Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[meopemuk]

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.

I've seen a report (on a Russian news site) that 60 militiamen were arrested by Russian/Ossetian authorities in connection with looting of Georgian villages. I'm sorry, I can't find this site anymore, but if you are interested I can do more thorough search and find/translate the story.

EDIT: http://www.retwa.org/home.cfm?articleId=6478

 

[meopemuk]

I am assuming it is a joke attempt.

I want to believe that USA/EU/NATO leaders are joking when they put 100% of blame on Russia and try to present Saakashvili's actions as innocent "mistake".

 

[WmLambert]

Please supply a source for this (dis)information.

As I stated, the Russian translations are a bear. But sources do abound: Please see this site The Russian-speaker who provided this posted: "According to Georgians, the thugs "from the city block" who had been prepared and controlled by the KGB, began shelling the villages belonging to non-separatist Ossetins and Georgians and the Georgian Government had to do something about it."

Now normally, I would give more credence to that which is printed in the media, but in this case, the Russian media, and the sychophants who regurgitate it as gospel do not have a reputation for getting it right. As a matter of fact, when the Russian media goes against the grain, we have illustrations of Russian censorship, like the forced suicide of Ivan Safronov.

Seeing that it was the 58th that entered South Ossetia within 3-1/2 hours of the initial Georgian entry into it, and the 58th is a Moscow-based elite group that had been covertly pre-staged to the Roki tunnel (Russia had to construct new railroad spurs to do so) there is little doubt that the Russians timed the event. It is hard for Georgia to start something that the other side has taken several months to pre-position.

If anything, applying Occam's razor seems to place the instigation of this at the feet of the Russians. Additionally, the cyber attacks from Russia that shut down first-person internet capabilities coincided with the start of the attack. Would you care to explain the inconsistencies?

Like I said, there are two sides out there, and my Russian is too limited to do more than run this stuff through automatic translatiors, and ask for help tweaking the stuff that comes out.

Russian soldiers haven't been accused of expelling Georgians from S Ossetia though Osssetian militia groups have.

But the South Ossetian Separatists are the ones accused of doing so, as pawns of Russia. Before the Russians appeared on scene, The Georgians had secured the capitol. A fait d'accompli. ( Israeli military advisers on scene made that statement.) It is interesting to say the losing side forced the Georgians out of South Ossetia only after the Russians appeared, and to claim the Russians had nothing to do with it

BTW: your laughter by intimidation fallacious debate point about American soldiers getting off free with violating the military code of conduct actually makes my point. You should, just like John Murtha in This video clip apologize for blaming innocent soldiers of war crimes. The point made, is that even though they were innocent, the U.S. put them in custody. The honor of the U.S. military is too precious to allow criminals to get away with such acts - so they were treated as guilty, even though they weren't.

 

[meopemuk]

As I stated, the Russian translations are a bear. But sources do abound: Please see this site The Russian-speaker who provided this posted: "According to Georgians, the thugs "from the city block" who had been prepared and controlled by the KGB, began shelling the villages belonging to non-separatist Ossetins and Georgians and the Georgian Government had to do something about it."

What?? Who is your "Russian-speaker" source? There is nothing even remotely
resembling this statement in the article. Please stop spreading lies.
For your convenience, here is my translation:

UTRO.RU, August, 22. Yury Kotenok.

"Sulim Yamadaev: Georgians ran from us in their underpants"

Today, August 22 our source in the headquarters of the operative army group in the North Caucasus
reported that the commander of "Vostok" lieutenant colonel Sulim Yamadaev was retired to reserve
while keeping his military rank.
The corresponding order was signed yesterday by the Russian Minister of Defense
Anatoly Serdyukov. No motivation for the decision has been given yet.

It is necessary to remind that the batalion of Chechen commandos "Vostok"
played an important role during the operation of forcing Georgia to peace
by pushing the aggressor out of Tshinvali, marching toward Gori and cutting Georgia's
military communications. The Hero of Russia Sulim Yamadaev told us about the brief war
in South Ossetia in his exclusive interview for "Utro".

"UTRO": How did the operation started for your batallion?

Sulim Yamadaev: "Vostok" followed the order of the commander of the North Causasus
military district and the Head of the Joint Staff of Russian Federation. We are
carrying out the order without regard to danger and possible casualties. We don't have time
to contemplate. After receiving the order to move in South Ossetia, we prepared
ourselves in one hour and were dropped in Khankala. In the evening of August 8th we were
in Dzhava. In the morning of 9th we were in Tshinvali. The circumstances in the city were grave.
But we had a good grasp of situation, because for the last 1.5 years our soldiers,
rotating every three months,
were in the conflict zone as peacekeepers on "Pauk"[?] and the bridge across Eredvi.
During the fighting we hold these positions without
casualties being surrounded by Georgians. We didn't have food and water for three days,
but these are minor details.

"UTRO": What was going on in Tshinvali when you entered the city?

S.Y.: There was a confusion. Shooting. We entered the city, reported to the commander,
received the order and carried it out - cleared the city from enemy's snipers and
separate groups, liberated women, children and elderly. Not a single hostage was wounded.
Liquidated Georgian commandos. We also recaptured military vehicles that Georgians took from
our peacekeepers. Then we worked together with the 58th army in Georgian villages and
almost reached Gori, though we could go further without problems. Major Georgian forces
were concentrated around Tshinvali where they entered from three sides. There were no Georgian
trenches on Georgian territory. They were only prepared to go forward, so they didn't
anticipate that we'll enter Georgian land. It was much easier there.

"UTRO": Is it true that Georgian forces scattered after hearing that such a force is coming?

S.Y.: The rumors were spreading in front of us that 1500 Chechen throat-cutters are coming.
There were Ossetians and Georgians (translators) among us, who showed themselves normally.
The panic erupted among the enemies.They were not prepared for casualties, didn't think about them,
they were scared and went out of balance. In Tbilisi they thought that America is behind them, that
they'll stop us at the border with Russia. We caught them off guard. We entered inside
[South Ossetia] and simultaneously started to move in the Kodori gorge in Abkhazia. Deep inside
their territory Georgian soldiers ran from us in their underpants. We took good trophys and
passed everything to our commanders.

"UTRO" Is the stand-off with Georgia complete at this point?

S.Y.: It should be clear to anyone that this is not the end. If our commanders do well,
then there will be enough work to do. We are getting information that Georgians increase
their military efforts, move in mercenaries. America is training them again. Tbilisi hasn't
calmed down yet. If this will continue we'll have a war with America not in 2014, as some
predictors say, but earlier.

"UTRO": In Tshinvali you said that it would be interesting to combat against Georgians,
who were prepared by Americans. You didn't get a real war, did you?

S.Y.: We didn't get as we wanted it. But we are not disappointed. There will be a good fight
anyway. I think that in South Ossetia USA is just probing Russian forces, their preparedness
for the war. So, we need to work more, correct out deficiencies. There was a confusion,
many problems. This time Almighty helped us, but next time we should act better.

"UTRO": What was the reason for casualties in the Russian army in this campaign?

S.Y.: Any commander acting in the circumstances must achieve his objective with minimal
casualties, to carry out the order. In this war most of our casualties were on marches in
columns. Thus, for example, the commander of the 58th army was wounded, the journalists.
We need to to think and to draw conclusions. The wounded should be quickly evacuated.


"UTRO": In Tbilisi they scare themselves by the rumors that Chechens cut off heads
of hundreds of Georgians.

S.Y. You were the witness, you spent three days with us. If we decided to revenge,
everything would be different. We haven't had casualties except three wounded, and we
haven't yet revenged for the murders of civilians and peacekeepers.

"UTRO": In Zemo-Nikozi and Kvemo-Hviti "Vostok" was under heavy shelling by Georgian artillery.
How did you avoid casualties?

S.Y.: It appeared that in the village "Vostok" attracted fire and thus revealed the
artillery positions. We know how to hide when needed. We were saved by good cellars (laughs).
But this was during the fight.
It was worse when the troops took casualties during their approach to Tshinvali. This was
not just good luck of "Vostok". I had one group in front of me and one group behind.
Every soldier was responsible for his sector and acted professionally, according to
circumstances. If everybody rushed forward, it would be a mess.


"UTRO": Is somebody proposed for awards in the batallion?

S.Y.: Of course. Our guys showed themselves well. Some of them will be awarded with the
order of Courage and the medal "for Bravery". The awardee lists are compiled and we'll
pass them by the chain of command. I personally thanked the soldiers for good work.


"UTRO": Is it true that "Vostok" and "Zapad" batallions will be disbanned?

S.Y.: A "third force" is working on this. But anyway, all decisions are taken
by the Commander in Chief, the Minister of Defense. They must give a sober assessment,
weigh all pro and cons. From myself I can say that for many years already, true Russia
patriotes are fighting in the batallion "Vostok". If you leave aside these people, the
state will lose professional commandos who can carry out any task at any point in the world.

"UTRO": There is information that simultaneously with the Georgian attack,
vahhabis actions in the North Caucasus were expected. Did they manage to open "second front"?

S.Y.: We reported that at the time of Georgian move, conflicts may erupt in Chechnya,
Dagestan, Kabarda and Ingushetia. But they couldn't do that, because Russia was not stuck
in fighting in South Ossetia. Our troops carried out the task quickly. Again Almighty helped us.
But we are ready for any escalation. For us it doesn't matter where to fight: on
this side of the mountain range or on the other side. It is important not to bare
our borders, so as not to get a strike in the back.

"UTRO": Is the movement of youth to the mountains continuing in Checnya?

S.Y.: There is information that 20 young girls 15-20 years old went to the woods
[joined the rebels?] in Chechnya. This is our tragedy. We know who goes to the mountains.
In Dzhamaats[?] which fight in Chechnya, there are people from Saudi Arabia. We know who
feeds them. Their forces were diminishing before, but this year they got more people.
The number of clashes increased, there are casualties. Dzhamaats become more active
in Dagestan and Ingushetia. If we don't work well in the North Caucasus now, then
South Ossetia can repeat itself in other places, or there will be the 3rd Chechen campaign for sure.
The fights with our own and pushing out dissidents results in vahhabis raise their head.
Caucasus is a vulnerable spot of Russia. There are lot of those who want to explode
this place to weaken Russia.

"UTRO": Thank you for the interview.

 

[WmLambert]

Thank you for the translation, the Russian ex-pat who provided the link was making a point with it, and I it was just before his quote I provided. I'll have to ask him for more sourcing.

To me, it seems the article translated into an action-report of the Russian campaign, which coincided with what I understand to be correct. (Except for the Russian forces performing at a high-level.) There was also that paranoia about U.S. forces coming into play.

The report of the initial confrontation at Tshinvali is also illustrative. According to the Georgian forces and third party observers, it had been successfully settled by the Georgian peacekeepers. It was only the entrance of the Russians that caused the Separatists to emerge from hiding and start fighting again. Not difficult for the Russian General to say, "...There was a confusion. Shooting. We entered the city, reported to the commander, received the order and carried it out - cleared the city from enemy's snipers and separate groups, liberated women, children and elderly. Not a single hostage was wounded. Liquidated Georgian commandos. We also recaptured military vehicles that Georgians took from our peacekeepers."

I note that "not a single hostage was wounded," which translates that the Georgians did not put any in jeopardy as they captured Tchinvali. I also note the "recaptured military vehicles that Georgians took from our peacekeepers,:" which were shown to be U.S. Humvees taken from containers ready to be shipped back to the U.S. and not part of any action. As different posts continue to roll in, there are two separate scenarios unfolding: one firmly held by Russians to be true, which have huge holes in their believability - and the Georgian scenario, which frankly is the only one that makes sense.

Also this translation again confirms, it was the Moscow 58th that came through Roki.

The most vital aspect that you continually gloss over, is the fact that Russia's depiction of South Ossetia being an independent state was not recognized by the rest of the world, and they had no legitimate right to try to make it so. Their 500 peacekeepers in South Ossetia looked the other way as Separatists committed ethnic cleansing on Georgian enclaves, and may have actually back-stopped the Separatists which caused the Georgian reaction. The peacekeepers were there to keep the peace, not to make South Ossetia an independent state.

 

[WmLambert]

The cyber attack was launched before supposed assault by Georgia. It is no wonder communication within Georgia was so difficult, and the Russians claimed it was the Georgians who would not return their attempts to communicate.

The KGB-style disinformation as de facto Putin policy seems illustrated once again here.

The "big lie" strategy requires enough circumstantial events to cloak it in doubt, so that the continued promulgation of it begins to stick. No one questions that the Georgians moved into South Ossetia before the Russians opened up. The question is: if the Separatists staged the atrocities that emptied the Georgian enclaves and brought the Georgian peacekeepers in. The few civilian casualties reinforce the clearing of the enclaves, even though the initial Russian reports claimed "thousands of civilian dead at the hands of Georgian monsters."

 

[meopemuk]

I also note the "recaptured military vehicles that Georgians took from our peacekeepers,:" which were shown to be U.S. Humvees taken from containers ready to be shipped back to the U.S. and not part of any action.

You seem to be completely disoriented. The incident with U.S. Humvees happened in the port of Poti, which is more than 100 miles away from Tshinvali. Moreover, this incident occurred several days after the events described in the piece.

 

[quadraphonics]

It is not necessarily about whoever spends the most wins.

Well, in this case, it's more like "whoever can't spend enough can't even play in the first place."

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.

That asymmetric argument doesn't apply to conflicts between established nation-states. What's to stop NATO from spending a relatively small sum that requires Russia to spend a disproportionate amount on countermeasures?

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.

As long as we're dealing in fantasies, it's also a pity that everyone didn't join hands in peace and brotherly love 1000 generations ago, thereby creating perfect world peace.

 

[Oberst Villa]

As long as we're dealing in fantasies, it's also a pity that everyone didn't join hands in peace and brotherly love 1000 generations ago, thereby creating perfect world peace.

There are different levels of fantasies.

For example, there are very fundamental differences between the west and significant parts of the muslim world, in this case perfect peace is really a fantasy in my book.

However, I do not see any such differences in the way people in Russia on the one side and people in western Europe and the US on the other side think. Why should there be no peace ? Less than 100 years ago people have been talking BS about an Erbfeindschaft (traditional enmity) between France and Germany, in WW I millions of our people died fighting each other. Nowadays we are best friends !

 

[meopemuk]

Here is another testimony from a firsthand eyewitness published in "Nezavisimaya gazeta".
This guy is a Russian official, so you can dismiss his words as a Kremlin propaganda, but something
tells me that his description of events is authentic.

http://www.ng.ru/courier/2008-09-01/13_razlom.html

"On the Caucasian faultline"
Yuri Popov: "We never set the goal to conquer Georgia"

2008-09-01/ Marina Perevozkina

Events in the Caucasus is one of major themes discussed today by politicians, journalists and
other citizens, and not only in our country. Therefore, the opinion of an eyewitness of the events is especially
interesting. One such eyewitness is the special task envoy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Yuri Popov, who answered questions posed by "NG".

-- Yuri Fedorovich, on the August 7th, just on the eve of tragic events in South Ossetia, you went to Tbilisi and
Tshinval for negotiations. Apparently, they were successful, because after your visit a moratorium on military
actions was declared, and negotiations were scheduled to take place the next day with you as an intermediary between
the state minister of Georgia on reintegration Temuri Jacobashvili and the vice-premier of South Ossetia Boris Chochiev.
How did the events develop on that, without doubt, historic day?

Y.P.: On the August 7th at 2:00 pm I went from Tbilisi to Tshinval to discuss with South Ossetian partners the
agenda of the meeting that has been planned for the Friday [August 8th]. I drove in the car of Russian Embassy.
On the way I got a flat tire, and the spare tire was not good either, and I was waiting for another car for two
hours. During my wait (it was 10 kilometers from Gori) I watched with great interest as Georgian armored vehicles
and transports with soldiers passed me in the direction of Tshinval. I reached my destination point after 6 p.m.

-- Some say that Jacobashvili also came to Tshinval on that day?

Y.P.: He went there on his own program separate from me. Before that we had a contact in Tbilisi, discussed the forthcoming
three-side meeting. Then, after arranging all issues with the Georgian side I went to discuss them with
South Ossetian leadership, because earlier they expressed their doubts about the usefulness of such a meeting.


-- What was the reason for you arrival in Georgia, which was, as I understand, unexpected - you flew at night?

Y.P.: I arrived in Tbilisi early in the morning of August 7th. The Russian side was very worried about increased
tensions in the conflict zone. It was necessary to break this trend immediately. For this reason, though we
remained principal backers of the continuation of negotiations in the framework of SKK [joint Georgia-Russia-South Ossetia
commission for peace], the decision was taken to assist an urgent meeting between Georgians and South Ossetians.
We started to prepare the agenda at the end of July, however a massive mortar-artillery shelling of residential
blocks in Tshinval on August 1st has hardened the negotiating position of the South Ossetian side.

-- When did you leave Tshinval?

Y.P.: I left the city after 10 p.m. after reaching the final agreement with both Georgian and South Ossetian partners about
three-party Georgian-Ossetian-Russian meeting planned for the next day in Tshinval. The talks were supposed to start
at 1 p.m. on August 8th in the headquarters of SSPM[?] with the participation of Boris Chochiev, Temuri Jacobashvili,
the commander of peacekeeping forces general Marat Kulahmetov and myself. By the way if I hadn't have some urgent
tasks for the morning of August 8th in our Embassy [in Tbilisi], I would have remained to spend the night in Tshinval.
Interesting, if that would deter the Georgian attack on the city? I doubt very much, but still I have a bad feeling.

-- But the facts confirm that the operation was well-thought and prepared. The choice of the day was not accidental - the
beginning of Olympic games. Apparently everything was decided long before...

Y.P.: The preparation for the aggression was conducted methodically and long in advance. Though, there is a version that
Saakashvili took this decision impulsively under the influence of something, which scared him very much. I.e., the decision
about the military operation could be induced from outside. At the same time it is obvious that the strike was planned
for the night August 7-8, when the attention of the whole world was focused on the opening of Olympic games. By that time
a striking military group of Georgian army was already pulled to the southern outskirts of Tshinval.

-- Did you have any doubts about the reliability of your partners? Were you sure that negotiations will take place?

Y.P.: There was an absolutely clear agreement about the place, time and the format of the meeting. On the other hand,
the Georgian partners never firmly stuck to their promises. But their unwillingness to negotiate grew into betrayal.
When I drove from Tshinvali late at night I saw opposite movement of Georgian military columns entering the conflict zone.
There were tanks, artillery, multiple rocket launchers, trucks and buses with soldiers. First, I reported this to the commander
of SSPM on the cell phone, then I lost the count. I called Jacobashvili and asked what is the reason to move such hugh forces to Tshinval?
My Georgian colleague calmed me down - this is a defensive measure and the President who promised not to open fire will
never break his word. An half an hour later, when I approached Tbilisi, general Kulahmetov called me and told that
Georgia has declared a war on South Ossetia and Tshinval is being bombarded from land and air.


-- There is an impression that Georgian aggression took Russian leadership off guard, though it was not so difficult to
predict this development of events.

Y.P.: We were caught off guard not by the aggression itself but by the choice of time of the attack. Perhaps this was
pre-calculated in Tbilisi, because, in principle, we expected this line of development. We all saw the military
preparations of Georgia. I can't understand another thing: how could Georgians agree with South Ossetians about the meeting
if they new that the war is going to start in an hour? This is incomprehensible from the ethical point of view.

I don't want to believ that my negotiations partner Mr. Jacobashvili lied to me on purpose. I am inclined to think that
he was not aware about the coming attack on South Ossetia. It is interesting that when in the evening of August 7th I told
Jacobashvili about the reached agreement with Boris Chochiev and the South Ossetian President Eduard Kokoity about tomorrow's
meeting in Tshinval, he immediately contacted Saakashvili and informed myself that "President has approved" this idea.
I can admit the possibility that the invasion was planned for the near future, but something forced Saakashvili to speed it up
and to give the order to start in the night of August 7-8. Here again a thought comes to mind about an external influence.

-- Did you see Georgian peacekeepers in the headquarters?

Y.P.: When I arrived to Kulahmetov, the headquarters of Georgian peacekeepers were empty. I was told that they left
SSPM during the day of August 7th.

-- You are saying the leadership of Russia was informed about military preparations by Georgia. Was there any reaction
plan in the event of attack? Why peacekeepers were so slow to respond?

Y.P.: Georgians were preparing for the war. They pulled in striking groups from the South. At the same time Georgian troops
tried to occupy strategic heights in the conflict zone. Set up new checkpoints equipped by all rules of military-engineering
science. South Ossetians, naturally, reacted and this led to the avalanche of military stand-off. Our peacekeepers, due to
their small numbers, could not quell these problems physically. There were only 500 peacekeepers most of whom were on
stationary positions. They did what they could: separated sides which entered in armed contact, stood between them. We reserved
the right to increase the sizes of Russian and South Ossetian batallions to 800 people each in the case if the situation
goes out of control. However, we didn't expect that it would go out of control and end up in such a bloodshed.


-- Just before the war started, a serious military force was concentrated on the Russian territory near the border with Georgia.
Previously, army came close to the border in times of increased tensions, but such an armada with a lot of armament has not
been seen there before.

Y.P.: Georgians also have not pulled so much forces and weapons to Tshinval before. The action creates counteraction. The question
is different - why Saakashvili's friends, first of all in Washington, decided to put in hands of such an impulsive leader
this deadly machinery? The quantity transforms to quality, sooner or later. The shotgun hanging on the wall is destined to shoot.
It is true that our American partners tell us that Saakashvili didn't discuss with them his decision to attack South Ossetia.

-- Many analysts now say that the operation was not finished. Why did our troops stop so abruptly? Why didn'd we force
Saakashvili to sign a capitulation act?

Y.P.: We never set the goal to conquer Georgia, remove Saakashvili, enter Tbilisi, hang the Russian flag there and put our
general-governor. We have conducted a peace-enforcing operation. The peace is restored, the aggressor retreated, the justice
prevailed. Nobody wanted to force proud Gergian people on their knees. Russians and Georgians are not enemies.
Regarding Saakashvili and his political career, I don't have the right to give recipes. I can only tell one thing: if I was
guilty in deaths of thousands of people, I would act according to my conscience.

-- What are further prospects for negotiations?

Y.P.: To renew the negotiations right now is very problematic. It is not clear, with whom? what is the purpose? The peacekeeping
operations will be conducted by enhanced Russian contingent without participation of Georgians. We will also change the
configuration of the peacekeeper's responsibility zone.

 

[quadraphonics]

However, I do not see any such differences in the way people in Russia on the one side and people in western Europe and the US on the other side think. Why should there be no peace ?

The issue is not with "the people" (it almost never is), but with the fact that Russia, as a polity, has yet to give up its imperialist conception of security based on the violent domination of its neighbors.

 

[Borek]

Strong words, but seems to me like they make a good point.

 

[Art]

Well, in this case, it's more like "whoever can't spend enough can't even play in the first place."

I think when you bring 6,700 nuclear warheads to the table you are guaranteed a seat at the game.

That asymmetric argument doesn't apply to conflicts between established nation-states. What's to stop NATO from spending a relatively small sum that requires Russia to spend a disproportionate amount on countermeasures?

as above

As long as we're dealing in fantasies, it's also a pity that everyone didn't join hands in peace and brotherly love 1000 generations ago, thereby creating perfect world peace.

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

The cold war was a battle of ideologies. The Russian held ideology is gone, finished, kaput and so there is no longer any need for any enmity between Russia and the West as the causa bella is gone.

 

[Borek]

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

French and British changed their attitude which made new balance possible. Russia tries to keep to old tricks.

 

[Art]

French and British changed their attitude which made new balance possible. Russia tries to keep to old tricks.

Yes, France and Britain reached an accord in 1904 (The Entente Cordiale) whereby they agreed not to threaten each other or interfere in each other's spheres of influence. Russia was then included in this accord in 1907.

It sounds very like what Russia is looking for now.

 

[quadraphonics]

I think when you bring 6,700 nuclear warheads to the table you are guaranteed a seat at the game.

For the time being, yes. But a serious case can be made that the era of MAD is nearing its end:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Note that this power differential is driven by precisely spending power. I.e., any attempt by Russia to close the (growing) gap in nuclear capabilities can be easily outstripped by NATO.

as above

So... the fact that Russia has a few thousand warheads means they can take inexpensive measures (what, exactly?) that require exorbitant countermeasures (such as..?). Okay... what's to stop the United States, which also has thousands of warheads, from taking similar inexpensive measures that will require Russia to pursue exorbitant countermeasures?

What a sad and rather silly perception. Britain and France fought for hundreds of years but now work together as equal partners and there is absolutely no reason why Russia could not do the same with it's former foes.

I note that Britain and France only stopped fighting and got along once a larger common threat arose (first Germany, then the USSR). I see no such unifying pressure pushing Europe and Russia together.

The cold war was a battle of ideologies. The Russian held ideology is gone, finished, kaput and so there is no longer any need for any enmity between Russia and the West as the causa bella is gone.

The Cold War was a battle of interests, heightened by differences in ideology. While the one ideology has disappeared, it does not follow that the other ideology took its place and, in any case, the divergent interests remain. Russia views the independence of its neighboring states as a threat to itself; this conception is irreconcilable with peaceful relations.

But, yes, it is within Russia's power to pursue a different, more benign, more productive approach, and it is within the power of the Russian people to bring this about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes, France and Britain reached an accord in 1904 (The Entente Cordiale) whereby they agreed not to threaten each other or interfere in each other's spheres of influence. Russia was then included in this accord in 1907.

It sounds very like what Russia is looking for now.

The difference being, of couse, that Russia's "sphere of influence" includes several sovereign countries in Europe, and not just some distant colonies full of unwashed heathens as was the case with the Entente Cordial (and a unified Germany was breathing down both their necks, not to mention a surging America across the pond). "Noninterference is Russia's sphere of influence" means exactly the consignment of the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucusus to a status of Russian vassal states. I say if they want their empire back, they can damned well fight for it. Crushing the freedom and sovereignty of the millions who inhabit those states in the hopes of appeasing Russia's appetite for domination is the worst idea I've heard in ages.

By the way, it absolutely astounds me to hear someone use the phrase "sphere of interest" with a straight face in this context. Usually the only people who would be caught using that turn of phrase are self-avowed "hard-nosed realists" that openly support the use of force to achieve geopolitical aims. Not really the sort of people that I imagine you want to be cribbing notes from.

 

[meopemuk]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate! Previously, such a luxury was allowed only to the United States (perhaps, also Israel?). Now there is Russia too. Deal with it.

 

[WmLambert]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate! Previously, such a luxury was allowed only to the United States (perhaps, also Israel?). Now there is Russia too. Deal with it.

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking. The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

 

[quadraphonics]

Bad Russia! It dared to defend the lives of its citizens. How inappropriate!

Right, like in Chechnya, where Russia killed tens of thousands of Russian citizens. It's hard to have much sympathy for Russian actions considering that the "citizens" in question were endangered exactly by a crisis that Russia deliberately created. Especially considering that the designation of these people as "citizens" was one of things done to deliberately provoke a crisis in the first place.

I put "citizens" in quotes because it's not clear to me that these people actually carried the responsibilities and privileges that are associated with citizens. Were they able to vote in Russian elections? Did they pay Russian taxes? Serve in Russian juries? It's not even clear that they enjoyed freedom of travel inside Russia itself. The whole thing seems like little more than a pretext for invasion of Georgia. That so many people seem to fall for it is sad.

 

[baywax]

The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

Did they use Shock and Awe?

 

[meopemuk]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

I respectfully disagree, the people we are talking about refused Georgian citizenship, because they were brutalized by the Georgian government in the early 1990's. So they turned to Russia for protection. When a country grants you its citizenship it (among other things) promises to protect you wherever you are to the best of its abilities. This idea was invoked by the U.S. on many occasions in order to overthrow non-conforming regimes, even though no U.S. citizens were actually killed. The examples of Grenada in 1983 (no US citizens were killed prior to the invasion, as far as I know) and Panama in 1989 (1 U.S. marine was killed) come to mind.

But even if we assume that no Russian citizens were harmed during the Georgian invasion, Russia had an internationally recognized peacekeeping agreement with Georgia and South Ossetia. So, legally it was responsible for the lives of people living in S.O. and had the right to interfere.

 

[Art]

The difference being, of couse, that Russia's "sphere of influence" includes several sovereign countries in Europe, and not just some distant colonies full of unwashed heathens as was the case with the Entente Cordial (and a unified Germany was breathing down both their necks, not to mention a surging America across the pond). "Noninterference is Russia's sphere of influence" means exactly the consignment of the Baltic, Ukraine and Caucusus to a status of Russian vassal states. I say if they want their empire back, they can damned well fight for it. Crushing the freedom and sovereignty of the millions who inhabit those states in the hopes of appeasing Russia's appetite for domination is the worst idea I've heard in ages.

By the way, it absolutely astounds me to hear someone use the phrase "sphere of interest" with a straight face in this context. Usually the only people who would be caught using that turn of phrase are self-avowed "hard-nosed realists" that openly support the use of force to achieve geopolitical aims. Not really the sort of people that I imagine you want to be cribbing notes from.

I suggest you research the difference between a 'sphere of influence' and a 'sphere of interest' then get back to me

 

[quadraphonics]

I suggest you research the difference between a 'sphere of influence' and a 'sphere of interest' then get back to me

There is no substantiative difference between the two terms, which is why I used them interchangeably. I suggest that you develop a more graceful, less condescending way of retreating from poorly-considered positions.

 

[Art]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law. Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking. The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

You do know after Britain's withdrawal all citizens of the former British Empire were eligible for British citizenship don't you? An exception being Hong Kong because they feared they might have trouble accommodating 10 million or so immigrants in England so they only issued Hong Kong millionaires with British passports

So to clarify, are you saying all these people from former members of the British Empire have acted illegally in taking British citizenship and their adopted citizenship is invalid under international law?

Care to cite a source to support your assertion??

 

[Art]

There is no substantiative difference between the two terms, which is why I used them interchangeably. I suggest that you develop a more graceful, less condescending way of retreating from poorly-considered positions.

A sphere of influence is a stronger tie where the dominant power exerts a strong indirect control over the economy, culture, military etc of countries within the sphere. The old USSR being a good example.

A sphere of interest is a weaker tie whereby a major power expresses a special interest in states (normally neighbouring states) which they believe could threaten their own security and so resist the encroachment of other major powers into that territory. The US and Cuba for example, or Russia and Georgia if you like.

At the moment in Georgia we are seeing America's ever expanding sphere of influence (NATO being the vehicle) clashing with Russia's sphere of interest.

 

[quadraphonics]

A sphere of influence is a stronger tie where the dominant power exerts a strong indirect control over the economy, culture etc of countries within the sphere. The old USSR being a good example.

A sphere of interest is a weaker tie whereby a major power expresses a special interest in states which they believe could threaten their own security and so resist the encroachment of other major powers into that territory. The US and Cuba for example, or Russia and Georgia if you like.

Am I to understand that you do not consider the US to exert strong indirect control over the economy and culture of Cuba, or Russia on those of Georgia? In the real world, strong countries (i.e., the types that have "spheres" outside their own borders in the first place) tend to make a point of extending their influence to be coterminous with their interests. How else are you supposed to resist the encroachment of other major powers into said territories? Which is why the two terms are used interchangeably.

Anyway, this is a diversion. The exact same criticism applies to your rosy depiction of the Entente Cordial, and Russia's current geopolitical aims, regardless of which term of art is employed. Any way you cut it, you're talking about a deal between big powers to divide up the smaller states among them, with no consideration of the rights of said smaller states.

 

[Minich]

No. There were no Russian citizens involved. You are only talking about Georgian citizens as recognized by international law.

Russia recognizes international law, if international law doesn't contradict Russian law )

Does USA recognize international law, if international law contradicts USA law?

Every claim by Russia that giving papers to separatists in South Ossetia made them anything other than residents of Georgia is wrong.

If USA gives somebody a paper, that he is now the citizen of USA, is it wrong, that he is the sitizen of USA?

It is the old Russian paranoia speaking.

Is it the old Strategic Defence Initiative and Chirchil old Fulton's paranoia speaking ?.

The world is not out to get Russia, but Russia can say and do anything based on that fear.

Why does NATO circle around Russia's borders with military bases? Does NATO afraid of Russia?

And finally. Is Saakashvily the CIA agent? Why does he bevave as provocator and does everything to involve NATO countries to military conflict with Russan nuclear power?

Is he mad?

Don't You know, that in Caribbian crisis USSR and USA agreed:
USSR withdraw missiles from Cuba. USA withdraw missiles from Turkey.
Now USA missiles will go to Poland, do You want russian missiles in Cuba again or in Venezuela?

Does USA want to balance with nuclear power?!
Mad politicians are going to power!

Where was the international law, when USA's military planes regularly flight over USSR territory until 1961 when U-2 plane was fighted down with our missile near Ekaterinburg? Ekaterinburg is in the MIDDLE of USSR territory! Why to flight over Kiev and even Moscow in 1961 was lawfull?

Does USA have the right to teach others? If racism oficially existed recently. What Kennedy was killed for?
Was Dallas racist free then? What Marthin Luter King was killed for?

Why georgian young boys and russian young boys must kill each other?

If Gamsahurdia (1st president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins, if Shevardnadse (2nd president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins and abhasians, If Saakashvily (3d president of Georgia) fighted with ossetins, using USA money, USA technics, USA military advisors WHERE do ossetins go then?

If West Germany and East Germany is now united, why is South Ossetia can't unite with North Ossetia?

They always lived together except after USSR Greate Criminal Revolution of 1991 when extreme nationalists came to power in USSR fragments and began ethnic clashes.

 

[quadraphonics]

So to clarify, are you saying all these people from former members of the British Empire have acted illegally in taking British citizenship and their adopted citizenship is invalid under international law?

The kicker here is not the validity of the citizenships per se, but the validity of subsequent actions based on citizenship status. As you say, England didn't issue passports to everyone in Hong Kong because it couldn't resettle that many people in England. But this brings up the crucial point: by accepting British citizenship, and refusing Chinese citizenship, those people would have been giving up their right to live in China, and so it would have been perfectly legal for the Chinese government to arrest, imprison and deport them, and Britain would have had to accept them as residents. It would not have been legitimate for Britain to issue all those passports, and then invade China when Beijing rightfully, lawfully began rounding up all those non-citizens, and then annex Hong Kong. It also would not have been legitimate for said British citizens to resist Chinese efforts to expel them.

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

 

[Art]

For the time being, yes. But a serious case can be made that the era of MAD is nearing its end:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85204/keir-a-lieber-daryl-g-press/the-rise-of-u-s-nuclear-primacy.html

Note that this power differential is driven by precisely spending power. I.e., any attempt by Russia to close the (growing) gap in nuclear capabilities can be easily outstripped by NATO.

So the advantage of being able to wipe out all life on the planet 10 times over whilst your adversary can only do it 3 times over is what exactly??

So... the fact that Russia has a few thousand warheads means they can take inexpensive measures (what, exactly?) that require exorbitant countermeasures (such as..?). Okay... what's to stop the United States, which also has thousands of warheads, from taking similar inexpensive measures that will require Russia to pursue exorbitant countermeasures?

America can't launch a ground offensive into Russia whereas the Russians can launch a ground offensive into the countries of America's European allies. See Georgia for a recent example. Which btw will cost the American taxpayer $2.3 billion if the US gov't accedes to Georgia's request for monetary aid.

I note that Britain and France only stopped fighting and got along once a larger common threat arose (first Germany, then the USSR). I see no such unifying pressure pushing Europe and Russia together.

It may surprise you but a lot of Europeans feel they have a lot more in common with Russia than they do with the US. Which might explain why the US appears to be so keen to drive a wedge between them. A unified Europe which included Russia would be a serious challenge to American hegemony.

The Cold War was a battle of interests, heightened by differences in ideology.

The cold war was totally about different ideologies or every politician who breathed during that time lied. Not impossible but unlikely

While the one ideology has disappeared, it does not follow that the other ideology took its place and, in any case, the divergent interests remain. Russia views the independence of its neighboring states as a threat to itself; this conception is irreconcilable with peaceful relations.

I don't believe Russia has any problem whatsoever with former members of the USSR being independent, as I understand it the problem arises when these states abrogate their independence to the USA through NATO.

But, yes, it is within Russia's power to pursue a different, more benign, more productive approach, and it is within the power of the Russian people to bring this about. I'm not holding my breath, though.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO Russia has shown great restraint under great provocation for some years now.

 

[Art]

The kicker here is not the validity of the citizenships per se, but the validity of subsequent actions based on citizenship status. As you say, England didn't issue passports to everyone in Hong Kong because it couldn't resettle that many people in England. But this brings up the crucial point: by accepting British citizenship, and refusing Chinese citizenship, those people would have been giving up their right to live in China, and so it would have been perfectly legal for the Chinese government to arrest, imprison and deport them, and Britain would have had to accept them as residents. It would not have been legitimate for Britain to issue all those passports, and then invade China when Beijing rightfully, lawfully began rounding up all those non-citizens, and then annex Hong Kong. It also would not have been legitimate for said British citizens to resist Chinese efforts to expel them.

Applying this to Georgia, we see that if we consider South Ossetians to be Russian citizens, then they have given up their right to live in Georgia, and the Georgian government is not obliged to respect their desire to reside within its borders. It would have been perfectly legal for Georgia to round them all up and dump them at the Russian border. Indeed, the only thing that prevented them from doing so was armed resistance from Ossetians, with backing from Russia. Granting people citizenship is fine as long as you actually treat them like citizens. But that is not what happened here. Indeed, Russia claims to recognize the independence of South Ossetia, which would imply that those people are *not* now Russian citizens.

That's exactly what Idi Amin said when he kicked out 50,000 British citizens from Uganda. You are in good company it seems, though unfortunately, for your argument, the rest of the world did not see it that way.

 

[mheslep]

...They always lived together except after USSR Greate Criminal Revolution of 1991 when extreme nationalists came to power in USSR fragments and began ethnic clashes.

Makes one want to burst out in http://folk.ntnu.no/makarov/temporary_url_20070929kldcg/anthem-sovietunion-1977-redarmy.mp3" .

Unbreakable union of freeborn republics
Great Russia has welded forever to stand!
Created in struggle by will of the people
United and mighty, our Soviet land!

CHORUS:
Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
Bulwark of people, in brotherhood strong!
Oh! Party of Lenin! The strength of the people.
To Communism's triumph lead us on!

I thought they were just kidding about the 'unbreakable union ... forever' part, just a catchy verse and all that. Silly me.

 

[quadraphonics]

So the advantage of being able to wipe out all life on the planet 10 times over whilst your adversary can only do it 3 times over is what exactly??

Nothing. But if you'd read the article, you'd understand that there's a great advantage to being able to wipe out your adversary's nuclear arsenal before he has time to use it against you. The measure of a nuclear arsenal is not so much the scale of its destructive power (pretty much all sizeable nuclear arsenals are sufficiently terrible), but its stealth, survivability and speed. That Russia might have a mountain of warheads sitting around does them no good if their ICBMs, strategic bombers, and ballistic missile subs have already been destroyed. They are at that point at the total mercy of a hostile power with the ability to demolish their cities and infrastructure with total impunity.

America can't launch a ground offensive into Russia whereas the Russians can launch a ground offensive into the countries of America's European allies. See Georgia for a recent example.

And what are the exorbitant costs to America of this action? A few shiploads of ammo and guns for Georgia? The embarassment of having to admit that, indeed, we are presently tied down in Iraq? The costs to Russia don't seem particularly insignificant to me either.

A unified Europe which included Russia would be a serious challenge to American hegemony.

It's no secret that it has long been a basic plank of US foreign policy that the domination of either Europe or Asia by a single power is unacceptable. But in this instance, America isn't having to work terribly hard to push Europe and Russia apart: the whole blitzkrieg on Georgia pretty much accomplished that.

The cold war was totally about different ideologies or every politician who breathed during that time lied. Not impossible but unlikely

Please produce a single example of a politician that doesn't lie constantly. Viewing conflicts in ideological terms is great for mobilizing public opinion, and maintaining solidarity. But there is no war without conflicting interests. There still would have been a Cold War if the USSR wasn't communist; it's just the America might not have won.

I don't believe Russia has any problem whatsoever with former members of the USSR being independent, as I understand it the problem arises when these states abrogate their independence to the USA through NATO.

It is the prerogative of independent states to freely sign whatever type of treaty they wish, with whomever they wish. The difference Russia cares about is not independence, but vulnerability to Russian aggression.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IMO Russia has shown great restraint under great provocation for some years now.

I must not have noticed the restraint between the rape of Chechnya, the assassinations of dissidents in foreign countries, the energy blackmail and the invasion of neighboring states.

 

[quadraphonics]

That's exactly what Idi Amin said when he kicked out 50,000 British citizens from Uganda.

Comparing people to Idi Amin is something Hitler would do.

 

[Art]

Comparing people to Idi Amin is something Hitler would do.

Tut tut ... I said your argument was the same one Idi Amin used when he expelled his Asian population; that is simply a fact, and it is also a fact the rest of the world did not agree with his policy of forced repatriation.

The US ambassador at the time, Thomas Patrick Melady, described Amin's regime as "racist, erratic and unpredictable, brutal, inept, bellicose, irrational, ridiculous, and militaristic", so that's what he thought of your argument.