- China Nears Global Reserve Status: “There Will Be a Reset of the Financial Industry” 2015-05-29 11:26
- Stocks Began Falling Right At This Time Of The Year Just Prior To The Last Financial Crisis 2015-05-29 00:32
- Rand Paul: ‘Disingenuous’ Obama Can Stop NSA Spying Any Time He Wants 2015-05-26 22:11
- Wealthy Installing “Safe Rooms” to Prepare for Civil Unrest? 2015-05-26 21:34
- Obama Usurps Local Police With Fake “Ban” on Militarization 2015-05-26 21:28
- RIP: Over 100 newspapers dumped in year, ads down 50%, circulation hits bottom 2015-05-26 01:36
Georgia’ pained “non-indifference”2010-07-02 19:13
Georgian media have found a remarkable explanation to the events in Kyrgyzstan. They say that Moscow is stirring up conflicts in order to ensure the "bloody return of the former USSR republics to the peoples' prison". GeorgiaTimes tried to make out what the real situation in Kyrgyzstan is, what kind of a part is assigned to Russia and who is interested in the current events.
Georgian journalists suggest a conception that would explain all the conflicts in the post-Soviet territory. The main idea is that Russia has devised a unique mechanism for retaining former USSR republics: each of them is experiencing an ethnic conflict and all of them need Moscow as a peacemaker.
I would stress an inverse dependence here: the notions of the people's "brotherhood" and tolerance are gone with the collapse of the USSR. There are fewer Russians now in the regions with the mixed population. They played the role of a link between the representatives of various ethnic groups, and it is a well-known fact that the smaller the nation is, the greater national ambitions it has got, and conflicts spring up like mushrooms on the grounds of nationalism and xenophobia.
Of course, one can develop one's ideas basing on the assumption that, while mixing and resettling the nations, the far-sighted Iosiph Stalin cared about Russia's future need to retain the satellites. But then, it is "the peoples' leader" who should be brought to account and one should stop whipping and criticizing today's Moscow which is supposed to "implement the plan of the bloody return to "the peoples' prison".
What kind of prison was it for the sheltered republics and for the nations that, unlike Russians, had the right of self-title in the USSR? That is a different point to discuss.
Today, the question of how this sinister plan of "bloody return" will be realized seems to be more urgent. It has become fashionable in Georgia to compare the Osh and Tskhinval conflicts. As soon as temporary head of the Kyrgyz government Rosa Otunbaeva appealed to Russia for help, it was only the lazy in Georgia who did not assert that the whole affair was put up by Russian special services. Georgians were waiting for Moscow to get involved in the conflict, bring in its peacemakers and reveal the initial purpose of getting control over Kirghizia.