and lack of principles and values. For a part of the world that boasts having heralded the principles and the values of a new era of Democracy, Freedom, Justice, Enlightenment, Knowledge, Science and Equity, it is incredible and unacceptable not to have focused on these two nations of the Caucasus region, their needs and their rights, their history and their plight. It is totally deplorable that Europe and America have so greatly, so eloquently, so passionately defended the right of 1.3 million of Estonians (with a 25% Russian minority) to independence and failed to accept the fact that 200000 Abkhazians have the same rights and that 800000 Ossetians deserve equivalent respect and dignity in their nationhood.

The Failure of the Western Orientalism

The formation of the Orientalist disciplines in late 18th and early 19th century Western Europe could help, if unbiased and truthful, Western nations get a trustful and genuine perception of the world of the East, notably Asia and Africa.

However, in most of the cases, it was early proved that the real aim behind the Western European research and exploration was not an authentic interest for the knowledge itself, but a perverse desire for manipulation, infiltration, exploitation and at times destruction of states, nations, ethnic ad religious groups, modes of social life, behavioural systems, and ancient, noble traditions.

In Humanities, the rightful, proper and authentic interest for knowledge must target the genuine representation of the past, and the most trustful interpretation of ideas, concepts and systems of thought expressed (in either the past or the present) within different linguistic, semiotic and semantic contexts. Personal inclination and predilection may perhaps be human and understandable (it can be relevant of personal esthetic, philosophical and ideological considerations), but for scholars it must be first contained at the personal level, and second eliminated at the collective level (in a university, research center, academy, publishing house or specialized institute).

There cannot be preference for one culture and civilization at the level of
a. the fund allocation to a discipline and sector of studies,
b. the academic targets set among field specialists as regards the sub-sectors to explore, and
c. the diffusion of the academic exploration’s results and the scholarly conclusions.

The Lacunae of the Western European and North American Educational System

The foundations of the Western European and North American Educational Systems go back to the times of Renaissance and Classicism. At those days, the Pre-Christian Greco-Roman Antiquity – extremely erroneously perceived and emphatically mistakenly assessed – was used as a theoretical model against the feudal, medieval Christianity.

In fact, the Renaissance - Classicism Model of Greco-Roman Antiquity was a grave disfiguration of the historical reality as isolated cases were peremptorily given preferential status (Why prefer Pericles’ Athens and not Ptolemaic Alexandria? Why venerate Isocrates and disregard Hesiod? - the list of similar questions can be very long), which was later maximized disproportionally in order to meet the needs of the Procrustean European philosophers in their efforts to destroy the structures of medieval feudalism and Renaissance times’ absolute monarchism.

In the late 18th, the 19th and the 20th century the formation of the Orientalist disciplines, starting with Indology, Iranology, Egyptology and Assyriology, triggered the representation and the reconstitution of a vast part of the Mankind’s past that had gone lost. The decipherment of ancient scriptures, the excavation of numerous archeological sites, and the access to a vast textual evidence helped specialists re-establish a vast part of the History of the Mankind without which the Biblical, the Greek and the Roman worlds simply would not have existed.

This knowledge should have been used by other specialists to correctly and adequately modify the Weltanschauung and the World History model that had been established at the times of ignorance of the Ancient Oriental World. This knowledge renders automatically the earlier constituted model (that we call Greco-Romano-centrism) anachronistic, obsolete, and even perilous. Further insistence on the Greco-Romano-centrist model can be interpreted either as Anti-Asiatic and Anti-African racism or inanity; if neither is the case, we have to conclude that the existence of secretive agendas and long term colonial plans has been the only reason that obliged the European Union and – to lesser extent (that’s true) – the United States to stick to the old and erroneous model.

The consequences of this policy are dire and as any irrational act constrained the Western World to disastrous policies. When the entire World History is viewed by statesmen and diplomats, politicians and activists, journalists and commentators in a most erroneous manner, it is guaranteed that the decision making process will end up with calamitous results.

Immoral Standards and Biased Attitudes Based on Ignorance and Misperception

If we now place the aforementioned issues within the context of the totally corrupt political environment of the Western countries, we can immediately grasp the extent of the problem that can be created, and eventually exploited by other powers that have no reason to tolerate the colonial practices and biases of England, France, and the Pro-British part of the American establishment.

Idealism and fair judgment are in politics the best realism; contrarily, a counterfeit realism, based on ignorance, falsifications, misperceptions, and deliberate reticence, triggers only justified brutality because it demonstrates duplicity, hypocrisy and mendacity.

The recent Russian support for the peoples of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is totally due to erroneous Western (European and American) perceptions and policies.

Failing to understand this reality contributes only to further escalation and generalization of the crisis. Failing to establish a foreign policy on fundamental principles and values consists in the basic reason for uncontrolled conflicts and disproportional reactions.

The reason for this is that the lack of fundamental principles and values in the foreign policy of a country has (no moral but) political effect as well. It eliminates the only common measure that can exist; without a common denominator – which can only be the full commitment to abiding by the values and principles (at least those shared by all) – the international balance of power is effectively disrupted.

The unbalanced situation can further deteriorate worsening the global security, with various global and regional powers siding with one or the other side of the basically miscomprehended conflict or antagonism.

The real Caucasus crisis started in fact in 1990, when South Ossetia was illogically separated from North Ossetia and internationally recognized as an integral part of Georgia. The real reasons for this incredible situation are:

1. Undeserved consideration for obsolete borderlines within the former USSR.
More specifically, Georgia had been a SSR, whereas South Ossetia had been an Autonomous Province (Oblast) within the Georgian SSR. Similarly, North Ossetia had been Autonomous Province (Oblast) within the Russian SSR (1924) and then an Autonomous SSR (1936). The differences among various administrative terms had a meaning within the former USSR; after its collapse, the only peaceful way to go ahead would be the recognition of the right of peoples to self-determination and the application of this same standard on all cases.

2. Biased Western stance in two similar cases (policy of two measures and two weights). If the Georgians are fully entitled to achieve self-determination, the same is valid for the Ossetians. It is in fact preposterous that Western countries recognized the right of the Georgians to self-determination, and failed to do the same in the case of the Ossetians. The fact that referendum for independence was held twice in South Ossetia within 14 years (1992 and 2006) and the West twice did not recognize the otherwise compelling results of a genuinely democratic procedure is particularly embarrassing.

This explosive situation’s real context comprises also traditional rivalries between the Ossetians and the Georgians, and between the Ossetians and the Ingushetians. This alone should have made the Western observers and advisors more attentive.

In fact, trying to defend a fake concept, namely the territorial integrity of Georgia (and the territorial integrity of any state is a fake concept indeed in any case whereby minority populations are included without their consent and will), the West proved to be at the same time
1 - historically ignorant (they failed to carefully study Caucasus History)
2 - politically mendacious (they pretended to abide by democratic rules and procedures but in this case they did not) and
3 - diplomatically naïve (they miscalculated the Russian reaction).

What Happened – Refutation of Erroneous Analyses

It is completely naïve to see in the case of the recent Russian military interference an effort for Moscow’s reassertion in the international political scene. This does not mean that such an effort does not exist among the Kremlin elite, but it is not one of the basic reasons of the Georgian expedition. How do we know this? Simply by realizing that Western inconsistence and bias created the need for a Russian reaction. And it would be too much of an assumption to deduce that a Russian reaction to Western bias in Georgia has to be taken as indication for the Kremlin rulers’ desire for reassertion.

The correct and unbiased Western policy should be to accept that the Ossetians (and the Abkhazians) are not much less of a nation, and that they are thus fully entitled to self-determination. Promoting the Western values and principles in a consistent and persuasive manner, Europe and America should have supported the secession of Abkhazia and Ossetia (in the latter case, the reunification of the two parts, Northern and Southern) and then expanded relations with them in an effort to ensnare the local elites.

Russia may certainly have ceaselessly tried to oppose NATO’s expansion up to the Russian borders, but this does not imply that the West has to take this Russian policy into consideration. However, the Western inconsistent and biased stance, interpreted as grave threat by Russia, only damages the chances of the West to diffuse the Western values, ideas and principles among the numerous oppressed peoples who form a sizeable – and traumatized – minority in Russia, being however the local majority either on small (like the Abkhazians) or vast (like the Yakutians) territory.

Despite the existing parallels with Kosova and Bosnia, it would be wrong to imagine that the Russians interfered in Georgia only to carry out a reciprocal act. If this were the case, they would have reacted on the spur of the moment, in the aftermath of Kosova’s formal declaration of independence, early this year. Acting with 6 months delay makes no sense; it simply means that the two events are practically unrelated.

The West has thus far failed to compose a correct interpretative model that would help us make accurate evaluations of the Russian political decision-making. Little attention was paid to the Russian reactions occurring in the advent of Western bias and duplicity. Yet, a thorough study and a greater focus on the subject would lead to correct conclusions as regards the Russian perception of threat.

The Russian interference in Georgia does not result from any consideration of Human Rights or commitment to Humanist and Democratic Values; yet it would serve in long-term perspective the cause of Humanism, Democracy and Human Rights in Caucasus. With the Abkhazians and the Ossetians already independent from Georgia, the desire to fully assert themselves and their identity will soon come to these two ancient and glorious nations of the Caucasus region.

It would be tragically mistaken for anyone to get a confused picture and consider the two nations’ rejection of the Georgians as submissiveness to the Russians. The latter have been viewed only as the great ally against the supremacist Georgian neighbour; this is all! The change and the distance from the present Russian friends may come with the younger generation; it may come sooner. It is certain that the present leaderships reflect a rogue tonality, but this is mainly due to the conditions under which the Russians recruited these leaders in order to struggle against Georgian supremacy. In a way, this is also a mistake due to the Western biases and partiality.

It would be wrong to try to detect any link between the Russian Caucasus imbroglio and the Euro-Russian energy dossier, which has been a case of dramatic misunderstanding of Russia in the West. Russia does not attempt to reduce Europe to a mere status of dependency; this is rather American political exploitation of the subject. All those who develop this theory seem to easily forget the words that Gorbachev had used with respect to the changes occurred in the late 80s and the 90s in the Soviet Union; the reason for the impressive transformation was the "European Common House" – with Russia as part of it.

What are now the chances of capitalist Russia joining the European Union? Nil. The frustration of Gorbachev was already known in the late 90s when it had become clear that the trilateral secretive presidium (London – Paris – Berlin) would systematically oppose this perspective. In 2008, it is very clear that even the European chances of Turkey and Ukraine are slim. Russia would react to this situation one day; it would be very naïve not to anticipate this development. As a matter of fact, the 90s have been a traumatic experience for Russia; the Russian democratic forces were abandoned by the West, and the impression was spread among the average Russians that for the Europeans and the Americans the only possibly ‘good’ Russia would be a humiliated, impoverished, weakened, impotent and disparaged Russia.

Little matters whether this was the avowed target of the Americans and the Europeans; the developments have been perceived through this standpoint by the Russians, and this is all that matters. The average Russian finally realized that instead of Russia becoming a second grade power like Mexico, Turkey or Indonesia, it would be preferable for them to forget the dream of a fully democratic society and country and contribute to the reassertion of the national power of Russia – gravely endangered by the vicious plans, the atrocious attitude and the impermissible activities of the English Secret Services. These developments led to the consolidation of the present Russian autocracy which remains incomprehensible and mystified for either the Americans or the Europeans; only to their detriment.

The Russian policy toward Europe and America will not be an ingenious elaboration but it will manifest extraordinary perseverance in negation and trouble; the people who are not afraid of a nuclear war become day by day more numerous in Kremlin. This augurs nothing positive for either Europe or America.

What to do

Many policies could have been pursued to beforehand avert similar developments. If Ukraine and Georgia were NATO member states, it would be very difficult for the Russian interference to take place; this would be to the detriment of the Abkhazians and the South Ossetians who nonetheless deserve a national statehood as much as the Georgians and all the nations of the world do.

If we examine an array of options that could have been adopted by America, NATO and the European Union, but actually were not, we immediate deduce that the ominous fate of the West is due to either ignorance or destructive agendas meticulously pursued by secretive societies able to inflect the foreign policy decision making in both America and the major European countries.

- In what sense do secretive societies’ destructive agendas trigger chaos allover the world, and more particularly contribute to crisis deterioration in Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia?

The answer is very simple; secretive societies inflect governmental policies in order to definitely prevent eventual solutions that would damage unrelated to the issue in question (Georgia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia) points of their agendas. In other words, the secretive societies that through proxies control the political, economic, diplomatic, academic and intellectual activities in many countries are restrictive in their engagement and effort to materialize their objectives, and automatically debilitate any option that could solve another problem but would in the process annul or oppose one of their agenda points.

Every fair and politically correct solution involves the unbiased implementation of Moral Principles; the only possible solution for the nations of the Ossetians and the Abkhazians is independence. With this in mind, the Western allies of Georgia should dissuade any effort undertaken by Georgia in order to put the two ‘lost’ territories under control. It’s not an issue of an avalanche toward a major war; it’s mostly an issue of principles and rights. Georgia has no right to control Abkhazia or Ossetia; these nations are independent and their territories did not belong to the kingdom of Georgia before it decided to merge with Tsarist Russia.

On the other hand, the divided West is a point of misinterpretation for Russia; the wrong perception of the American ‘resoluteness’ and the European ‘docility’ can lead Russia to disastrous decision making. If this is not understood or if it is considered as unimportant in the three European capitals, there are political forces in America who could help avert the deterioration.

The protection of the territorial integrity of Georgia is possible, if we decide to accord every nation the same rights. With South Ossetia and Abkhazia gone, Georgia remains equally important for the Western World. The effective defense of Georgia is key to the diffusion of a New Order of Justice, Freedom, Democracy and Progress in Asia, and more particularly in Central Asia and Iran.

An American Realpolitik in Asia would hinge on containment of Russia, liberation of Asiatic oppressed peoples, and demise of the Iranian theocracy. For this to be materialized, the East – West Silk Road Alliance must prevail over the North – South axis.

To effectively cancel the perspectives of a Russian – Iranian cooperation, America must

1. detach itself from the Anglo-French, Freemasonic, anti-Turkish hysteria and plans (expected to be materialized through Turkey’s division into two countries and adhesion of one of them in the EU),

2. perceive Turkey as America’s major ally in an overwhelmingly changing Middle East and Central Asia,

3. conceptualize and contextualize the imminent formation of a Confederation that would bring together within one state Turkey, Georgia and Azerbaijan, thus automatically extending NATO’s eastern borders up to the Caspian Sea shore,

4. increase the pressure over the Ayatullah regime of Iran that could soon collapse after a series of rebellions undertaken by local Azeris, Turks, Balochs, Loris, Bakhtiaris, and others, and

5. envision the progressive absorption of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iran in the aforementioned Confederation of the Orient, which would bring peace in a secular society to many still oppressed nations and ethno-religious groups.

We will further expand in a forthcoming article.

Note
Picture: Turkey, Middle East, Iran, Caucasus and Central Asia can become a vast, predominantly Muslim, secular and peaceful state.