Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[AhmedEzz]

This is about many things other than oil my friend. Yes oil is a major factor, Russia supplies Europe with about half of its gas needs and a great % of its oil. The only pipeline that is not in Russia is the one in Georgia. Now this is strategically important for Russia to maintain this status of controlling European power needs.

However, this is also about power balance between Russia and the US. Russia regained not all but some of its strength since the fall of the Soviet union. Now, the US doesn't want Russia to re-emerge, they don't want another China. Therefore, US finds some poor ex-soviet countries and supplies them with weapons and money to counter Russian influence, same with Georgia.

Now, Russia doesn't like that one bit, therefore it moves into Georgia (this is an examplary move; it gives an example to the US that Russia will not accept what is going on; same move could hapepn with any other small country near Russia.) In my opinion, this is not about "protecting Russian citizens and peacekeepers", it is a strategical move rather than an act of agression.

Moreover, with the presidential elections coming, it gives MCcain something to talk about and be voted for.

 

[Art]

I find it strange that people put any credence in Russian *controlled* media.

To those who said the US involvement in this was about oil. You are correct, but not in the way you think.

Georgia has one of few (maybe the only) non-Russian oil pipeline to Western Europe. Chew on that for a moment. Now chew some more.

This is why Russia is interested in maintaining an independent, but pro-russian, South Ossetia.

We are of what Putin has been pulling over the last couple of years, aren't we?

The existence of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline may have come as a new and novel surprise to you but please don't assume it is a surprise to everybody else here.

I think you will find Russia are far more concerned with Georgia's cosying up to NATO wirh the prospect of NATO troops and more anti-missile batteries on their doorstep than with the pipeline which could be easily cut at a whim.

Now which part of the Russian 'controlled' media reports do you question? Do you not believe Georgia launched an attack on South Ossetia?

 

[grant9076]

Like Serbia and Kosovo/Albania you mean? By the same deduction technically Serbia didn't attack Kosovo as it was their own territory which they were trying to regain control of from Albanian supported separatists but that didn't stop NATO intervening to give Kosovo independence. The two situations are remarkably similar only for NATO read Russia.

Having fought in the Kosovo war, I can tell you that the actions of the Serbs were not just about regaining control from separatists. What happened there was essentially ethnic cleansing (read genocide) against the Ethnic Albanians.

Mass killings, sexual slave camps, disemboweling pregnant women and other atrocities have nothing to do with controlling territory.

 

[seycyrus]

This is about many things other than oil my friend. Yes oil is a major factor, Russia supplies Europe with about half of its gas needs and a great % of its oil. The only pipeline that is not in Russia is the one in Georgia. Now this is strategically important for Russia to maintain this status of controlling European power needs.

I not did state that the situationa was solely about oil. It *is* as you point out about Russia trying to recapture some of it's former glory. Control of oil is just one path.

 

[seycyrus]

The existence of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline may have come as a new and novel surprise to you but please don't assume it is a surprise to everybody else here.

Excuse me? I find your condescension insulting. Nowhere did I imply that was the harbringer of a great revelation.

:
I think you will find Russia are far more concerned with Georgia's cosying up to NATO wirh the prospect of NATO troops and more anti-missile batteries on their doorstep

Any other obvious things that you would like to add?

:
than with the pipeline which could be easily cut at a whim.

Who would be doing the cutting?

:
Now which part of the Russian 'controlled' media reports do you question? Do you not believe Georgia launched an attack on South Ossetia?

I thought my implication was fairly obvious. The generalities of the conflict have been reported by other news agencies besides Russia. I do not dispute them.

But throwing down propaganda that the russian media puts out? C'mon.

Certainly we wouldn't trust the Chinese govt. to give us an uncensored view of any China-Tibet conflict. Why would *anyone* just gobble out what the russian controlled media puts out?

 

[jostpuur]

I find it strange that people put any credence in Russian *controlled* media.

Not anymore than in West controlled media either. The right way to go is to gather information as from many sources as possible, and try to put pieces together.

Georgia has one of few (maybe the only) non-Russian oil pipeline to Western Europe.

This is an extremely good reason for Georgia to not attack Russians! Giving the Russia a reason for counter attack is among the stupidest possible things Georgian leaders could do. So why did the Georgia attack then? The speculations about secret advices/commands from the West are not unreasonable.

It is not logical to conclude that because oil is involved, therefore the Russia would be the one proceeding in an unethical way.

To those who said the US involvement in this was about oil. You are correct, but not in the way you think.

You actually did not try to justify this opinion.

 

[meopemuk]

If there is a textbook on peacekeeping there should be a chapter about what happened in Georgia. That's a classic example. The rough narrative is this:

1. Peacekeepers are stationed in the area according to international agreements.
2. Invading forces move into the area killing peacekeepers and civilians on the way.
3. Peacekeepers call for support from the mainland.
4. An overwhelming force comes in and drives the invaders out of the protected area.
5. If the invader resists, the protecting force targets some infrastructure on the invader's territory: airfields, ports, radars, etc. The goal is to interrupt supply routes to the conflict area, make this adventure painful for the invader's leadership, and force it to stop.
6. Western media and politicians spew nonsense about "pipelines", "young democracy", "hegemony", "damaged relations with US", "We are all Georgians!", etc.

...five days later...

7. Invader's army is demoralized and runs for cover to its capital.
8. With some mediation help (Sarkozy) an agreement is signed and peace is restored.

... few months later...

9. The leader of invaders is indicted on the war crimes charges and serves time in the Haague's prison.

If you live in a troubled area, ask Russian peacekeepers to protect you. I don't think they'll necessarily agree, but they definitely know how to do that.

 

[seycyrus]

You actually did not try to justify this opinion.

Yes, you are correct. I was going to make a statement regarding the US, trying to stop Russia controlling the oil supply to W. Europe. Sort of an indirect connection.

Thank you.

 

[jostpuur]

... few months later...

9. The leader of invaders is indicted on the war crimes charges and serves time in the Haague's prison.

If you are right with this, it will be interesting to see how American propaganda machinery deals with this. I suppose American people have already been "informed" about how the Georgia was an innocent victim of Russia's aggression outside the "conflict zone".

 

[seycyrus]

Not anymore than in West controlled media either. The right way to go is to gather information as from many sources as possible, and try to put pieces together.

As part of the "western controlled media" you certainly have many elements that are not known for their pro-US stance.

To state the obvious, there isn't any "anti-russian" element in the russian controlled media.

This is an extremely good reason for Georgia to not attack Russians!

Perhaps there were "russian peacekeepers" in S. Ossetia that were killed, but Georgia certainly did not target them because they were Russian (in my opinion based on no evidence to the contrary), nor did they attack inside Russia proper.

Giving the Russia a reason for counter attack is among the stupidest possible things Georgian leaders could do. So why did the Georgia attack then?

I agree that it was a tragic miscalculation. Perhaps georgia thought US/Nato support would be greater. Or perhaps they actually thought they were in their rights to retake territory that has never been recognized by the US, the EU, NATO or any other country as an independent country. To my knowledge (wikipedia-granted), not even Russian recognizes S. Ossetia as being an independent country!

I have seen opinions ventured that this whole even was perhaps planned by Russia for some time. This opinion was based on the large scope of the air-land-water forces that were deployed to proper position in such a short time.

 

[seycyrus]

6. Western media and politicians spew nonsense about "pipelines", "young democracy", "hegemony", "damaged relations with US", "We are all Georgians!", etc.

Actually, none of those, save the last, is nonsensical in the least.

 

[seycyrus]

If you are right with this, it will be interesting to see how American propaganda machinery deals with this. I suppose American people have already been "informed" about how the Georgia was an innocent victim of Russia's aggression outside the "conflict zone".

the reality of the situation is that the majority of the american people have already benn "informed" that Russia is the innocent.

The latest CNN poll shows pro-russia support at 92%.

I find it a bit unbelievable myself and suspect hacking. I also note how the Russians hacked into and took over the Georgian' governments servers and such. This is of course baseless speculation on my part. I do find the cyberwarfare very indicative of things to come tho.

 

[jostpuur]

I was going to make a statement regarding the US, trying to stop Russia controlling the oil supply to W. Europe.

In more detail this plan was supposed to be, to use Georgia to create a fighting zone, to get a reason for Western troops to be brought into Georgia, to ensure that Russia will not control the oil supply to the W. Europe?

 

[meopemuk]

I agree that it was a tragic miscalculation.

Last time several thousands of civilians were killed and (parts of) cities destroyed (remember 9/11?) nobody called it "tragic miscalculation". Some stronger words (and actions) were used. I am amazed how restrained is Russian leadership in this case.

 

[seycyrus]

In more detail this plan was supposed to be, to use Georgia to create a fighting zone, to get a reason for Western troops to be brought into Georgia, to ensure that Russia will not control the oil supply to the W. Europe?

I am sorry jostpuur, but i am not sure I understand your question. I shall try my best however.

No, I don't think the U.S.'s plan was as involved as that (creating a fighting zone with western troops etc). It could simply be to make sure that Russia does not expand it's control and influence in the region, by supporting Georgia.

 

[seycyrus]

Last time several thousands of civilians were killed and (parts of) cities destroyed (remember 9/11?) nobody called it "tragic miscalculation". Some stronger words (and actions) were used. I am amazed how restrained is Russian leadership in this case.

I did not mean to make light of loss of life by using the words "tragic miscalculation". All I meant was that his strategy, whatever it might have been, apparently backfired.

Am I correct in assuming that you are going under the assumption that the majority of the deaths were as a result of the Georgian attack, and not the Russian counter?

I have not seen conclusive evidence either way, and am hesitant to claimit either way. Certainly I would not say the Russians responded with the "minimal force necessary"

 

[AhmedEzz]

a side note would be, no one that has the adequate strength responds with the "minimal force necessary". Especially if they have a reason to use force ( Russia, US, Israel, etc..).

 

[Gokul43201]

One thing that appears to be completely missing in the discussion so far are some of the early moves by Russia in some weeks and months ago - are they not relevant? Sometime in the spring, there was something in the news about Russian planes violating Georgian airspace. And about a couple weeks ago, there was again something in the news about Russia violating some UN mandate by engaging in direct relations with S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, while bypassing Georgian channels.

Anyway, here's what the candidates had to say:

1qISqGnZWw0[/youtube] [url]ply-2CKZ2qU[/youtube] [url]nXLAMaXnB50[/youtube]

 

[Gokul43201]

Am I correct in assuming that you are going under the assumption that the majority of the deaths were as a result of the Georgian attack, and not the Russian counter?

Were there more deaths in NY/Washington than there were in Afghanistan/Iraq? Have there been more deaths in Israel due to suicide bombings than there have been in Palestine and/or Lebanon, due to Israeli retaliation?

Things can be more complex than a simple comparison of kill-rates may reveal.

 

[meopemuk]

Am I correct in assuming that you are going under the assumption that the majority of the deaths were as a result of the Georgian attack, and not the Russian counter?

I am not a firsthand witness, so I could be misled by propaganda, I admit. I watched both US and Russian TV. Russians said (and showed a footage) that Georgians shelled Tshinvali with "Grad" rockets. This is a weapon not intended for target strikes. It is a modern version of "Katyusha" launchers used most recently by Hesbollah against Israel. It covers a big area (say, 1x1 mile) and everybody in the area has a good chance to be killed. I think there is an international prohibition of using this kind of weapon in populated areas. This is a fact that Tshinvali is now razed to the ground. You can easily find pictures on the Internet.

I saw interviews with refugees who spent 3-4 days in basements and cellars hiding from the shelling and sniper fire. They told about Georgian atrocities. Like in any conflict of that sort, there could be some lies and inflated numbers. But, basically, I tend to believe these people.

I think Western media would do a better job if it talks less about geopolitical "spheres of influence" and focus more on real sufferings of real people.

 

[seycyrus]

Things can be more complex than a simple comparison of kill-rates may reveal.

True, but I am asking a simple question about the "2000" deaths number that has been ntossed about. I have read reports that say the majority of those were caused by Russia, others say Georgia.

 

[seycyrus]

...
I saw interviews with refugees who spent 3-4 days in basements and cellars hiding from the shelling and sniper fire. They told about Georgian atrocities. Like in any conflict of that sort, there could be some lies and inflated numbers. But, basically, I tend to believe these people.
...

I thik it is a bit interesting that you mention both Russian and South Ossetian accounts, but not the Georgian version of events. Have you seen any testimony from Georgian citizens and/or military?

 

[meopemuk]

I thik it is a bit interesting that you mention both Russian and South Ossetian accounts, but not the Georgian version of events. Have you seen any testimony from Georgian citizens and/or military?

I don't have access to Georgian TV, but I suppose their version of events is well represented by the US media. All I saw there were statements by Saakhashvili that "Russian tanks are coming to Tbilisi" and "we will not kneel before occupiers". Have you seen any credible accounts of what happened in Tshinvali from the US/Georgian side? I have a feeling that they prefer to avoid this issue. They more like to discuss how Russia should be punished.

 

[seycyrus]

I don't have access to Georgian TV, but I suppose their version of events is well represented by the US media. All I saw there were statements by Saakhashvili that "Russian tanks are coming to Tbilisi" and "we will not kneel before occupiers". Have you seen any credible accounts of what happened in Tshinvali from the US/Georgian side? I have a feeling that they prefer to avoid this issue. They more like to discuss how Russia should be punished.

Sure thing. I saw the footage of the bombing on both CNN and Fox websites.

The western media itself is NOT discussing how russia should be punished. Rather, they are covering certain political figures who are raising such issues. It would be much more suspicious if such stories were *not* covered.

 

[Astronuc]

I believe that both the US and Russia have strategic interests in Georgia, in addition to the fact that Abkhazians and S. Ossetians would prefer to breakaway from Georgia, but then Georgians in Abkhazia and S. Ossetia would prefer to remain as part of Georgian territory.

The question is - who fired first? Georgian military or S. Ossetian militias, who are apparently looting in S. Ossetia and parts of Georgia?

It certainly appears that Abkazians and Ossetians have legitimate greivances with the Gerogian government in Tbilisi.

Violence and ethnic cleansing is not the solution.

 

[Oberst Villa]

The question is - who fired first? Georgian military or S. Ossetian militias, who are apparently looting in S. Ossetia and parts of Georgia?

Probably there was fighting of relatively low intensity some time before this mess started, but the major escalation seems to have come from Georgian side:

"Authorities in the Georgian separatist region of South Ossetia said Wednesday night (last week) that the outskirts of the region's capital were coming under heavy fire from Georgian-controlled territory, Russian news agencies reported."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/eu...tml#cnnSTCText

Even if this is a statement coming from one of the involved parties, the subsequent events and reports seem to confirm it more or less.

 

[Oberst Villa]

Cyclovenom found this link (post #65):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_South_Ossetia_War

If you search for the German reaction you will find this:

"Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler accused Georgia of violating international law by breaking a 1992 ceasefire agreement with Russia. Eckart von Klaeden, foreign policy spokesman for the Christian Democratic Union, said Russia was to blame."

Pick the one you like

Seriously, what I think is: The German deputy FM would not blame a gouvernment that is an outspoken friend of the west, if he would not really think that it is true. So in my book, yes the Georgian gouvernment started the RECENT events (I'm not saying there has been no bullying and harassment from Russia and / or South Ossetia before...)

P.S: I KNOW how easy it is to put crap on a wiki page, I will try to get some confirmation ASAP...

EDIT: Here you are:

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3551206,00.html

Deputy FM: Georgia violated international law
His deputy, Gernot Erler, who is also a Social Democrat, went a step further. Talking to German public broadcaster NDR Info, Erler said Georgians had breached a 1992 ceasefire agreement struck with Russia over South Ossetia, monitored essentially by Russian peacekeepers.
"In this sense, it is also a question of a violation of international law as soon as you start to go down the road of military action," said Erler, who is a Social Democrat like Steinmeier.
He acknowledged prior provocation of the Georgian leadership from Russian-backed South Ossetia's separatists, but said he understood Russia's reaction. While South Ossetia remains sovereign Georgian territory, Russia has taken over the role of providing economic support to the region, Erler said. From a Russian perspective, peacekeeping troops have therefore
been attacked.
"It's an insane, bloody war which will surely do nothing to resolve the problem of this separatist Ossetian province," he said.

 

[seycyrus]

Even if this is a statement coming from one of the involved parties, the subsequent events and reports seem to confirm it more or less.

I don't see how the subsequent events confirm that version. Gerogian forces could have been responding to S. Ossettian fire.

Events still would have unfolded as they did.

 

[meopemuk]

Actually, none of those, save the last, is nonsensical in the least.

I agree that "pipelines", "young democracy", "hegemony", etc are all important issues. My point is that they have only side relationship to this particular conflict. The major questions are whether or not Georgian leadership committed a war crime by ordering to bomb a city and whether or not Russian army overreracted to the events. My answers are "yes" and "no".

 

[seycyrus]

Cyclovenom found this link (post #65):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_South_Ossetia_War

If you search for the German reaction you will find this:

"Deputy Foreign Minister Gernot Erler accused Georgia of violating international law by breaking a 1992 ceasefire agreement with Russia.

This quote is a bit confusing as, and doesn't clarify (even if taken at face value) what occurred between Georgia and S. Ossetia.

Could it not have transpired thusly?

S. Ossettian rebels fire at georgians.

Georgians fire back, inadvertently killing some Russian peacekeepers.

Russia points at dead Russians and claims that cease fire was broken by Georgia.

 

[seycyrus]

...major questions are whether or not Georgian leadership committed a war crime by ordering to bomb a city and whether or not Russian army overreracted to the events. My answers are "yes" and "no".

But so far on the first issue, we have only seen footage of Russians and S. Ossettians claiming that the bombing was the initial strike.

On the second issue. I have seen reports that Russians were continuing to operate inside Georgia and strike at targets, even *after* the cease fire was signed.

 

[Art]

How it started - From the BBC

THURSDAY 7 AUGUST

Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agree to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict.

Hours later, Georgian forces launch a surprise attack, sending a large force against the breakaway province and reaching the capital Tskhinvali.

South Ossetian rebel leader Eduard Kokoity accuses Georgia of a "perfidious and base step".

The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia says the operation is intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government says the troops are "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians".

Russia's special envoy in South Ossetia, Yury Popov, says Georgia's military operation shows that it cannot be trusted and he calls on Nato to reconsider plans to offer it membership.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm

 

[Oberst Villa]

Russia points at dead Russians and claims that cease fire was broken by Georgia.

The accusation that Georgia broke the cease fire came from the GERMAN deputy foreign minister, for all I know he is NOT a Russian. If you have other information, please contact the MAD (Militärischer Abschirmdienst, German Counterintelligence) as soon as possible:

http://www.mad.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/mad

 

[seycyrus]

The accusation that Georgia broke the cease fire came from the GERMAN deputy foreign minister, for all I know he is NOT a Russian. If you have other information, please contact the MAD (Militärischer Abschirmdienst, German Counterintelligence) as soon as possible:
http://www.mad.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/mad

Why the inability to read the entirety of a post and consider the broad message?

Please note, that the specifics of the cease-fire violation were not given. I was giving a version of events that might have transpired. This was indicated by my phrase "Couldn't it have happened...?"

The technical violation might be viewed as being mediated by intent on the Georgian side

If you want to nitpick, I'll note that virtually all accounts indicate that sniper fire, mortar attacks, kidnappings etc. etc. have been ongoing from both sides for the past year, if not more. Certainly all of those constitute a violation of the cease fire.

 

[Art]

Were there more deaths in NY/Washington than there were in Afghanistan/Iraq? Have there been more deaths in Israel due to suicide bombings than there have been in Palestine and/or Lebanon, due to Israeli retaliation?

Things can be more complex than a simple comparison of kill-rates may reveal.

South Ossetia claims between 1600 - 2000 civilians killed, Russia says it lost 74 troops killed whilst Georgia claims to have lost a total of 175 civilians and troops. Even allowing for S Ossetia exaggerating it's losses if these figures are even near correct Russia let Georgia off lightly.

In regard to those crying foul because Russia attacked outside the conflict zone; as I remember, NATO fairly hammered Belgrade, which was many miles outside the conflict zone, to persuade the Serbs to pull out of Kosovo so it is hypocritical to say the least to see those same countries condemn Russia for doing a lot less than they did themselves and with far less legal justification. And whereas Russia attacked only military targets NATO attacked soft targets such as TV studios and Serbian gov't administrative buildings, as I recall NATO even bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade

During a live interview an English reporter asked the Georgian president straight out if he had launched the attack on S Ossetia at the US's instigation. In reply he waffled on for 5 minutes without saying anything and then terminated the press conference.

Bush's supposed shock and horror at the breach of sovereign borders and the resulting collateral damage in Georgia is almost funny when one considers his illegal invasion of Iraq the enormous amount of structural collateral damage and the colossal loss of innocent lives the US inflicted on Iraq. Again not so long ago Bush was 110% behind Israel when it transgressed Lebanons borders killing over 1000 innocent Lebanese civilians as it destroyed infrastructure and bombed apartments in Beirut whilst poisoning the agricultural land and villages for years to come with cluster bombs. All that for far less justification then Russia's intervention.

Russia certainly doesn't need lessons in how to behave on the international stage from a psychopath like Bush or McCain for that matter with his highly paid Georgian lobbyist foreign affairs advisor.