Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[Borek]

evidence of openness of modern Russian media which allows all kinds of opinions on the airwaves

Sad joke. Russian media seems to be open and allowing only as long as they are seen as harmless by the government. Once they do, state has many ways of dealing with them.

Sure, I am basing my opinion on what I read outside of Russia, so it could be that whole world is prejudiced. Somehow I find it hard to believe.

My neighbor have spent 2 years in Moscow, working for some Polish company selling building materials. At the beginning everything went smooth, but once the political tensions between Poland and Russia grew it was much harder and harder to sell anything for no apparent reasons. Last December he decided it doesn't make sense and he get back to Poland. Here he have learned that as we are building more and more thanks to EU funds, we need more and more cement and the cement price skyrocketed, as Polish industry was not ready to produce such large quantities. As he had already contacts and enough money to try to make some money on import he asked cement sellers in Russia if they have cement available. Yes, they do. Will they sell cement to Poland? Не лзя. That's economic freedom in Russian. Sorry, I have no reasons to think press freedom looks diferent.

 

[Andre]

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.

Any idea how much preparation it takes reacting, before you have an army from the baracks into charging ahead? Think in weeks rather than hours. This leaves no conclusion that somebody knew what was coming.

 

[seycyrus]

...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.

Let's see the admission.

 

[meopemuk]

Let's see the admission.

 

[meopemuk]

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.

I usually don't believe in conspiracy theories, but here is one for you.

Look objectively at who has benefited from this debacle:

Russia? No. Now it is isolated in the world, with good prospect of economic sanctions and nothing of value in return. Putin and Medvedev seem to be sharp enough to calculate this outcome in advance if they were the ones who planned this conflict.

Georgia? No. Saakhashvili knew quite well what would be Russia's response and that he cannot win this war.

There is one clear winner in this war: John McCain. In times of cold war and military confrontation the nation doesn't need a black liberal with a strange-sounding name as a president. The nation needs a tough military hero who will save the world from Russian domination.

I can imagine these words said by Condy Rice when she visited Saakhashvili in July: "Misha, this is a tough job, but you can do it. Of course, Russians will beat you up and you'll lose South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But you've lost the trust of people living in these territories long ago anyway. You'll start this war and we'll make sure that this will escalate into a new cold war with Russia. Our friend John will be elected as a president, and John won't let you down. You'll get NATO membership and whatever you want from us."

Don't you see from the history of preparations to the Iraq war that neocons will not stop at anything (including deliberate lies to the American people and to the UN) when they want something. They surely want very much to remain in the White House. Do you think they'll limit their election campaign to townhouse meetings and TV advertisements? What if a little provocation in remote Georgia can increase their chances?

Yesterday Russians found an American passport in one of buildings defended by Georgian commandos:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080827/plane_georgia_080828/20080828?hub=World

Who was this guy? An unfortunate American tourist found himself in the conflict zone? I doubt that.

 

[WmLambert]

Any idea how much preparation it takes reacting, before you have an army from the baracks into charging ahead? Think in weeks rather than hours. This leaves no conclusion that somebody knew what was coming.

More importantly, the particular elite Moscow-based troops that entered into South Ossetia had been pre-positioned there. This was no simple on-site reaction.

Also, the posts I've shared said the Separatists had been attacking the Gerorgian enclaves in South Ossetia. The Georgian claim seems to be that most Georgians had been driven out of the area already, and the Separatists were entrenched in the target area.

 

[meopemuk]

Also, the posts I've shared said the Separatists had been attacking the Gerorgian enclaves in South Ossetia. The Georgian claim seems to be that most Georgians had been driven out of the area already, and the Separatists were entrenched in the target area.

Oh yes, Ossetian separatists are blood-thirsty monsters and Georgians are as innocent as newborn babies. Give me a break.

 

[mheslep]

I usually don't believe in conspiracy theories, but here is one for you.

Look objectively at who has benefited from this debacle:

Russia? No. Now it is isolated in the world, with good prospect of economic sanctions and nothing of value in return. Putin and Medvedev seem to be sharp enough to calculate this outcome in advance if they were the ones who planned this conflict.

Georgia? No. Saakhashvili knew quite well what would be Russia's response and that he cannot win this war.

There is one clear winner in this war: John McCain. In times of cold war and military confrontation the nation doesn't need a black liberal with a strange-sounding name as a president. The nation needs a tough military hero who will save the world from Russian domination.

I can imagine these words said by Condy Rice when she visited Saakhashvili in July: "Misha, this is a tough job, but you can do it. Of course, Russians will beat you up and you'll lose South Ossetia and Abkhazia. But you've lost the trust of people living in these territories long ago anyway. You'll start this war and we'll make sure that this will escalate into a new cold war with Russia. Our friend John will be elected as a president, and John won't let you down. You'll get NATO membership and whatever you want from us."

Don't you see from the history of preparations to the Iraq war that neocons will not stop at anything (including deliberate lies to the American people and to the UN) when they want something. They surely want very much to remain in the White House. Do you think they'll limit their election campaign to townhouse meetings and TV advertisements? What if a little provocation in remote Georgia can increase their chances?

Yesterday Russians found an American passport in one of buildings defended by Georgian commandos:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080827/plane_georgia_080828/20080828?hub=World

Who was this guy? An unfortunate American tourist found himself in the conflict zone? I doubt that.

Yes, of course, it was the neocons, whoever they are. This is crackpottery.

 

[quadraphonics]

In times of cold war and military confrontation the nation doesn't need a black liberal with a strange-sounding name as a president. The nation needs a tough military hero who will save the world from Russian domination.

Well, that logic would be salient if the presidential election in question were in, say, the Baltic states, or Ukraine, or maybe Poland. Or Georgia. But it's going to take a lot more than this to make Americans worry about Russian domination. The military spending of NATO runs to around half of Russia's GDP, so a "New Cold War" wouldn't amount to a whole lot. With the West remaining strong, and Asia outgrowing Russia, the whole affair looks more like the flailing of a former superpower that hasn't fully grasped its dimunition to a second-tier power.

 

[meopemuk]

Well, that logic would be salient if the presidential election in question were in, say, the Baltic states, or Ukraine, or maybe Poland. Or Georgia. But it's going to take a lot more than this to make Americans worry about Russian domination. The military spending of NATO runs to around half of Russia's GDP, so a "New Cold War" wouldn't amount to a whole lot. With the West remaining strong, and Asia outgrowing Russia, the whole affair looks more like the flailing of a former superpower that hasn't fully grasped its dimunition to a second-tier power.

I am far from suggesting that Russia-Georgia affair is a major issue of American politics right now. But it makes a good talking point and a definite advantage to McCain. The two candidates are 50/50 in the polls, so every little bit helps. Moreover, we are still 2 months before the election day, many things can happen between now and then.

 

[Art]

Well, that logic would be salient if the presidential election in question were in, say, the Baltic states, or Ukraine, or maybe Poland. Or Georgia. But it's going to take a lot more than this to make Americans worry about Russian domination. The military spending of NATO runs to around half of Russia's GDP, so a "New Cold War" wouldn't amount to a whole lot. With the West remaining strong, and Asia outgrowing Russia, the whole affair looks more like the flailing of a former superpower that hasn't fully grasped its dimunition to a second-tier power.

It is not necessarily about whoever spends the most wins.

Just as a handful of fanatics can cause America to spend trillions of dollars counteracting whatever they may do then I imagine for a relatively small sum Russia could cause America and her allies to spend a hugely disproportionate sum in counter-measures.

It's a pity that after the end of the cold war Russia's request to join NATO was rejected and IMO also a pity that Russia wasn't invited to join the EU as that would have guaranteed peace on the European continent for generations.

In 2002 a survey showed 52% of Russians were in favour of joining the EU and a majority of 2:1 thought improving relations with Europe was more important than improving relations with the US. http://bd.english.fom.ru/report/map/yefimoff/ed021932

Unfortunately it seems the moment has now passed.

 

[Borek]

It's a pity that after the end of the cold war Russia's request to join NATO was rejected

Can you refresh my memory - I don't remember such a moment.

 

[Art]

Can you refresh my memory - I don't remember such a moment.

From 1994

Although NATO rejected a formal special relationship with Russia, it acknowledged that Russia's size, history and military capabilities indeed make it special.

The plan outlines a framework for joint training exercises and exchanges of information about military doctrine, weaponry and standards. It envisions giving all Warsaw Pact countries the same status, without the usual defense commitment that accompanies full membership. The NATO Tightrope

Poland, Hungary and other countries had hoped to become full members, but Moscow made clear that full membership would be seen as a threat to its security.

If NATO opened its doors to the countries of the east, Russia would certainly not be the first to be allowed to join because other countries have gone further in creating democratic and capitalist systems.

In a sign of just how sensitive Russia considers the issue of full NATO membership, Mr. Kozyrev and his delegation vigorously protested a phrase in the draft communique that said active participation in the partnership program would play an important role in the evolutionary process of the expansion of NATO.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9501E2DD103AF932A25755C0A962958260 Denied full membership Russia reluctantly agreed to a kind of junior partner status whereby she got to take part in joint exercises etc...

Unsurprisingly given that all other former Eastern bloc countries are being enrolled in NATO as fast as can be accommodated Russia now feels that despite claims to the contrary NATO is aimed at them and one does wonder what exactly is NATO's role supposed to be these days if not to threaten Russia??

 

[Borek]

The plan outlines a framework for joint training exercises and exchanges of information about military doctrine, weaponry and standards. It envisions giving all Warsaw Pact countries the same status, without the usual defense commitment that accompanies full membership. The NATO Tightrope Poland, Hungary and other countries had hoped to become full members, but Moscow made clear that full membership would be seen as a threat to its security.

So it was a Russian attempt to use Eastern Europe countries for its own purposes. We were sold by Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin during IIWW, Russians hoped to repeat the trick for the second time. Luckily it didn't work this time.

 

[Minich]

The Russians had peacekeepers in South Ossetia (Georgia claimed that the "peacekeepers" were in fact supporting the seperatists). As far as I know, when Georgia went into South Ossetia some of them were killed.

Georgia don't went into South Ossetia immidiately. In 15.00 Aug 7 Georgian peacekeeping officers left all peace keeping forces posts. At night Saakashvili said by TV that he likes ossetin people. About 23.00 artillery and rocket bombing began of all ossetin villages and TSkhinvali.

It were not point-like weapons, but area weapons. For example jew city area in Tskhinvaly, the eldest in town, was destroyed completely (why do you think Israel is reconsidering military help to Saakashvili?).

Fire at pearcekeeping posts (as i said Georgian officers left them in advance) began several hours later, when post were completely circled. About 12 russian solgers were killed. They began fighting for more than 36 hours ( so was the time to make the decision by our President 15.00 of 8 Aug) and to go the mountain road more than 200km by our tanks from Russia to Tshinvaly through Georgian villages on the territory of South Ossetia.

For refugees it was awfull road, (alternative road controlled by ossetin people to russia is much more long and hard for women and children, another roads are absent), because of fire. Georgian troops fired buses and cars with refugees on those roads. They even wounded the cheif commander of our ARMY on this main road heading tank group.

It costs russia 70 solgiers deaths. And about 2000 casualties of civillians.

There were facts when georgian tank knock down old woman with 2 her grand childs, when georgian bolted womens and children in church and fired the church.

It was action to free the territory from people by any cost.
Our PKF troops didn't fleed, as Keyfor in Srebrenitsa and didn't leave the ordinary people to be murdered.
Why, do you think our tanks were met by ossetin people with roses and in tears?

Furthemore, Russia had given Russian passports to some of the South Ossetians. I have absolutely no idea whether this was legal under international law, but anyway, again this means that Russian citizens were killed. Russian president Medvedev was referring to this on TV.

About 50% of people living in South Ossetia are russian citizens. Russian law is to give citizenship to all citizens of former USSR who want it. Why not? We all lived in one country. Who is guilty, that he went for example to Estonia for a job, or married georgian girl?

After the Greate Criminal Revolution of Eltsin-Gorbatchov the first Georgian President Gamsahurdia claimed:
Georgia for the Georgians (meaning equivalent=for georgian of georgian nationality).
He annuled autonomy of Ossetia and Abhasia and began wars against them. Thousands were killed, hundreds thousand became refugees.

 

[WmLambert]

About 50% of people living in South Ossetia are russian citizens. Russian law is to give citizenship to all citizens of former USSR who want it. Why not? We all lived in one country. Who is guilty, that he went for example to Estonia for a job, or married georgian girl?

Doesn't matter if Russia gives paper to any who will take it, and then call them Russian citizens. Earlier, Russia did keep North Ossetia as a client state, but brushed off South Ossetia as a province, so that when it broke away from the old USSR, it became independent. The Separatists didn't like this, being pro-Russian, and agitated for Russia not to cut them off. This group was a small part of the South Ossetian populace.

As a part of Georgia, South Ossetia had all Georgian citizens. If Canada, or Portugal gave people in South Ossetian papers, would that make them citizens of Canada and Portugal?

 

[lisab]

In times of cold war and military confrontation the nation doesn't need a black liberal with a strange-sounding name as a president.

Wow, that comment is very revealing...of you.

 

[Minich]

Doesn't matter if Russia gives paper to any who will take it, and then call them Russian citizens. Earlier, Russia did keep North Ossetia as a client state, but brushed off South Ossetia as a province, so that when it broke away from the old USSR, it became independent. The Separatists didn't like this, being pro-Russian, and agitated for Russia not to cut them off. This group was a small part of the South Ossetian populace.

As a part of Georgia, South Ossetia had all Georgian citizens. If Canada, or Portugal gave people in South Ossetian papers, would that make them citizens of Canada and Portugal?

I try to explain some law facts.
1. According to the Constitution of my country (former USSA), any republic of USSR (Russia federation and Georgia for example) can withdraw and get independence from the USSR by referendum. But there was a condition, that if republuc has autonomous regions (Georgia had Abhasia, Adjaria and South Ossetia), then autonomous regions independently decide: to stay in USSR, get independence of or stay within Georgia.

Abhasia and South Ossetia decided to stay with Russian Federation (on referendum). And it is their right.

Georgia didn't accept that and had two wars with Abhasia and South Ossetia, canceled the autonomies. Wars were severed and were accompanied with ethnic cleansizing.

Wars were stopped in 1992-1993 and there were international treaty about peace keeping forces of Georgian, Ossetian, Abhasian and Russin troops to maintain peace.

Do You consider Eltsin as separatist? Then let us begin rebuild new USSR... Take Kiev by force and Tbilisi. Other former republics themselves ask for union.2. When Eltsin and two other criminals decided to crash Gorbachov and USSR, and came to power in fragments of the USSR (Russia, Ukraine, Belorussia) , nevertheless there was a special point in their criminal treaty about citizenship, that every citizen of the former USSR can obtain the citizenship of every fragment of the former USSR, even if he lives in another fragment. That criminal treaty was later adopted by all fragments (including Georgia).

3. Please distingvish! Russia gives citizensip! What is it paper? If Canada gives paper (citizen's passport) do You mean Canada gives it for toilet purposes?

They are our full citizens. For example old people receive pensions from Russia and they have all rights of russian citizen.

4. It is a greate pity that micro Fuerer with garvard accent Saakashvili sent young boys - cannon fodder (reservists) to fight against peaceful people, and they were killed in clashes with our army. There were killed 70 russian soldiers and i think that there were killed georgian soldiers much more than 1000.
I saw on TV a huge truck full of trophy Kalashnikov near Gori (the homeland of Stalin).

 

[meopemuk]

Wow, that comment is very revealing...of you.

Sorry, you missed my sarcazm. These are not my words. These are the ideas, which somebody in Washington DC is (hypothetically) trying to insert in people's minds by escalating peacekeeping operations in the Caucasus to the level of next world war. I guess this somebody has calculated that higher international tensions give advantage to McCain over Obama. I will vote for Obama in November. I hope I made myself clear now.

 

[lisab]

Sorry, you missed my sarcazm. These are not my words. These are the ideas, which somebody in Washington DC is (hypothetically) trying to insert in people's minds by escalating peacekeeping operations in the Caucasus to the level of next world war. I guess this somebody has calculated that higher international tensions give advantage to McCain over Obama. I will vote for Obama in November. I hope I made myself clear now.

OK, yes I missed it. My apologies. I know how it is...I can be quite sardonic myself, it's hard to get that across on a computer screen.

As far as the conspiriacy hypothesis...well, I'm not prone to conspiracies myself, but don't you think if it was intended to help McCain, it would have happened a lot closer to the Dem's convention? It was about a month before, and McCain didn't jump to take advantage of it, IMO. At least, he didn't do it effectively.

 

[meopemuk]

OK, yes I missed it. My apologies. I know how it is...I can be quite sardonic myself, it's hard to get that across on a computer screen.

As far as the conspiriacy hypothesis...well, I'm not prone to conspiracies myself, but don't you think if it was intended to help McCain, it would have happened a lot closer to the Dem's convention? It was about a month before, and McCain didn't jump to take advantage of it, IMO. At least, he didn't do it effectively.

This issue seems to be a definite plus for McCain. I remember that McCain delivered a big speech about that just a few hours after Russians took Tshinvali. It seemed that the speech was well-prepared as if it was written beforehand. But these are just speculations within the framework of the conspiracy theory.

It would be interesting to see how much emphasis on the US-Russia relations will be at the Republican Convention next week. Democrats didn't talk much about that. If the conspiracy theory is correct then McCain will make it THE major issue of his foreign policy agenda and he will kick Obama for not understanding what is going on.

 

[lisab]

This issue seems to be a definite plus for McCain. I remember that McCain delivered a big speech about that just a few hours after Russians took Tshinvali. It seemed that the speech was well-prepared as if it was written beforehand. But these are just speculations within the framework of the conspiracy theory.

It would be interesting to see how much emphasis on the US-Russia relations will be at the Republican Convention next week. Democrats didn't talk much about that. If the conspiracy theory is correct then McCain will make it THE major issue of his foreign policy agenda and he will kick Obama for not understanding what is going on.

That tactic could backfire, seeing as he just appointed Palin. On the Russian aggression issue, she doesn't compare well to Biden...whew, not even close (living in the only state to border Russia does not make her qualified !). I agree that this issue could have been a big plus for McCain, but I think he took the air out of that advantage by choosing her.

 

[meopemuk]

but don't you think if it was intended to help McCain, it would have happened a lot closer to the Dem's convention?

Perhaps they miscalculated how swift the response of Russians will be.

 

[meopemuk]

That tactic could backfire, seeing as he just appointed Palin. On the Russian aggression issue, she doesn't compare well to Biden...whew, not even close (living in the only state to border Russia does not make her qualified !). I agree that this issue could have been a big plus for McCain, but I think he took the air out of that advantage by choosing her.

Yes, that's a fair point. 1:0 against the conspiracy theory.

 

[Art]

So it was a Russian attempt to use Eastern Europe countries for its own purposes. We were sold by Roosevelt and Churchill to Stalin during IIWW, Russians hoped to repeat the trick for the second time. Luckily it didn't work this time.

Not sure how you construe that? Russia had allowed the peaceful secession of it's former client states and it's request that in return these states did not aid and abet the USA and it's allies in threatening it's borders seems quite a reasonable position.

Your response though epitomises the problem Russia had following the break up of the USSR. Although the cold war was officially over some folk just couldn't then, and many still can't, let go of the old stereotyping. As I said earlier it was an opportunity lost, where Russia could have and should have been fully integrated into the 'Western' world, and now it seems certain Western nations are hell bent on starting a new cold war, with countries like the UK supplying the bellicose rhetoric and the USA supplying the muscle.

 

[Borek]

Not sure how you construe that? Russia had allowed the peaceful secession of it's former client states and it's request that in return these states did not aid and abet the USA and it's allies in threatening it's borders seems quite a reasonable position.

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the scale. It is Russia that was dealing the cards in this part of the Europe and they didn't want to loose this position. Not allowing us to enter NATO will mean that we will be still subdued this way or another. Our only chance to get some real independence was to join NATO and EU, and that's what Russia didn't want us to do, not because they felt we will be dangerous for them, but because they didn't want us to break free. Nobody likes to loose its position.

As I said earlier it was an opportunity lost, where Russia could have and should have been fully integrated into the 'Western' world,

I don't think it was a real opportunity, Russia would easily find its own way of dealing with its own 'westernity'. Integration means something for something, kind of trade and compromise, and that's not a thing they are used to. Compromise means that everything will be done their way.

 

[WmLambert]

Unless I'm mistaken, the papers given to the people of South Ossetia were not given to all - only to those who would take them - and even though the papers superficially established Russian citizenship, no South Ossetians were allowed into Russia without another set of papers that de facto gave them that privilege.

Perhaps I'm wrong - because the people who know have been repressed by Russia and not allowed to speak for themselves, so there is no substantial body of first-person reports to explain what has been going on. Georgia has encouraged the people to speak out, and it was the Russian cyber attack that shut down these contacts so Occam's razor lends me to accept the Georgian side. Also, the U.S. reports have stated they were upset for Georgia being too strong in their response to Russian-inspired Separatist provocation and that both sides share responsibility for what happened.

 

[Oberst Villa]

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the scale. It is Russia that was dealing the cards in this part of the Europe and they didn't want to loose this position. Not allowing us to enter NATO will mean that we will be still subdued this way or another. Our only chance to get some real independence was to join NATO and EU, and that's what Russia didn't want us to do, not because they felt we will be dangerous for them, but because they didn't want us to break free. Nobody likes to loose its position.

Russia might not feel threatened by Poland alone, but if you look at all Russias neighbours who have joined NATO (or plan to join it) together, then I would be suprised if Russia would not feel a bit uneasy.

I think I can understand your position, my cousins wife is from Hungary and she doesn't like Russia very much. And I guess this is true for most people who "enjoyed" Soviet occupation during the cold war. But one also has to look at the Russian side and at their history, Russia too has been victim of agression.

 

[Art]

I see the emergency meeting of the 27 countries of the EU was a damp squid. It seems EU countries are split down the same lines as they were over Iraq so instead of the ostracism and sanctions Britain was demanding all they agreed upon was to suspend talks on a new partnership agreement with Moscow until Russian troops have withdrawn from Georgia.

Not long ago the Labour party in Britain had a difficult time passing a vote in parliament to upgrade their Trident nuclear missile system and with 100 of their own party rebelling needed Conservative votes to pass the legislation. With more votes on funding in the offing one wonders if Gordon Brown is trying to stoke up East/West tensions to justify the £30 billion expenditure.

 

[meopemuk]

It is remarkable that Western leaders are not willing to apportion any blame to Georgia. The harshest word characterizing Saakhashvili actions was "mistake". Otherwise, they lend unconditional support and solidarity to Georgia.

They often criticize Russia for its unwillingness to accept "Western values". If one of these "values" is the permission to use lethal weapons against civilian population in disregard for hundreds of lost lives, then probably Russia is right in its hesitation to join their club.

 

[Art]

Medvedev has laid out the future of Russian foreign policy under 5 principles which appear to draw a line under what they will and will not tolerate.

New Russian world order: the five principles

1. International law

"Russia recognises the primacy of the basic principles of international law, which define relations between civilised nations. It is in the framework of these principles, of this concept of international law, that we will develop our relations with other states."

2. Multi-polar world

"The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict."

3. No isolation

"Russia does not want confrontation with any country; Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop, as far as possible, friendly relations both with Europe and with the United State of America, as well as with other countries of the world."

4. Protect citizens

"Our unquestionable priority is to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are. We will also proceed from this in pursuing our foreign policy. We will also protect the interest of our business community abroad. And it should be clear to everyone that if someone makes aggressive forays, he will get a response."

5. Spheres of influence

"Russia, just like other countries in the world, has regions where it has its privileged interests. In these regions, there are countries with which we have traditionally had friendly cordial relations, historically special relations. We will work very attentively in these regions and develop these friendly relations with these states, with our close neighbours."

Asked if these "priority regions" were those that bordered on Russia he replied: "Certainly the regions bordering [on Russia], but not only them."

And he stated: "As regards the future, it depends not just on us. It also depends on our friends, our partners in the international community. They have a choice."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7591610.stm

 

[WmLambert]

It is remarkable that Western leaders are not willing to apportion any blame to Georgia. The harshest word characterizing Saakhashvili actions was "mistake". Otherwise, they lend unconditional support and solidarity to Georgia.

They often criticize Russia for its unwillingness to accept "Western values". If one of these "values" is the permission to use lethal weapons against civilian population in disregard for hundreds of lost lives, then probably Russia is right in its hesitation to join their club.

What is remarkable to me is diametrically opposed to your conclusions: that since the whole world (except for Russia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria) recognized South Ossetia as sovereign territory of Georgia, Russia's stance is entirely a unilateral one. It's claim that Georgia shot first is moot. The Georgians and first-hand observers have said the Separatists were attacking the Georgian enclaves, and it was a reaction to that which pulled the Georgians into it.

The charge that is the West that allows shooting at civilians is entirley specious. It was the Russians who bombed military targets and hit civilian areas. It was the Russians who claimed the Georgian artillery fired on civilian areas, while others have said they only fired on areas where the separatists had entrenched. When any Georgians targeted a civilian area - it was only under the understanding that the civilians had been evacuated, and separatists were holed up there. There are two sides coming out of the conflict there, but you seem only to support what may be Russian propaganda.

Both sides, I'm sure are spinning as fast as possible, but your clinging only to the official Russian spin seems suspicious.

I've been trying to get objective data, but it is hard to come by. The latest is the satellite imagery of UNOSCOM that documented fires set in Georgian civilian territory by Russian (or Cheznyan) Peacekeepers. You said that was to be expected as revenge for what the Georgians did. You cannot have it both ways. You should not castigate Georgians for alleged shelling of disputed civilian areas unless you are also willing to understand soldiers are never allowed to rape, loot, pillage, and burn - and there is nothing that can rationalize it. If soldiers do so, it is because they are allowed to do so. In the U.S., if any soldiers break the law, they are arrested, investigated, and imprisoned.

 

[Art]

What is remarkable to me is diametrically opposed to your conclusions: that since the whole world (except for Russia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria) recognized South Ossetia as sovereign territory of Georgia, Russia's stance is entirely a unilateral one. It's claim that Georgia shot first is moot. The Georgians and first-hand observers have said the Separatists were attacking the Georgian enclaves, and it was a reaction to that which pulled the Georgians into it.

The charge that is the West that allows shooting at civilians is entirley specious. It was the Russians who bombed military targets and hit civilian areas. It was the Russians who claimed the Georgian artillery fired on civilian areas, while others have said they only fired on areas where the separatists had entrenched. When any Georgians targeted a civilian area - it was only under the understanding that the civilians had been evacuated, and separatists were holed up there. There are two sides coming out of the conflict there, but you seem only to support what may be Russian propaganda.

Both sides, I'm sure are spinning as fast as possible, but your clinging only to the official Russian spin seems suspicious.

Please supply a source for this (dis)information.

I've been trying to get objective data, but it is hard to come by. The latest is the satellite imagery of UNOSCOM that documented fires set in Georgian civilian territory by Russian (or Cheznyan) Peacekeepers. You said that was to be expected as revenge for what the Georgians did. You cannot have it both ways. You should not castigate Georgians for alleged shelling of disputed civilian areas unless you are also willing to understand soldiers are never allowed to rape, loot, pillage, and burn - and there is nothing that can rationalize it. If soldiers do so, it is because they are allowed to do so.

I sympathise as I think you will find it impossible to find objective data to back up your viewpoint

Russian soldiers haven't been accused of expelling Georgians from S Ossetia though Osssetian militia groups have. If so the militia members in involved should indeed be arrested and tried along with those Georgians who committed war crimes including their president who ordered them to commit war crimes.

In the U.S., if any soldiers break the law, they are arrested, investigated, and imprisoned.

I take it you intended this statement to be ironic Haditha springs to mind or how about Jose Luis Nazario or Staff Sgt. Michael A. Hensley? Or perhaps you meant specifically, if they break the law whilst stationed in America??

 

[Borek]

If one of these "values" is the permission to use lethal weapons against civilian population in disregard for hundreds of lost lives, then probably Russia is right in its hesitation to join their club.

I am assuming it is a joke attempt.

 

[meopemuk]

What is remarkable to me is diametrically opposed to your conclusions: that since the whole world (except for Russia, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh, and Transnistria) recognized South Ossetia as sovereign territory of Georgia, Russia's stance is entirely a unilateral one. It's claim that Georgia shot first is moot. The Georgians and first-hand observers have said the Separatists were attacking the Georgian enclaves, and it was a reaction to that which pulled the Georgians into it.

The charge that is the West that allows shooting at civilians is entirley specious. It was the Russians who bombed military targets and hit civilian areas. It was the Russians who claimed the Georgian artillery fired on civilian areas, while others have said they only fired on areas where the separatists had entrenched. When any Georgians targeted a civilian area - it was only under the understanding that the civilians had been evacuated, and separatists were holed up there. There are two sides coming out of the conflict there, but you seem only to support what may be Russian propaganda.

Both sides, I'm sure are spinning as fast as possible, but your clinging only to the official Russian spin seems suspicious.

I've been trying to get objective data, but it is hard to come by. The latest is the satellite imagery of UNOSCOM that documented fires set in Georgian civilian territory by Russian (or Cheznyan) Peacekeepers. You said that was to be expected as revenge for what the Georgians did. You cannot have it both ways. You should not castigate Georgians for alleged shelling of disputed civilian areas unless you are also willing to understand soldiers are never allowed to rape, loot, pillage, and burn - and there is nothing that can rationalize it. If soldiers do so, it is because they are allowed to do so. In the U.S., if any soldiers break the law, they are arrested, investigated, and imprisoned.

Hi WmLambert,

I am a bit tired to respond to your "facts" point-by-point again. My general position is this: in any war there are no "good" and "bad" sides. There are only "bad" and "even worse" sides. Usually both sides commit atrocities against civilians. Even the allies in the WWII were not angels. Recall the bombardments of Dresden and Hiroshima as the most obvious examples. However, it would be not correct to restrict our knowledge of WWII only by these two examples. It is also important to know "who started this". I think it is well established now that "Grad" rockets that destroyed Tshinvali were fired from Georgian territory, and that Georgian tanks first entered the city. If you still are not sure who did the killings in Tshinvali and who came to the rescue of its residents take a look at testimonies of Ossetian refugees and survivors. There are plenty of them on the Web.