RT

GET IT OFF YOUR CHEST - Do you think the death of Badri Patarkatsishvili was natural?

Notification. Thank you for visiting our Forum pages. We always appreciate your thoughts, but please note that Russia Today reserves the right to edit, exclude or paraphrase any messages. Please be polite - rudeness won't be accepted. Also keep in mind that it takes some time for your posts to appear in the threads.

DaniYah February 24, 2008, 20:36: John, did it occur to you that the very ones that helped P. earn his questionable stash be desperately trying to cover their tracks?

This is a common strategy in the West. They have a consistent record of allegiances with figures characters whom they later betray (and brand as no-good, and even terrorists.)

That is why we should care about any suspicious death or death of suspicious characters. It will help save quite a few innocent lives.
John February 24, 2008, 13:47: Yes, anyway if it wasn't, who cares? He made a fortune immdiately after the collapse of the USSR, which makes one wonder how he " made" the money.
fred February 19, 2008, 10:47: nick ...

you naughty little boy ... :-))

don't you know : anything UNdemocratic is solely to used toward Russia ...!:-))

sevodnya ...

whatever the doctors are going to find , some will say "BS" , some will say "british doctors know theirs stuff"

it is too late already ...

if i would be "making fun out of" i would mention , the death can be such an embarrassing event , i would suggest the FSB commited it ... ! ;-))

nothing is going to come out from analysis , it is quite well known technic to induce a heart-faillure on "order" ...

funilly enough , it has been discovered badri had a bad heart condition ... once again = some will say "how convenient !"
and since the only one sure thing in life is death , i would suggest we ALL have a heart condition , declaration of death is when heart stop beating , so technically speaking , we will ALL die of heart faillure .... ;-))
Paul February 19, 2008, 05:34: Natural death or not?
For a Georgian opposition leader this is absolutely "natural" death.

Paul
Sevodnya_Net February 18, 2008, 22:43: "whatever the pathologist are going to say now , it will always be tinted with a stain of untruthfulness "

Only in the minds of those looking for scandal where none exists.
Never mind, there's still the results of the toxicology tests to come -
I'm keeping an open mind until then :-) :-)
Sevodnya_Net February 18, 2008, 22:25: "Sevodnya_net, you are clueless as to the 'Special relationship' the United Kingdom has with the United States of America"

I never mentioned the special relationship between the UK and the USA although having done a text search of this page I notice the phrase crops up a couple of times in a posting by someone else so maybe should address your remarks to them?
fred February 18, 2008, 18:24: sevodnya ...

i pointed before :

whatever the pathologist are going to say now , it will always be tinted with a stain of untruthfulness ...

just too many lies stated before ...

as a non-doctor : ii would almost say (with a big smile!) = anyone dying had some kind of fatal disease , sometime the worst of those disease is simply to get tired of life itself ....
Nick February 18, 2008, 17:06: Sevodnya_net, you are clueless as to the 'Special relationship' the United Kingdom has with the United States of America - since Gordon Brown was forced upon the UK in such an undemocratic manner, the relationship has done nothing but crumble.
It is also worth taking a look at how the UK - and in particular the Prime Minister - is viewed by other EU member countries. To describe him as a disaster is an understatement.
Sevodnya_Net February 18, 2008, 13:34: "Sevodnya_Net, you claim that it is "news to you" that there is a faction in Northern Ireland pushing for independence."

On the advice of RT I'll reply to this (briefly) under the Kosovo discussion - I shouldn't really have digressed to this subject here so apologies for that
Sevodnya_Net February 18, 2008, 12:43: "Pathologist says severe heart condition,his doctor says normal heart.Severe heart condition cannt be missed on clinical examination.So who is lying? "

Probably no one is lying, Sam - the pathologist has the advantage of being able to cut Mr P into little pieces, his doctor (when did he last see his doctor I wonder) doesn't. His family are happy with the post mortem findings. But tests continue for traces of poisoning, which is only right.
If someone can show evidence of foul play fair enough, but the sad fact is that people die. Mr P's death is being used to stir up yet more hysteria.
It's interesting to note the difference in treatment by the media of Berezovsky and Paterkatsishvili: both oligarchs made rich on post-Communist Russia, close friends, maybe ruthless and probably dodgy in their own ways. Both allegedly involved in de-stabilising their respective governments and both allegedly the subject of numerous death plots. Yet one is treated as a multi-headed villain and the other as a romantic political maverick. Can it be the moustache?? Perhaps that's it !!
Misha February 18, 2008, 11:13: Sevodnya_Net, you claim that it is "news to you" that there is a faction in Northern Ireland pushing for independence. You also claim to have lived there "all [your] life."

surely you are joking? Surely you are aware of a little outfit called the Irish Republican Army (IRA)? And please explain exactly how the claims of the IRA are different from the claims of the "Kosovar Liberation Army" (KLA) as pertains to the independence of their respective domains. I for one don't think you have a clue

We are supposed to believe that there is something fundamentally unique in all the world about this KLA's separatist claims which for some (unexplained) reason grants a legitimacy to their claims of independence which is denied to dozens (and hundreds) of separatist claims in Europe and everywhere else in the world.

of course this is just another blatant example of Western arrogance and hypocracy in action.

[we suggest moving this particular discussion to the relevant topic - RT]
Misha February 18, 2008, 10:42: Sevodnya_Net wrote: "I'm not sure what your definition of an "Anglo-American" is but I suspect I don't qualify..."

Well, the term Anglo-American represents the continuity between the old British Empire and the modern American Empire. In fact the British Empire never really ceased to exist but rather fell under American control after the second word war.

Britain is an island nation and her empire always depended on control of the world’s sea lanes. Britain had an early advantage in this when she converted her navy to run on oil instead of coal. Oil has superior energy density and allows a ship to travel four times further on the same tonnage of fuel. Oil burning engines also weigh 75% less than coal-fired steam engines. The British Empire’s colonial control over the Middle East and its rich oil resources became a strategic necessity.

The Anglo (or Anglo-American) control over the world’s oceans, trade lanes, and especially oil resources continues to this day. We saw that control in action in the unilateral British and American (Anglo-American) enforcement of so-called “no-fly zones” over Iraq after the end of the first Gulf War.

On 29 November 1990 United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorized the use of military force against Iraq for the purpose of forcing Iraqi forces to withdraw from Kuwait. Russia voted for the resolution and China abstained. But after the war was over there was no UN mandate for continued violence against Iraq by any coalition forces. The creation of so-called “no-fly zones” and the almost daily bombing of Iraq over the next ten years were not authorized by the UN, but these were unilateral actions taken by the British and the Americans (or we may say the Anglo-Americans). None of the other “coalition partners” supported the bombing of Iraq over the next decade (not France, not Germany, not Russia). The continued violence against Iraq was a unilateral Anglo-American project, not supported by the world or sanctioned by the United Nations. Its purpose was the assertion of that old British Empire control over the Middle East and its vast oil reserves.

Of course Saddam Hussein knew who his real enemies were and he began to cut oil deals with the French, Russians and others, independently of the Anglo-American oil cartel. He also made plans to convert Iraqi oil sales from the US dollar to the Euro, which essentially sealed his fate.

It was not accidental that the “second Gulf War” was also a unilateral Anglo-American project, involving really only the British and the Americans and none of the other major allies. There was participation by a large number of nations which have no independent power and which are really little more than client-states and protectorates of the Anglo-American empire, such as Poland, Cz Republic, Ukraine, American Samoa, etc. But none of these nations contributed more than 50 or 100 troops, which is hardly enough to make a difference in the war’s outcome. Indeed the participation of so many small troop contingents cost the Americans more than they were worth, at least in Military terms, because these small troop contingents had to be guarded and protected by the American military. But the purpose of their participation was merely to allow George Bush to claim that invasion and occupation of Iraq was not a lone Anglo-American adventure, but that somehow it enjoyed broad global support from the alleged “Coalition of the willing.” (It can be more aptly described as a coalition of all those who willingly let themselves be ruled by the Anglo-American empire, and obey its whims like trained dogs.)

As for the other world powers (Germany, France, Russia, China, etc.) they did not believe the American general Colin Powell’s hysterical lies that Iraq possessed massive stockpiles of “weapons of mass destruction” and that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the peace and stability of the world. When the Bush administration failed to get UN approval for their war plans, Bush simply announced that the UN was now “irrelevant” and the Anglo-American empire went ahead with the war anyway.

The Anglo-American war against Iraq had nothing to do with “weapons of mass destruction” and everything to do with the Anglo-American empire re-asserting its colonial control over a rebellious oil-rich province in the Empire.

The British Empire’s problems with a rebellious Iraq are nothing new. This region has been in rebellion against British rule almost since the British rule was first imposed on Iraq after World War I. In the 1920’s Britain began bombing rebellious Iraqi and Kurdish villages and also began the use of poison mustard gas against civilians. When Winston Churchill (then the British Secretary of War) heard that certain members of the British government were disturbed by the use of poison gas in Iraq, he said: “I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favor of using poison gas against uncivilized tribes.”

Britain was essentially exhausted and spent after the Second World War. Its economy was a shambles and Britain no longer had the ability to maintain its worldwide empire. But the new power to emerge from the war was the United States (itself a former British colony), and the Americans were all too willing to facilitate the transition of Britain’s worldwide empire to American control.

This lead to the creation of what is known as the “Special Relationship” between the USA and the UK, which exists to this day. Under this relationship, the United States is now the boss and Britain has become the junior partner with America in ruling the Empire and the world.

Really the so-called “special relationship between Britain and the USA began after the first world war, with the consolidation of the 7 major British and American oil companies into a cartel, which divided world market share and set global oil prices. But in the period between the world wars, Britain was the dominant partner and the USA was the junior partner. All that changed after the Second World War, when the United States became the dominant partner. Britain for its part desired that the “special relationship” would continue, and it did, but with a vastly reduced role for the UK. Since World War II it is clear that the Americans are leading and Britain is following.

Over time what was the British Empire morphed into what is today mostly an American Empire. But as the British still retain influence with the Americans, through their “Special Relationship,” it is more accurate to describe the new global empire as the Anglo-American Empire. This Anglo-American empire has been the dominant and ruling military force in the world since the end of the Second World War. Indeed the only competition that was offered came from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, during the period known as the “Cold War.”

Britain’s other historical enemies, France and Germany were crushed in the Second World War, and Germany remains under Anglo-American occupation to this day, some 60 years after the end of the war. (Russia ended its own occupation of its part of Germany about 20 years ago.)

The British Empire is not geographically contiguous, but instead it is spread all over the world. It was really a naval empire that depends entirely on control over the world’s oceans, shipping lanes, and especially the one indispensable commodity, oil.

Control over the empire had been accomplished largely by the British (and today American) naval control over the world’s sea lanes, trade routes, and especially vital oil supplies.

By contrast the sprawling Russian Empire was not a naval empire, but rather a geographically contiguous land empire. Russia built up its massive land empire over centuries, by defeating and pushing back various invaders, such as the Mongols and Tartars. Russia lacks natural defensive borders in Eurasia and Russia has always thought in terms of establishing “buffer zones” that would enable Russia to defend herself against invasion threats before those threats could penetrate deep into Russia. (Historically would-be invaders of Russia have come from both the east and the west.)

Russia did not depend on her navy, as the British Empire did, because Russia’s empire was entirely a land empire, which consisted of one massive geographically contiguous Eurasian landmass. At one point Russian control extended all the way to North America (as the Russians not only controlled all of Siberia but all of Alaska too).

Russia also had more than enough of its own mineral and energy resources, which meant that Russia was not dependent on the British sea lanes and British-controlled oil fields for its vital supplies.

By the 1800’s the British Empire had extended its control over all of India and Pakistan Meanwhile the growing Russian land-empire was slowly moving south, into Central Asia. Afghanistan became the place where the two empires met. (Afghanistan is often called “The Crossroads of Empire.”)

The British were fearful that further Russian expansion to the south would threaten their India-Pakistan colony. So in 1838 the British began the first of two wars to conquer Afghanistan: http://www.afghanland.com/history/anglo1.html

The British effort ended in defeat and Afghanistan assumed the role of a neutral buffer between the British and Russian empires. This would remain the case until the 1979 Soviet attempt to conquer Afghanistan, which also ended in a similar defeat for Soviets.

In recent history the most significant geopolitical event to occur is the breakup of the Warsaw Pact and Former Soviet Union. Russia lost not only her Eastern European buffer zone, but a large part of the former Russian Empire itself (Ukraine, Georgia and the Central Asian republics).

Even after the breakup of the USSR, Russia still remains by far the largest nation in the world, with about one-sixth of the world’s landmass within Russia’s borders. Contained within Russia are some of the largest untapped mineral and energy deposits in the world. Russia also has vast forests, rich fisheries and other abundant natural resources, in addition to a well-educated and resourceful population.

Clearly the current resurgence in hostilities between Russia and the West is not being driven by the Russians. The Anglo-American Empire is unsettled by how quickly Russia was able to reverse the declines Russia experienced as recently the 1990’s. Today Russia is resurgent, both politically and economically (and even militarily). On the one hand Russia has lost a sizable chunk of its former empire, but on the other hand Russia has now been freed from the enormous financial burden of subsidizing its former empire (for example, selling crude oil and natural gas to its former Warsaw Pact partners at 5-10 % of prevailing world market prices).

The recent NATO militarization of the border region between Russia and its former Warsaw Pact allies is a cause for concern. The introduction of whole new weapons systems which hitherto have not been seen in the region, such as the American “missile defense shield” poses a threat to the stability and security of the entire region. Russia has no desire to engage the Americans in a missile-for-missile and plane-for-plane arms race, and indeed Russia already signaled its desire to end the arms race back when Gorbachev was in power. But of course Russia must now take appropriate countermeasures to insure the continued viability of its strategic deterrent force. Thus Russia finds itself being very reluctantly prodded back into something like a new arms race, at the instigation of the Anglo-American lead NATO, and its new cohorts in Eastern Europe.

Of course the recent hysterical vilification of the Russian government has nothing to do with some disinterested desire by the West to “promote democracy” as a universal social value, and it has everything to with continuing the game of geo-political world domination. The Anglo-American axis does not want democracy in Russia as and end, but rather as a means. The end is to finish the destruction of Russia which began with the breakup of the USSR.

The Anglo-American Empire is happy as pie to do business with authoritarian regimes and even outright dictatorships, which make Russia, look mild by comparison. Indeed the Anglo-American axis has installed such regimes in most places in the world where they have existed (Saudi Royal family, president-for-life of Egypt, president-general of Pakistan, Shaw of Iran, King of Jordan, umpteen Latin American dictatorships, and this list goes on and on…)

American and British intelligence and security agencies are tireless in their efforts infiltrate Russia’s weak and unstable democratic institutions, for the purpose of undermining and controlling those institutions from within. In this purpose they are aided by a host of Western “non-governmental organizations,” which largely serve these Western geopolitical purposes. They are also aided by well-meaning but naive Russians, who have become infatuated by all things Western, and fundamentally fail to grasp the existential threat that Russia faces from its historical enemies (and even worse, by those Russians who do understand this threat and consciously aid and abet it).

Russia desires a transition both to democracy and a market-driven economy. But this choice was made by the Russian leadership itself, and it is not something that was “imposed” upon Russia from the outside. Russia will proceed with the transition as fast as possible, but at its own pace. Certainly the constant foreign efforts to meddle in Russia’s political process to not enable the speeding up of the process of transformation, but rather the slowing down of the process.

Russia is a sovereign country and Russia has both the means and the will to defend itself and its interests. Russia’s twice-elected president Vladimir Putin has proposed “Sovereign Democracy” as the model that best suits Russia. This is a model for expanding Russia’s democratic institutions, but protecting and guarding those infant institutions against undo foreign influence, before they have time to mature and stand on their own feet. While the idea of Sovereign Democracy has been ridiculed by some in the West, it is worth noting that President Putin’s approval rating with citizens of the Russian Federation consistently stands at 75-80 percent.

Russia certainly has powerful, well-financed and sophisticated enemies, but Russia does not have the benefit of 200 years of stable democratic institutions. Rather those institutions need to be created in Russia from whole cloth. This democracy-building project in Russia is fundamentally a Russian project and one that Russians are capable of managing themselves, without the sugar-coated “assistance” of Russia’s sworn historical adversaries.

It is clear to Russia’s security agencies that the main purpose for Western interference in Russia’s democratic process is not merely some disinterested desire to “promote democracy,” as an abstract concept having value in and of itself. The West, and especially the Anglo-American center of gravity in the West, has shown time and again a willingness to get into bed with the devil himself, when it suits their strategic and geopolitical interests. Russia is not so naive as to take anything they say at face value.

Russia most definitely does not want this “new” confrontation with the West that is now being forced upon Russia. Rather Russia desires an expansion of peaceful trade relations with her neighbors and with the west in general. Indeed such a peaceful expansion is a vital Russian national interest, as the Russian leadership realizes fully well.

It is time for the West to come back to its senses and back to basic sanity, in terms of deescalating the growing tensions between the west and Russia and to get our mutual relations back on the right track again.
sam February 18, 2008, 02:30: Really does not matter if natural or not.His death will never go away and will always haunt Georgia unless an independant pathologist repeats the autopsy.Pathologist says severe heart condition,his doctor says normal heart.Severe heart condition cannt be missed on clinical examination.So who is lying?
Sevodnya_Net February 18, 2008, 00:19: I don't know when the Spotlight programme I've just been watching (Sunday 17th) with the excellent Al Gurnov was recorded but I was astounded to here the comments of the studio guest Dmitry Babich - Mr Babich blithely seemed to assume that Mr Patarkatsishvili had in fact been murdered.
I'm sure Mr P was an excellent person whose life may well have been in danger and initially his death was most certainly suspicious, but it's now been several days since a post mortem showed that he suffered from chronic heart disease and it is simply outrageous for the Spotlight programme not to at least refer to this fact.
Also, Mr Babich repeated the nonsense I'd already heard that that all President Saakashvili's political opponents were either dead or in exile, and that Mr P was a major political figure who'd been eliminated: again, Mr P was indeed an influential figure but not, it seems with the electorate, who awarded him 7% of the vote. Contrast that with the 35% or so plus for Mr Gachechiladze, who as far as I am aware is very much alive and well and living in Tbilisi.
I know RT is anxious to promote a Russian perspective on the news, and that is most welcome, particularly with the number of Western 24-hr stations, but some of its broadcasts are starting to look dangerously like Kremlin propaganda. I hope I'm wrong about that. Please, please, can we have some - just one - commentator who can speak with a bit of balance(or indeed knowledge) on some of these issues. Earlier we had Peter Lavelle telling us that N.Ireland was one of the countries potentially to follow Kosovo in pushing for independence. (I've lived there most of my life and that's certainly news to me :-) )
Sevodnya_Net February 16, 2008, 13:52: Sanjay
"Anything which anglo-americans suggest or utter must surely be the truth"

I'm not sure what your definition of an "anglo-american" is but I suspect I don't qualify
Best wishes from the celtic soothsayer :-)