Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[sketchtrack]

I came across this article

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearariel3890624.html

How do you think Russia would respond to an Israeli Nuclear Strike on Iran?

 

[quadraphonics]

Here's one for you guys: what do you call it when a single country recognizes the independence of tiny, non-viable portions of a neighboring state that it has just carved out of a smaller neighbor, where it will keep permanent military bases, and to whose citizens it has already issued passports?

Hint: it starts with "annexation" and ends with "by another name."

 

[meopemuk]

I like the russian articles, they say Russia has nothing to gain through conflict, but they don't give any reasons why.

What did Russia get from this? Now it is out of G8, out of WTO, out of partnership with NATO, out of partnership with EU, isolated in UN... In return Russia got two pieces of delapidated real estate, which it really doesn't want. But there is one more thing, which is above these pragmatic calculations. Russia also got some self-respect for not betraying its friends (and, yes, citizens) in difficult times.

 

[WarPhalange]

Here's one for you guys: what do you call it when a single country recognizes the independence of tiny, non-viable portions of a neighboring state that it has just carved out of a smaller neighbor, where it will keep permanent military bases, and to whose citizens it has already issued passports?

Hint: it starts with "annexation" and ends with "by another name."

Kosovo?

 

[Pyrrhus]

I wonder what's Serbia reaction to Russia recognizing Abrakhazia and South Ossetia...

 

[sketchtrack]

I find it hard to believe that Russia cares less if South Ossetia and Abrakhazia are part of Georgia or not. Is it not obvious that Russia has been in favor of their independence. The fact that the state controlled media in Russia argues, "experts" claim Russia has nothing to gain, while later stating what they do have to gain. Now you act like Russia doesn't care.

Don't get me wrong, maybe South Ossetia and Abrakhazia are better off independent or part of Russia for all I know.

 

[meopemuk]

Take a look at this interview with a Human Rights Watch expert who, in my opinion, gives a well-balanced view of what really happened on the ground in South Ossetia.

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/...explains-the-conflict-in-south-ossetia-video/

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/08/25/human-rights-watch-on-south-ossetia-–-part-2-video/

Regarding the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Medvedev, I think it is a wrong and dangerous move. Before that move, Russia's position and actions were mostly logical and reasonable. However, the recognition of the two republics is in direct contradiction with the point 6 of the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan (i.e., international discussions on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia) signed by all sides just 2 weeks ago. When asked about that in the interview with a BBC reporter, Medvedev's answer was incomprehensible IMHO:

QUESTION: But this violates the agreement that you drew up with President Sarkozy. In accordance with that agreement, negotiations would be held to discuss the future status of these republics. By taking this decision are you not renouncing the agreement that was reached, and does this mean that you think this agreement no longer needs to be implemented?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We are not at all renouncing the agreement. I think the agreement signed by Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, backed by a guaranteed mission carried out by France, Russia and the OSCE, offers the only possible way out of the situation that has arisen. The six principles in the Medvedev-Sarkozy agreement have played their part, including the sixth principle. But we said from the start, and I spoke of this personally with President Sarkozy, that discussions on ensuring security for South Ossetia and Abkhazia would include the question of their status. In this situation we have decided to recognise their independence, and this builds on the sixth principle that we agreed on.

http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/2231_type82915type82916_205790.shtml

Now Russia has positioned itself squarely against the entire world. I don't see anything good coming out of that.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Here's one for you guys: what do you call it when a single country recognizes the independence of tiny, non-viable portions of a neighboring state that it has just carved out of a smaller neighbor, where it will keep permanent military bases, and to whose citizens it has already issued passports?

Hint: it starts with "annexation" and ends with "by another name."

It's an interesting interpretation of "removing troops from Georgia" - simply declare the area your army holds as "no longer part of Georgia."

 

[WarPhalange]

I came across this article

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/iranisraelnuclearariel3890624.html

How do you think Russia would respond to an Israeli Nuclear Strike on Iran?

I find it very disturbing that the website urges a pre-emptive nuclear war with Iran and then on the bottom it asks for aid for Israel in terms of things like food. It takes a special kind of a**hole to do that.

Do you know whether or not that is a mainstream news website in Israel, though, or just something on the fringe?

 

[baywax]

Take a look at this interview with a Human Rights Watch expert who, in my opinion, gives a well-balanced view of what really happened on the ground in South Ossetia.

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/...explains-the-conflict-in-south-ossetia-video/

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/08/25/human-rights-watch-on-south-ossetia-–-part-2-video/

Regarding the recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia by Medvedev, I think it is a wrong and dangerous move. Before that move, Russia's position and actions were mostly logical and reasonable. However, the recognition of the two republics is in direct contradiction with the point 6 of the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan (i.e., international discussions on the future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia) signed by all sides just 2 weeks ago. When asked about that in the interview with a BBC reporter, Medvedev's answer was incomprehensible IMHO:

QUESTION: But this violates the agreement that you drew up with President Sarkozy. In accordance with that agreement, negotiations would be held to discuss the future status of these republics. By taking this decision are you not renouncing the agreement that was reached, and does this mean that you think this agreement no longer needs to be implemented?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: We are not at all renouncing the agreement. I think the agreement signed by Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, backed by a guaranteed mission carried out by France, Russia and the OSCE, offers the only possible way out of the situation that has arisen. The six principles in the Medvedev-Sarkozy agreement have played their part, including the sixth principle. But we said from the start, and I spoke of this personally with President Sarkozy, that discussions on ensuring security for South Ossetia and Abkhazia would include the question of their status. In this situation we have decided to recognise their independence, and this builds on the sixth principle that we agreed on.

http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/speeches/2008/08/26/2231_type82915type82916_205790.shtml

Now Russia has positioned itself squarely against the entire world. I don't see anything good coming out of that.

I really think the world, Russia etc... need to bend to the wishes of the people of Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they want to be considered Russian, so be it. If they want to be part of Georgia, I'm sure that can be arranged. Perhaps Exxon wants to bring them into the company fold... who knows... but I think its up to the people of Ossetia and Abkhazia and the outcome of a referendum there... if there are any pencils and paper left for ballots.

 

[meopemuk]

I really think the world, Russia etc... need to bend to the wishes of the people of Ossetia and Abkhazia. If they want to be considered Russian, so be it. If they want to be part of Georgia, I'm sure that can be arranged. Perhaps Exxon wants to bring them into the company fold... who knows... but I think its up to the people of Ossetia and Abkhazia and the outcome of a referendum there... if there are any pencils and paper left for ballots.

Yes, people of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to be independent. However, the unilateral recognition of their independence by Russia was a very bad move. First, it completely violates agreements signed just two weeks ago. Second, it heats up tensions in the region and in the world in general. Starting from a regional conflict, we now have an international crisis of epic proportions. I think Georgians could have swallowed the eventual independence of the two regions (just as Serbia seems to have swallowed the independence of Kosovo) if this was a gradual negotiated process with international observers, peacekeepers, etc. Now Russia made this orderly transition almost impossible. Even most virulent Georgian opposition will unite around Saakashvili, who is a murderer after all.

 

[baywax]

Yes, people of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia have the right to be independent. However, the unilateral recognition of their independence by Russia was a very bad move. First, it completely violates agreements signed just two weeks ago. Second, it heats up tensions in the region and in the world in general. Starting from a regional conflict, we now have an international crisis of epic proportions. I think Georgians could have swallowed the eventual independence of the two regions (just as Serbia seems to have swallowed the independence of Kosovo) if this was a gradual negotiated process with international observers, peacekeepers, etc. Now Russia made this orderly transition almost impossible. Even most virulent Georgian opposition will unite around Saakashvili, who is a murderer after all.

Because Russia recognizes the independence of a nation doesn't sound like a reason to kill everyone. We do it all the time. I'm sorry to hear Georgia has a murderer for a leader... but, isn't that common for most countries?

 

[meopemuk]

There was some confusion regarding the sixth principle of the Medvedev-Sarkozy plan, which I would like to correct. It appears that discussions of the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia were only in the initial draft. This provision was taken out by the request of Georgians (apparently, they consider this point non-negotiable). So, the final signed document had only "discussions about the security of the two regions". If this is true, then Russia's recognition of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia does not look like a violation of previous agreements. This was a radical move, but well within boundaries of international law.

Is the full text of the agreement available anywere on the Net?

I got my info from this site:

http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=31240&cid=56&p=18.08.2008

"The sixth principle is the launching of an international discussion of a future status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and also ways to guarantee the two republics’ lasting security. Change was later made in the plan’s last point. The final version that Sarkozy agreed with Tbilisi contains no mention of the status, yet the phrase that an international discussion is needed to guarantee security of the former Georgian autonomies certainly implies that the issue cannot be settled outside the status context."

 

[quadraphonics]

Starting from a regional conflict, we now have an international crisis of epic proportions.

I hate to break this to you, but you already had an international crisis of epic proportions on your hands as soon as Russia invaded a US ally in Europe (during the Olympics no less). That's why Sarkozy rushed into get an agreement signed, and coverage of the Olympics fell off of the front pages around the world. The recognition of independence just hardens the positions, discrediting Sarkozy and the EU as non-violent mediators in the dispute (which will cause the EU to take a much harder line towards Moscow in the future, both in terms of NATO enlargement, military posture, and solidarity with the United States).

I think Georgians could have swallowed the eventual independence of the two regions (just as Serbia seems to have swallowed the independence of Kosovo) if this was a gradual negotiated process with international observers, peacekeepers, etc. Now Russia made this orderly transition almost impossible. Even most virulent Georgian opposition will unite around Saakashvili, who is a murderer after all.

Which perhaps gives us some insight into why he launched a doomed invasion of South Ossetia in the first place. If he were of the opinion that the status-quo-ante was going to eventually result in the peaceful separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which would spell his political demise, he would have every reason to choose violent confrontation over the issue. In the first place, there's a chance that he would prevail and keep the territory. But if the territory is going to be lost anyway, it's much better to draw Russia into a violent overreaction, as this will strengthen his bonds with allies and shore up his domestic political position. Allowing them to secede without a fight might well have been fatal to his government. Add to that his presumed certainty that he would do a better job of media outreach than Russia, particularly to the West, and the invasion of South Ossetia becomes the obvious choice.

 

[Pyrrhus]

I hate to break this to you, but you already had an international crisis of epic proportions on your hands as soon as Russia invaded a US ally in Europe (during the Olympics no less). That's why Sarkozy rushed into get an agreement signed, and coverage of the Olympics fell off of the front pages around the world. The recognition of independence just hardens the positions, discrediting Sarkozy and the EU as non-violent mediators in the dispute (which will cause the EU to take a much harder line towards Moscow in the future, both in terms of NATO enlargement, military posture, and solidarity with the United States).

I wonder how Europe will balance your proposed reaction with their dependence on Russian energy.

 

[meopemuk]

I hate to break this to you, but you already had an international crisis of epic proportions on your hands as soon as Russia invaded a US ally in Europe (during the Olympics no less).

I don't see anything wrong with the temporary invasion on the territory of Georgia proper. Georgia was an aggressor there. Russian troops had an obligation to drive Georgians out of the South Ossetian territory, stop the bloodshed, and eliminate the possibility of future attacks. I don't think this could be done by stopping at the S. Ossetia-Georgia border.

When U.S. troops drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuweit (which is widely considered a successful military operation), they didn't stop at the border. They chased Iraqi army well into Iraq's territory and later imposed punishing "no-fly zones".

Which perhaps gives us some insight into why he launched a doomed invasion of South Ossetia in the first place. If he were of the opinion that the status-quo-ante was going to eventually result in the peaceful separation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which would spell his political demise, he would have every reason to choose violent confrontation over the issue. In the first place, there's a chance that he would prevail and keep the territory. But if the territory is going to be lost anyway, it's much better to draw Russia into a violent overreaction, as this will strengthen his bonds with allies and shore up his domestic political position. Allowing them to secede without a fight might well have been fatal to his government. Add to that his presumed certainty that he would do a better job of media outreach than Russia, particularly to the West, and the invasion of South Ossetia becomes the obvious choice.

Yes, you are probably right. This was his strategic calculation. It is sad that lives of innocent people didn't enter his calculus as a variable.

 

[quadraphonics]

I wonder how Europe will balance your proposed reaction with their dependence on Russian energy.

By reducing said dependence, obviously. Europe had been openly working on doing exactly that well before the present flare-up in the Caucusus, and these efforts will only accelerate. Of course, building energy infrastructure takes time, so this will not happen over night. Also note that said dependence is a two-way street: Russia needs strong, and growing, demand for its exports to sustain its economy, so scaring away your biggest costumer is a real problem.

 

[Borek]

In our news coverage these numbers were given: 70% of Russia trade is with EU, 10% of EU trade is with Russia. While some parts of EU (like Poland) can be hit hard if Russia decides to close the gas/oil pipes, it is Russia that will be hit hardest in the long run.

 

[quadraphonics]

I don't see anything wrong with the temporary invasion on the territory of Georgia proper.

Well, that's presumably why you didn't realize it was an international crisis until now...

When U.S. troops drove Saddam Hussein out of Kuweit (which is widely considered a successful military operation), they didn't stop at the border. They chased Iraqi army well into Iraq's territory and later imposed punishing "no-fly zones".

Well, a couple of things: that was very much an international crisis of epic proportions as well, and the United States worked for months assembling a broad coalition of supporters and allies, and worked through the UN to give the effort true international legitimacy (not to mention exhausting the avenues of peaceful resolution). Compare that to America's unilateral invasion of Iraq in 2003, which, while militarily very successful, was widely viewed as illegitimate and so caused a massive international crisis, greatly damaging the United States' standing. And the Russian invasion of Georgia didn't even have as much grounding in international law, nor was it preceded by as serious a diplomatic effort, as the Iraq invasion (which is really saying something).

The thing about legitimate, legal actions is that they must be grounded in a meaningful international process, complete with checks and balances. For Russia to decide, alone, what constitutes a breach of the law, immediately pursue a unilateral military solution, and then expect everyone to approve, and accept whatever settlement Russia imposes through force, does not qualify. That's just naked power.

Note that there's every possibility that, instead of invading, had Russia called up the various European powers with its concerns, and gone to the UN, that NATO would have forced Georgia to withdraw its forces and resume the status-quo. Georgia's unauthorized, unexpected upsetting of the regional order was a huge embarassment to the alliance, and to the United States in particular, who had no appetite for increased tension and committment in the area. Russia would have been seen as responsible and mature, and it would have left Georgia chastened and restrained, as well as greatly bolstered the case for secession of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Russia, however, seems to have judged that a display of military force, and disregard for constraints on it, was preferable, even though it has greatly increased the odds that Russia's purported greatest fear (encirclement by a hostile NATO) will now come to pass. This action predictably overshadowed any concerns about the internal affairs of Georgia in the minds of the rest of the world, solidifying suspicions about Russia's strategic posture that have been growing throughout the Putin era (the mysterious assassinations, the manipulation of energy supplies, the crushing of Chechnya, etc.).

It is sad that lives of innocent people didn't enter his calculus as a variable.

On what planet do the lives of innocent people enter into the strategic calculus of national leaders? Do you honestly believe that concern for the citizens of South Ossetia played any role in Russian calculations beyond its utility as propaganda? Or do you accept that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legitimate because it freed millions of innocent Iraqis from violent tyrrany?

 

[meopemuk]

Note that there's every possibility that, instead of invading, had Russia called up the various European powers with its concerns, and gone to the UN, that NATO would have forced Georgia to withdraw its forces and resume the status-quo.

As far as I know Russia convened a session of the UN Security Council immediately after Georgian invasion. However, for reasons not known to me, Western powers declined the resolution calling for the immediate halt of hostilities. Only after this option was exhausted, and people in Tshinvali continued to die, Russia started the invasion. There was no time to appeal to the world community and "build a coalition."

On what planet do the lives of innocent people enter into the strategic calculus of national leaders? Do you honestly believe that concern for the citizens of South Ossetia played any role in Russian calculations beyond its utility as propaganda? Or do you accept that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legitimate because it freed millions of innocent Iraqis from violent tyrrany?

I am probably naive, but I think that lives of South Ossetians (many of whom are Russian citizens) do matter to Kremlin. I wonder how long would it take U.S. to "build a coalition" for Iraq invasion if hundreds of U.S. citizens were killed in that country on a daily basis?

 

[quadraphonics]

As far as I know Russia convened a session of the UN Security Council immediately after Georgian invasion. However, for reasons not known to me, Western powers declined the resolution calling for the immediate halt of hostilities.

No resolution was ever put on the table. What they tried to do was draft a joint statement, which is a very different thing than a resolution. Nobody knows the exact reasons, as this was a closed-door meeting, but we do know that Georgia told the council that they had already declared a ceasefire by this point, and that both sides were urged to refrain from violence and return to the status quo.

There has only been one resolution put on the table on this issue, a week ago, by France, and it was vetoed by Russia because it required Russia to withdraw all its forces from Georgia proper, and back to the status-quo-ante positions. Russia refuses to do this, even after hostilities have ended.

Only after this option was exhausted, and people in Tshinvali continued to die, Russia started the invasion.

Well, according to Georgia, Russia had already been illegaly moving troops into South Ossetia before the outbreak of hostilities, and a ceasefire had already been put in place in South Ossetia. Russia claims that a genocide was in progress. The truth is probably somewhere in between, but both sides' claims are transparently self-serving, and so deserve strong skepticism. After all, the reasons Georgia gives for invading South Ossetia in the first place are identical: ongoing armed attack on Georgian civilians, with Russian backing/oversight. They say they asked Russia to apply its peacekeeping forces to stop the violence, and were told that the seperatists were beyond Russia's control, and so they had no choice but to invade.

There was no time to appeal to the world community and "build a coalition."

Or so you claim, based entirely on the word of the Russian military and government. Meanwhile Georgia claimed a ceasefire was already in place, and the only independent accounts put the death toll far lower than Russian claims. Anyway, there WAS time when Saddam occupied Kuwait; what's the difference?

I wonder how long would it take U.S. to "build a coalition" for Iraq invasion if hundreds of U.S. citizens were killed in that country on a daily basis?

Probably not long. But, then, the United States is not in the habit of issuing citizenship to entire populations of separatists in other countries and then stationing its military in support of their cause. As I said earlier in this thread, such actions are widely regarded as overt acts of war, virtually guaranteed to emroil the civilians in question in armed conflict.

And, anyway, the whole "we must protect the civilians!" line is insufficient to justify Russia's response, which went far beyond that. What does invading Abkhazia, or trashing the port at Poti, have to do with protecting civilians in South Ossetia? And how many innocent Georgian civilians did Russia kill in the name of protecting innocent Georgian civilians? According to Human Rights Watch, Russia used cluster bombs against heavily populated civilian areas and targetted convoys of civilians fleeing the conflict zone. Even as we speak, the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from areas under Russian control continues unabated, with entire villages being burned to the ground, and entire families dispossessed and terrorized. And yet we're supposed to believe that Russia is motivated by some sentimental notions of protecting civilians?

 

[meopemuk]

After all, the reasons Georgia gives for invading South Ossetia in the first place are identical: ongoing armed attack on Georgian civilians, with Russian backing/oversight. They say they asked Russia to apply its peacekeeping forces to stop the violence, and were told that the seperatists were beyond Russia's control, and so they had no choice but to invade.

It is not a secret that clashes between Ossetian and Georgian militias/troops took place even before August 7th. Then, as numerous witnesses said, on the evening of August 7th Saakhashvili went on TV with a major address to Ossetian people promising them that his troops will no longer respond to Ossetian fire, and that he wants to live in peace with Ossetian people, and that he wants to resolve the conflict by negotiations, blah-blah-blah. Many Tshinvali residents believed him and decided to finally spend the night in their beds rather than hide in basements. Then it was quiet for a few hours (one Russian journalist has sworn that there was no fire at all on both sides, which was quite unusual) until shortly before midnight, when a barrage of Georgian "Grad" rockets hit Tshinvali (at this point Russian delegation started to arrange some kind of resolution at UN). The shelling continued until the morning. After that Georgian tanks entered the city, and infantry followed. Ossetian irregulars fought for their homes and families. Regular Russian troops started to arrive only in the afternoon. In spite of Saakhashvili's "ceasefire", his troops continued to resist and the battle for Tshinvali continued for another day or two. Soon after, Georgian army was defeated, ran back to Georgian territory and was chased by Russian tanks.

This is the general picture of events, which I compiled from different reliable sources (interviews with local residents, stories of journalists that were on the scene, Human Rights Watch investigations, etc.), and which looks realistic to me. Do you have another story to tell?

 

[meopemuk]

And, anyway, the whole "we must protect the civilians!" line is insufficient to justify Russia's response, which went far beyond that. What does invading Abkhazia, or trashing the port at Poti, have to do with protecting civilians in South Ossetia? And how many innocent Georgian civilians did Russia kill in the name of protecting innocent Georgian civilians? According to Human Rights Watch, Russia used cluster bombs against heavily populated civilian areas and targetted convoys of civilians fleeing the conflict zone. Even as we speak, the ethnic cleansing of Georgians from areas under Russian control continues unabated, with entire villages being burned to the ground, and entire families dispossessed and terrorized. And yet we're supposed to believe that Russia is motivated by some sentimental notions of protecting civilians?

I am not going to defend Russians in every case. Once a war started it develops by its own rules or by no rules at all. Bombs fall in places where they are not supposed to fall (just recently U.S. military killed more than 70 civilians in an air raid in Afghanistan, which could be a tragic mistake), civilians mix with soldiers and get killed for no good reason, etc. War is a mess, and this is why it is important to keep it in check. In my opinion, this war started in earnest from the bombardment of Tshinvali, and Saakhashvili bears the full responsibility for starting it.

I also think that Russian army could do a better job at protecting Georgian residents from looting by Ossetian irregulars.

You would probably agree that at this moment some kind of peace and tranquility is enforced in the region. This peace is ugly, but there are no more mass killings. So, the goal of the military operation has been achieved. The toll of human lives is huge, indeed, but something tells me that it could be much worse without decisive Russian intervention.

 

[seycyrus]

Imy opinion, this war started in earnest from the bombardment of Tshinvali, and Saakhashvili bears the full responsibility for starting it.

In my opinion this conflict started in earnest some time before that, directly as a result of the actions of the S.Ossettians/Russian militia/"peacekeepers" who acted according to the carefully contrived machinations of the Russians.

The Truth About Russia in Georgia
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

You would probably agree that at this moment some kind of peace and tranquility is enforced in the region.

A peace and tranquility would have been enforced if Georgia had been able to occupy S. Ossettia as well.

 

[WmLambert]

Here is information from a Russian journalist who recently returned from Georgia. It was sent by a poster at another forum. I've asked him to tweak the translation because the internet translator is still pretty sketchy. ...Something about bombing the pipeline, gasoline trucks being comandeered, and Georgian enclaves.

http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/code/535706-echo/

"...
Ну, прежде всего, как я уже сказала, самое главное все-таки происходило в Грузии, потому что речь идет о российско-грузинской войне, подчеркиваю. Потому что когда удар по стране наносится с двух фронтов, то есть с Абхазии и с Южной Осетии, когда в конфликте задействовано больше 20 тысяч человек – видимо, где-то в районе 25 тысяч была российская армия, несколько сот танков, - когда наносятся ракетные удары, когда летает стратегический бомбардировщик – ну, пусть он летает один, и не очень понятно, что он там делает, когда наносятся ракетные удары ракетными комплексами «Искандер» - я не очень, признаться, в это верила, что «Искандер» бил по Грузии, стрелял из Дагестана, как заявляли грузинские власти, но они предъявили две фотографии двух «Искандеров», один из которых, по словам грузинских властей, ударил по нефтепроводу Баку-Супса, нефтепровод в этот момент не действовал, то есть неизвестно, он поврежден или нет, другой, по их словам, бил по площади в Гори – ну, вот он там валяется, он там сфотографирован, на нем соответствующие маркировки. Понятно, что я не специалист и я не знаю, «Искандер» это или нет, но выяснить это нетрудно. То есть понятно, когда речь идет о таких вот новейших полевых испытаниях хорошего оружия и о масштабных действиях фронтов, это именно российско-грузинская война, причем давно спланированная. Понятно, что такие людские массы, особенно в России, не разворачиваются ни за день, ни за два – они для своего развертывания, как мы видим, требуют ремонта железнодорожных путей в Абхазии железнодорожными войсками, которые, собственно, у нас и занимаются тем, что приготовляют плацдарм для поддержки и для обеспечения техники. И говорить о том, что это война за Южную Осетию, это приблизительно то же, как если бы Вторую мировую войну объясняли битва за права немцев в Судетах. У этой войны есть вторая составляющая – именно южно-осетинская, и в ней масса занимательных деталей, гораздо менее масштабных, но очень важных для понимания всего произошедшего. Потому что с чего, например, начался конфликт в 2004-м году между Грузией и Южной Осетией? Там была война за бензовоз. Тогда миротворцы российские торговали еще бензином, поймали грузины левый бензовоз, генерал Набздыров, тогдашний командующий миротворцами, послал на выручку бензовоза миротворцев, грузины их не пустили, на выручку бензовоза двинулась бронетехника с российской стороны, грузины ответили тем же. Ну, в конечном итоге грузины установили контроль над грузинскими анклавами в Южной Осетии, а осетинское население пошло в окопы, и так оно, собственно, в тех окопах и осталось, потому что сначала оно получало 2,5 тысячи за то, что сидело в окопах, потом 4, потом 5, писали 5, вернее, расписывались за 8, получали 5, и, в общем-то, никакой другой работы в Южной Осетии для взрослых мужчин не было, и это кончилось тем, чем кончилось. Вообще в этой истории есть масса совершенно поразительных подробностей. Например, с того момента, когда я поняла, что собственно один из основных конфликтов, один из основных побудительных мотивов, благодаря которым Саакашвили принял решение первым нанести удар, была судьба жителей грузинского анклава, расположенного между Джавой и Цхинвали, то есть отрезанного от основной Грузии, Саакашвили нанес удар после того, как впервые за всю историю грузино-осетинского конфликта этот анклав начали обстреливать из артиллерии, тяжелой артиллерии, как из Цхинвали, так и со стороны Джавы, то есть стирая его с лица земли, – совершенно точно, это я слыхала не от военных, это я слыхала от тех людей, которые убежали из Тамарашени, из Курты, из Кехви - из этих сел, которые сносились, подчеркиваю, до того, как Саакашвили нанес удар по Цхинвали. И я никак не могла понять – а как им, собственно, удалось убежать-то? Я их спрашивала, я спрашивала других людей – я получила удивительный ответ на этот вопрос, который заключался в том, что там стоял чеченский миротворческий пост, то есть пост Ямадаева, и дорогу Транскам уже начиная с 9-го чистили уже как российские, так и чеченские части, прорываясь к Цхинвали. И вот, собственно, чеченцы обеспечили один из основных путей отхода для этих жителей, причем они реально им помогали – они, конечно, отбирали оружие, а иногда и машины, но все-таки это чеченцы. Но тем не менее они говорили – вы нас спасли, приютив в Грузии во время Чеченской войны, чеченцы этого не забудут - и, видимо, если бы чеченцы этого не сделали, то России пришлось бы отвечать за очень серьезную этническую чистку, потому что понятно, что произошло бы с жителями этого анклава, когда пришли бы мародеры. Вот это такие несколько стратегических вещей и чисто тактических, которые сталкиваются во всей этой истории.

Собственно, говоря о том, как это развивалось. Есть отношения России и Грузии. Отношения России и Грузии заключаются в том, что давно уже в России пропагандировался образ Грузии, образ Саакашвили как некоего развязного диктатора, в то время как реальная причина недовольства режимом Саакашвили, конечно, заключалась в том, что Грузия при нем становилась европейской страной.

My translation:

Well, first of all as 4 already has told, quite principal nevertheless proiskhodilo in Georgia, because the discussion deals with the Russian-Georgian war, to I emphasize. Therefore that when the impact in the country is applied from two fronts, i.e., from Abkhaziya and from South Osetia, when in the conflict are begun to operate more than 20 thousand people - apparently, somewhere in the region of 25 thousand Was Russian army, several hundred tanks, when are delivered the missile strikes, when flies strategic bomber - well, let it fly one, and it is not very understandable that it there will make, when are delivered the missile strikes by the missile complexes Of "iskander" - 4 not very, it acknowledged, into this Trusted, that "iskander" beat on Georgia, shot from Daghestan as declared Georgian authorities, but they pred "showed two photographs of two" Iskanderov ", one of which, according to the Georgian authorities, it struck the oil pipeline of Baku -Supsa, oil pipeline at this moment did not act, i.e., it is unknown, it was damaged or no, another, according to them, beaters on the area in Gori - well, here it there is dragged along, it is there photographed, on it the appropriating markings. It is understandable that 4 not specialist even 4 not to I know, "iskander" this or not, but explained this not difficult. I.e., it is understandable, when the discussion deals with such here newest field tests a good weapon and about the scale operations of fronts, this is precisely Russian-Georgian war, moreover long ago planned. It is understandable that such human masses, especially in Russia, not tyuey are developed neither in the day nor for two - they for its development, as we see, tyuey require the repair of railway lines in Abkhaziya by railroad troops, which, strictly, are engaged fact that tyuey prepare bridgehead for the support and for guaranteeing the technology. And he spoke o that that this is war for South Osetia, this approximately the same, as if World War II explained battle for the rights of Germans in Sudetakh. In this war is second component - precisely southern- ossetic, and in it the mass of entertaining details, much less scale, but very important for understanding in all event. Therefore that from what, for example, did begin conflict 2004- m to year between Georgia and South Osetia? War for the gasoline tank truck there was. Then the peacemakers Russian dealt another gasoline, they caught Georgians left gasoline tank truck, the General Of nabzdyrov, komanduyushchiy of those days by peacemakers, has sent to the gain the gasoline tank truck of peacemakers, their Georgians did not release, the armament from the Russian side moved to the gain of gasoline tank truck, Georgians answered by the same. Well, in the the final sum Georgians established control over Georgian by enclaves in South Osetia, and ossetic population went into the entrenchments, and so it, strictly, in those entrenchments and it remained, because first it obtained 2,5 thousands for the fact that sat in the entrenchments, then 4, then 5, they wrote with 5, it is more accurate, they were painted for 8, they obtained 5, and, in general, no other work in South Osetia for the adult men it was, and this ended by the fact, by which it ended. Generally in this history there is the mass completely striking details. For example, from that moment, when I understood that strictly one of the basic conflicts, one of the the basic motive motives, because of which Saakashvili of has accepted the solution to the first applied the impact, was the fate of the inhabitants of the Georgian of enclave, located between The the dzhavoy and Tskhinvali, i.e., cut off from basic Georgia, Saakashvili substituted the impact after for the first time in entire history of the Georgian- ossetic conflict this enclave they began it fired from the artillery, the heavy artillery both of Tskhinvali and from the side Of dzhavy, i.e., erasing him from face of the earth, it is completely accurately, this I heard not from the servicemen, this I heard from those people, which ran away from Tamarasheni, from the jacket, from Kekhvi - from these villages, which they were carried, to I emphasize, before To Saakashvili substituted impact according to Tskhinvali. And 4 in no way it could he did understand - and as by them, strictly, it did succeed run away? 4 them it asked, I asked other people - I received surprising answer to this question, which consist in the fact that there stood is Chechen peacemaking the post, i.e., the post Of yamadayeva, and road trans-KAM already beginning from the 9th cleaned already both Russian and Chechen parts, bursting open to Tskhinvali. And here, strictly, Chechens ensured one of the basic withdrawal routes for these inhabitants, they actually to them helping - they, of course, selected weapon, and sometimes and machine, but nevertheless these are Chechens. But nevertheless they spoke - you us rescued, after sheltering in Georgia during the Chechen war, the Chechens of this will not forget - and, apparently, if the Chechens of this did not make, then Russia it would be necessary it would answer for very serious ethnic cleaning, because it is understandable that it would occur with by the inhabitants of this of the enclave, when marauders would arrive. Here this such several strategic things and purely tactical, which collide in this entire history.

Strictly, speaking about how this developed. There are relations of Russia and Georgia. The relations of Russia and Georgia cosist in the fact that long ago already in Russia it was propagandized the pattern of Georgia, the pattern of Saakashvili as a certain pert dictator, while the real reason for dissatisfaction with the mode of Saakashvili, certainly, concluded in the fact that Georgia with it became the European country.

 

[WmLambert]

BTW: the "Iskander" is a Russian-produced missile system.

 

[meopemuk]

The Truth About Russia in Georgia
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

On Russia Today I saw an interview with the main character featuring in this article. He has a media consulting firm based in the lobby of one of Tbilisi hotels. By his own admission his job is to wage global "information war" on the side of Georgia. I don't know about his buddy writer. But I don't count them as impartial and independent observers.

 

[meopemuk]

Hi WmLambert,

for me your quoted piece is nothing but an evidence of openness of modern Russian media which allows all kinds of opinions on the airwaves. Apparently this journalist hasn't seen anything interesting by her own eyes and simply repeats bizarre rumors and dubious newspaper articles.

 

[mheslep]

Putin has a word or two.

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said on Thursday he suspected unnamed persons in the United States had provoked the conflict in Georgia in an attempt to help a candidate in the U.S. presidential election.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSLS69865120080828
Yes, just as the US provoked the Russians into Hungary and Czechoslovakia

 

[meopemuk]

Yes, just as the US provoked the Russians into Hungary and Czechoslovakia

Why did you decide to remind us about Czechoslovakia? The president of Czechia Vaclav Klaus (who should know a thing or two about events of 1968) said that there are no parallels with 1968 events:

"Meanwhile, the Czech President Vaclav Klaus has criticised his colleagues from Poland and the Baltic states for lambasting Russia's actions in South Ossetia.
The Czech leader says he won't follow the line portraying Russia as bad and Georgia as good.
He dismissed the comparison of recent events with the so-called Prague spring, when Soviet tanks entered Czechoslovakia.
Klaus said the widespread recognition of Kosovo has influenced the problems in Georgia.
The Czech President also called on all sides to settle their differences as soon as possible."

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29069

 

[mheslep]

Why did you decide to remind us about Czechoslovakia?

I was having some fun with Putin's "US provoked us into Georgia" statement. BTW, there are Russian revisionist military officials stating to this day that those 50/60's invasions were done for the good of the world.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29069

Why would you post a link from any Russian state controlled (and they all are) media outlet?

 

[WmLambert]

Much of the conflict over South Ossetia is over and above simple separatism. Russia is angry over Israel buddying up to Georgia and Kurdistan. When Georgia captured Tiblisi on August 11th, it was with the help of an estimated 1,000 Israeli advisers. Putin argued that he would ratchet up his military threat to Israel if it didn't distance themselves from Georgia.

His reaction is to put Russian-controlled Iskander cruise missiles in Syria. (These missiles are nuclear-capable.) He has said they will be totally under his control - and that none will make their way to Iran. See here and http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5540

 

[meopemuk]

Why would you post a link from any Russian state controlled (and they all are) media outlet?

Here is Czech media report for you about statements made by V. Klaus

http://www.radio.cz/en/article/107261

 

[meopemuk]

The Truth About Russia in Georgia
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

This story goes:

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.

However, I also found a Turkish website http://www.turkishforum.com/content...m-the-ministry-of-foreign-affairs-of-georgia/ which contains official "Timeline by 12th of August From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Georgia" which says that on August 8th

5:30 First Russian troops enter through Roki tunnel South Ossetia, passed Java, crossed Gufta bridge and moved by Dzara road towards Tskhinvali.

This means that Russian troops appeared in South Ossetia at least 5:30 hours later than Georgian regular army started to shell Tshinvali by "Grad" multiple missile launchers. The shelling started before midnight as numerous witnesses reported. So, these two (heavily biased toward the Georgian side) reports completely contradict each other. Can you believe Georgians if they can't tell their story straight?

 

[OAQfirst]

Can you believe Georgians if they can't tell their story straight?

So we have Putin who accuses the U.S. of putting Georgia up to provocation, and Georgia which is contradictory.

I don't know what to believe anymore.