In case you'd missed it, the Georgian-Russian war celebrates its first anniversary, and suitably so by engaging in a blame-game over territorial disputes like children in a sandbox:

"We are waiting for another war," said Dzhumber Basharuli, a 50-year-old farmer, whose home was reduced to a smoking shell by artillery during the conflict.

The Russian Foreign Ministry Tuesday claimed Georgia has provoked skirmishes along the boundaries of its breakaway regions. In response, Russia put its 1 million-strong military on high alert.

Georgian soldiers and officials, meanwhile, say Moscow-backed separatists have launched sniper, grenade and mortar attacks against undisputed Georgian territory.

Unverified chatter, of course, on both sides. EU does have monitors over in the region to observe what's going on, but aren't allowed through to the critical areas of dispute. What's important to remember is the fragile nature of the current "peace" in the region. Both parts are blaming each other for stirring up conflict, and we may point fingers and say that's nonsense, but remember how the war began: Claims of Russian peacekeepers being shot at, and Georgia responding that it was simply defending itself. And so a war broke out.

Russia aims a particularly heavy charge at America for supporting Georgia, especially in connection to the recent blame game going on. For those of you who don't know, America supports Georgia in a lot of ways:

Russia on Wednesday accused the United States of quietly rearming Georgia a year after Russian forces crushed the ex-Soviet state's US-backed military and warned it would respond accordingly.

On a visit to Tbilisi on July 23, US Vice President Joe Biden admitted that Washington, which equipped and trained Georgian forces prior to the war last August, was working on "maintaining" the Georgian military.

The United States has long supported the goal of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili to lead his country away from its centuries-old dominance by Moscow and toward membership in NATO and Western political institutions.

And rightly so, because it's a vital geopolitical corridor between energy markets in Central Asia and Europe. Additionally, America is working together with the EU to help former Soviet blocs to enter the European political sphere, meaning a migration from planned economy, corrupt authoritarianism, and poor public policy. The more of Caucasus and Eastern Europe we infiltrate, the more relationships we establish to help fight back against the problems looming in the East.

Russia, understandably, doesn't like this, because it's nearing the end of its era and will therefore use any method to prove it's not weak before it descends into demographic and economic hell. So any military muscle-flexing, like a shirtless Putin riding horses, is simply for show:

A senior Russian general on Wednesday brushed off American concerns about two Russian submarines spotted off the East Coast of the United States, saying the patrols were routine and suggesting that the U.S. Navy carried out similar missions near Russia.

"I don't know if there is any news in this news for anyone," said Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of staff of the Russian armed forces. "The fleet shouldn't sit on its hands and be idle."

Asked at a news conference about the submarines, Nogovitsyn drew a comparison to the resumption of the long-range bomber missions. "This is our right. We got tired of flying circles on our routes and started strategic flights," he said.

So, to sum this up: The Georgian-Russian anniversary is here, and we're seeing a fragile blame game coupled with Russian nuclear subs skimming the Atlantic. What are we to make of all of this? I'd bet on theory (5) from this list supplied by Hot Air, combined with a small but not insignificant belief in (4):

A few possibilities off the top of my head for What This Might Mean in addition to the NYT’s “Bulava missile” theory. (1) Russia wants to see how much The One will let them get away with, just as Biden predicted would happen last year. (2) Russia’s pissed at Biden for his crack a few weeks ago about their economy “withering” and is flexing some muscle in response. (3) Russia’s looking to expand its presence in the western hemisphere more generally, which explains its naval exercises with Venezuela in December. (4) Russia’s gearing up to make another move on Georgia and is putting The One on notice that they’re not to be trifled with when they do. (5) Russia’s got a fee-vah and the only prescription is more bare-chested Putin photos, and a display of military strength in America’s backyard makes for nice optics on the front page tomorrow next to Vlad’s pecs. You’re free to vote for more than one theory — they’re hardly mutually exclusive — but as of right now I’m leaning towards number 4.

No one in this conflict wants war; neither Russia nor Georgia can afford it. Still, this will never change the fact that everyone wants to boost their mojo on the empire arena.

America Alone: The End of the World As We Know It
Mark Steyn

"Civilizations die from suicide, not murder." This quotation from Arnold J. Toynbee opens up the first chapter in Conservative Mark Steyn's provocative book about the decline of the West. It suggests two things: First, the greatest enemy of the West today is civilization exhaustion, or the lack of will to defend its founding traditions and principles. Second, weakness is, to paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, "a provocation" to imperial forces. Steyn's story takes place in the midst of a Europe in economic and demographic collapse, contrasted against an American super power slowly coming to an end.

Steyn's main thesis is that Europe has succumbed to suicidal demographic trends, essentially forcing it to invite mass immigration from North Africa and the Middle East to finance its unsustainable Social Democratic welfare State. Combined with native culture denial, an impotent civil society, and the multicultural doctrine of cultural relativism, Europe is, according to Steyn, giving in to the new great enemy of radical Islamism. The follow-up question to this scenario is obvious, and explained by the title: Will America have to stand alone to defend Western values against radical Islamism?

The answer is a sad but truthful "yes." America is a unique player in the West in that it hasn't (yet) adopted the European welfare model, has not yet entered the demographic decline, and has resisted the ideological suicidal virus of cultural masochism. To back his thesis up, Steyn arms himself with demographic figures, analyses of Islamic radicalization pre- and post-9/11, and an impressive historical knowledge of the relationship between the East and the West. His conclusion is startling and is likely to force many anti-Americanists and multicultural dimwits in Europe to alter their views about their own future.

This is a horrifying book to read, because there's actually little hope in the struggle to preserve what's left of Western civilization in light of the enormous challenges we face. But most worrying of all is what Steyn, with sardonic wit and cruel facts, describes as the real enemy we need to battle: the spirit of resignation. "The end of the world as we know it" is the world post-WWII, created for a short period of human history. Despite its negative aspects, it's what keeps our empire going -- but if we don't confront the realities of our time, our moment may not survive our generation.

The dead Iranian protestor Neda Agha Soltan is becoming a saint in the democratic West. The public go nuts over stories like these, because they link emotions to a great political event, which can easily be used to morally justify our own POV: The Iranian election is not following a Western model and protestors are being shot dead by thug police, so it's our divine duty as supporters of Freedom to spread more Liberty and Democracy in the world.

I don't really care if anyone here thinks America should bomb Iran (Neocons), establish peaceful diplomacy (Democrats), or join the international community in denouncing its election (Republicans). The only thing I ask of my readers is to recognize the truth: This is obviously not about supporting freedom in Iran, but to destabilize the regime and silently overthrow it. Since the end of WWII, America has supported both tyranny and freedom abroad, according to its own interests. What does that tell you?

As I mentioned yesterday, it's obvious that Iran is not a democracy in the Western sense. In fact, we may not want to call it a democracy at all. The non-interventionists who claim this is not our issue, although they've got their facts straight, are missing the point. The CIA is not infiltrating the regime and Iranian media because it believes in democratic freedom for everyone on the planet. It's there because it's expanding the US empire and building a network of international collaborators dependent upon Western force. Pax Americana may indeed be a naive dream, but whether we like it or not, the West has got Roman-style ambitions and will never give them up until it falls. At that point, someone else will lead the way, most likely the Chinese.

Remember: It's not about freedom, it's about power.

The chaos in Iran is far from over. Protestors are continuing to mobilize against a possibly rigged election that came out in favor of Ahmadinejad. American Conservatives are complaining that Obama isn't doing more to support the "pursuit of freedom" for which protesters are sacrificing their lives. What do they mean by this? Always insightful, Brett Stevens over at Amerika.org elaborates:

Americans, and others who have followed the path of individual desire to democracy, consumerism and the nanny state, have no idea why they are loathed.

I’d suggest it’s from the reasons we interfere. Because our society is based in the revolutions of 1789 and 1968, we [see] a dichotomy between “free” and “not-free” with no shades of gray.

Even more, it seems as if we’re trying to draw them into our system of civilization — even with its vast problems — so that they cannot have a competing style of government that might prove better. If this modernity thing is going to kill us, we want everyone else to go down, too, or someone [might get] ahead and — and that’s unfair!

We're ahead of the game, so we assume all other nations will bow down before us to satisfy out imperial interests. People who get lost in dogma forget the obvious: America is really reacting to the Irani situation not because it's playing universal citizen, but because it’s trying to maintain its empire status in an age where it's currently losing power to other empires. That Israel happens to be caught up in this war makes the whole thing even more complex and demanding: It wants to render Iran impotent without blowing itself up in the process.

But voters don't see reality, only emotions and rhetoric. Let's spell out three simple facts about the Iranian election that everyone needs to be aware of before they start bloviating:

1. We've been here before: Engaging in a US-supported revolution, disguised as "freedom" for the people, to overthrow an Evil dictator (e.g. someone who doesn't play along with our empire rules, especially if we helped him into power in the first place).

2. The CIA is doing it again: Attempting to destabilize the Iranian regime, while the whole West accuses Iran of rigged elections and totalitarian measures.

3. Mousavi is a reformist, not a revolutionary. He's not pro-West simply because his opponent is a critic of the West.

Okay, so the election is clearly not following the rule of law as in the West and the results, whatever they may be, are obviously influenced by both totalitarian bias and Western intervention. Many people are reacting to the protesters shot to death by thug police.

Very unpleasant indeed, but maybe we need to consider what Brett Stevens is trying to say: This is not our election following our democratic model. It's a country trying to maintain its independence from Western-led foreign politics--something it has been doing for the last 20 years. We can cry over dead protestors, but when we claim we support "freedom," we only prove to our Empire-leaders that we really are the moron voters they take us for.

As we all expected, the Western world remains skeptical of Iran's election results. Joe Biden, following the same vague path of his President (read: dodging important issues to maintain popularity and approval), refuses to comment on what's going on until he "knows more." Well, Mr. Biden, it took me a few minutes to find this:

Yes, the president of Iran's own election monitoring commission has declared the result invalid and called for a do-over. That is huge news: when a regime's own electoral monitors beak ranks, what chance does the regime have of persuading anyone in the world or Iran that it has democratic legitimacy?

Iran is not a democracy--omg, what?! We'll hear a soft condemnation from President Obama within a week or two, when this gets "official." But already, MEP Daniel Hannan brings the heat on the European Union, in case it makes its voice heard:

It strikes me as pretty implausible, this Iranian election result.

Who, though, has the moral authority to say so? Certainly not the EU, which has a rather Iranian approach to democracy within its own borders: that is, it allows elections, provided they don't unsettle the ruling ideology. Three times, the European Constitution Lisbon Treaty has been rejected at the ballot box. And yet it has been implemented anyway in all its essentials - even down to the number of MEPs elected (18 extra MEPs were voted in last week, in accordance with the terms of Lisbon rather than those of the notionally current treaty, Nice). Like the old USSR, the EU will tolerate a measure of electoral choice, but will not suffer any challenge to the doctrine from which it derives its legitimacy - deeper integration in Brussels, socialism in Moscow, God's law in Teheran.

As I commented on Hannan's post, "what democratic society would allow opposition to its founding principles, no matter how "free" it claims to be?" Of course, none. The political culture always triumphs over ideological purity. That's why liberal parties in Sweden cannot succeed in attracting a broad voter base unless they support a socialist welfare state. That's why all the Western aid in Africa goes to supporting military dictatorships. That's why the Chinese approve of Internet censorship. And so on.

Brussels can easily be consistently anti-democratic because its top leaders decide the future of the Union, hand-picking the parties and people they want to lead the way forward. This is how empires work. Look at American foreign policy post WWII and you'll discover the same thing: first America arms allies against common enemies (remember when Osama bin Laden ran a US-supported war in Afghanistan to drive out Soviet troops?), then it disarms those same allies, who are now suddenly enemies.

Inconsequential? On the surface, maybe, but empire politics is all about maintaining central power, so it thinks pragmatically ("realpolitik"). The EU works the same way: it wants to maintain its power and grow, so depending on where parties and leaders stand in the battlefield of politics, it will use them like pawns in a game of chess. Checkmate, in the face of crowdism.