What Putin really said to CNN

[SergeyDovlatov]

in Russian: http://www.government.ru/content/governmentactivity/mainnews/archive/2008/08/28/582087.htm

google auto-translate:
http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.government.ru%2Fcontent%2Fgovernmentactivity%2Fmainnews%2Farchive%2F2008%2F08%2F28%2F582087.htm&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=ru&tl=en

translation of the interesting bit.

Putin: We have indications that there were American citizens directly in the combat zone. If that information is confirmed it is very bad.

It may indicate that these events have certain domestic political dimensions.

If my guesses are confirmed, then it raises suspicions that someone in the United States specially created this conflict in order to exacerbate the situation and create an advantage in competition for one of the candidates in the fight for the post of President of the United States. And if so, this is nothing as the use of so-called administrative resources in the internal political struggle, in the worst bloody dimension.

M. CHANS: But there is a serious allegation. I want to clarify, you believe that any person in the United States, actually provoked this conflict to any of the presidential candidates received a winning position in terms of the debate, points earned.

V. PUTIN: I will now explain.

M. CHANS: And if you really express such an assumption, what you have proof?

V. PUTIN: I told you that if confirmed the presence of American citizens in the combat zone, which means only one thing - that they could stay there only by explicit direction of its leadership. And if so, then in the combat zone are American citizens, performing their official duty. They can do so only on the orders of his superiors, not on their own initiative.

Simple specialists, even if they teach military affairs, should do so not in the combat zone, and the training areas, in training centres.

Again, this requires additional confirmation yet. I tell you this with the words of our military. Of course, I have yet seek additional material.

Why are you surprised by my suggestion, I do not understand? Problems in the Middle East, reconciliation not achieved. Afghanistan does not become better. Moreover, the Taliban moved in the autumn offensive, killing dozens of NATO soldiers.

In Iraq, after the euphoria of early victories, there are many problems, and the number of victims has reached over 4 thousand.

The economy problems, we know that well. Financial problems. Mortgage crisis. We are very concerned for this and want it ended quickly, but it is.

So a small victorious war is needed. And if you do not succeed, it is possible to shift the blame on us, make us an image of the enemy and against the backdrop of such a "hurrah-patriotism" again unite the country around certain political forces.

I am surprised that you are surprised what I say. This lies on the surface.

[truedelphi]

1. Thank you for posting this n/t

[peacetalksforall]

2. My truth meter says Putin is speaking the truth. We know too much ourselves

(out here is the public and it's all been speculated that it was for political purposes.)

I don't think Putin used U.S. blogs for inspiration to say what he is saying.

That is why Bidens' remarks last evening were very disappointing (for me).

The blogs have even stated who was in Georgia prior to the start of this event - Cheney aides (and who else)?

Is there a timeline that anyone has put together yet -?

[RedLetterRev]

6. Well, actually Democracy Now

has been over the past two years. Jeremy Scahill has been documenting Blackwater's role and activities in the region for some time. (How he's managed to stay alive after taking Prince on head to head so far is a small miracle.)

Start here. There are scores of articles. You might want to get hold of Scahill's book “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army”. There's way, way too much documentation to list. You'll be busy reading for a while. And shitting.

Blackwater have been in that region in large numbers (estimates range from 10- to 20,000 troops and "advisors") since right after the start of the Iraq invasion. No small coincidence is the proximity of Iraq to the CBT pipeline, one end of which is at the largest known oil reserve remaining. Everyone who is still in the oil game wants a piece (or all) of that. Badly. And they're willing to blow up entire nations to have full control of it and the pipeline west.

Clearer now?

[Igel]

8. You should know too much about yourself.

When the US was about to invade Iraq, were there Americans in Iraq?

Yes.

Now, Putin-logic says that they had to be there only because they were authorized by * to be there. They were, therefore, serving an official duty.

Since they were serving officially in a military zone, they were working on behalf of the US military.


Now, examine the logic. There are three logical connectins that *must* be true for his argument to be entailed. (Not that his logic could be screwed, and if he's correct, it's still a true inference. "The sky is orange, therefore I like cream cheese" is true if I like cream cheese and the sky is blue.)

So, step 1. Do Americans need official US permission to be someplace? Is that the only reason they could be in a war zone? Think Rachel Corrie in Gaza. The solidarity folk in February 2003 in Iraq. Lindh Walker in Afghanistan in 2001. Answer: No. They can be there on orders or on their own initiative. Link 1 fails.

Is it possible for an American to be there on orders, but not functioning officially? Yes. People wind up being caught up by events. Front lines move, war breaks out. Think of the American embassy staff evacuated from Beirut a year or two ago. They weren't functioning officially, even though they had been posted there. Link 2 isn't necessary.

Even if a person is serving officially in a zone that is a conflict zone, is the only possible type of function military? Think diplomats, aid workers, observers. So link 3 isn't logically necessary.

In fact, it's possible for a military advisor to be told to stand down. He's on orders to be there; his function is official; his function is military. But he can still sit and watch, because he has no orders.

Now, if Putin actually has evidence, he should say what it is. As it is, he has a bunch of faulty inferences. These are abductions: They are consistent with possible inferences, but they are not entailed. They have no predictive value.

The KGB wasn't big into logic. Just obedience and loyalty and being believed. As in, "Certainly Lindh Walker wouldn't be in Afghanistan without official US approval and instructions." Because if it's not explicitly permitted, it's prohibited. (Gee, where have I seen that reasoning before? I know! The USSR! Too bad the greatest catastrophe in history happened.)

By the way, the Americans in Iraq had travelled there to serve as anti-war "witnesses" and even human shields. They were fiercely anti-Bush and anti-war. But proof by contradiction, in the case of the KGB and FSB, is a dangerous game. Russia's what, #2 in reporter fatalities after Iraq?

[bushmeister0]

3. Wow! Well, I guess he'd know all about this sort of thing.

He's suspected of using the FSB to blow up apartment buildings in Moscow to create an excuse to launch the second Chechen war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

[Hydra]

5. Yup

Putin is a monster who has used our actions as a springboard to become an even greater monster. All Bush's fault creating a new cold war...and now it's becoming harder to assert that it was not a deliberate action- the original Cold War was the ultimate blank check for Bushco members, and it will be so again.

[peacetalksforall]

7. Look at some points. Supposedly, we have many agreements with Russia.

Russia lost a bundle when we invaded Iraq.
Something was worked out to compensate them.
Cheney has a mission on behalf of certain people in Israel and some barons to take out Iran.
Our military is supposed to be fighting with him about this.
PNAC members may have come up with an less than satisfactory, but a somewhat compensatory alternative in establishing bases from Pakistan to Israel and Turkey. The bases are the key to pipeline security. That means Georgia and other countries, but not all of them have a pliable leader like Georgia.

It would come as no surprise that an agreement or two got pummelled because PNAC people are running out of money sources and had to do something fast in the last remaining months (unless they coup us).

Since they, PNAC, always try to squeeze six benifits from one decision - they probably tied the McCain campaign to it and jumped the gun.

Cheney, Rove, Addington - part of the Pentagon - and all the people they perform for may be losing their touch. In the meantime, we may be living with nuclear ruins for a century or more.

Putin may be using this as an attack, but there have been their private treaties leading us in a status quo for a couple of decades.

Something sparked this. Right now it's 50-50. But, it wouldn't surprise me if Cheney backed out of one or more of the agreements PLUS the fact Cheney did not even finish Iraq and he seemed to have promised to bomb the hell out of Iran - a trading partner of Russia.

[Love Bug]

4. Verrrrrry interesting.

Perhaps I am getting too cynical in my old age, but the man is making too much sense. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me a bit.

[PATRICK]

9. Evidence

Putin may be setting up the capture of advisers story by setting the frame. Lots of luck though. The straight up type of guy would announce a capture and bluster and be confronted with WH-MSM shock, noise and spin. And oblivion. Putin still has one of the world's prodigious intel networks and is doing this for global effect not American consumption. He damn well knows a lot more than he says. The production of proof? What will it get him? I think this is testing the waters. He's a shrewd conniver not an outraged innocent. There is nothing to be gained from Bush really. He has known for years that Bush has been implanting a plutocrat takeover of Russia and using the divide and disaster formula to the oil resourced region.

The administration knows Putin knows even without this public statement. The public statement is to make them sweat and think and back off the exposed ploys- something they do not just automatically do.

[fascisthunter]

10. KABOOM.... yet too many here and elsewhere will go along with the MSM

like good little sheep.

[druidity33]

11. what do you think about this?

It was posted on HuffPo August 20th:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy/georgia-at-war-what-i-saw_b_120076.html



Any idea who this Bernard-Henri Lévy is?

[Ravachol]

12. Just click on his name...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bernardhenri-levy

He's a well known french author and philosopher. He's been reporting from combat zones for over thirty years now.

[druidity33]

13. i did...

I'd never heard of him before. Brokaw is well-known and has been reporting for over 30 years, but that doesn't mean i trust what he's saying. What Bernard's saying basically is that Russia is a jack-booted thug and Georgia is just an overrun bit player harboring an all-important gas pipeline...

I'm just not sure who to believe...

:shrug: