News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[Oberst Villa]

Some guesses / rumors / news snippets. Please don't take them as reliable facts, but you might correlate them with what you hear in the news:

Russian troops will advance until they have secured buffer zones around South Ossetia and Abkhazia. A German reporter in South Ossetia was told by Russian staff officers that Russia had no intention to occupy Georgian territory except for this buffer zones. I just hope they don't think that all of Georgia is their buffer zone... Seriously, another source claimed that Russia explicitly stated they would not move into Tblisi.

I read in some posts the accusation that western media do only report what happened to the Georgian population but ignore the South Ossetian refugees. I have also observed this in some media, but on a German TV channel they brought a relatively long report about South Ossetians that had fled to North Ossetia, including a statement of a woman about Georgian attrocities (I do not consider this reliable as long as I have no confirmation by an independent source, I am only telling you this to make my point that not all western media give one-sided reports).

Finally, I made the false assumption that the South Ossetians are a homogeneous population that all want to break away from Georgia. This is surely true for the majority, but today I heard reports of some South Ossetians that are loyal to Georgia and had fled there when Russian troops moved into South Ossetia.

 

[edward]

We are into Georgia militarily up to our necks and have been since 2002. It is always about oil and blood is always shed.

The Pentagon is to privatise its military presence in Georgia by contracting a team of retired US military officers to equip and advise the former Soviet republic's crumbling military, embellishing an eastward expansion that has enraged Moscow.


After a Georgian appeal for support to the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, during a visit last month, a team of 20-30 private defence consultants are already in Tbilisi. Their employer, a Washington security firm, Cubic, has a three-year $15m contract with the Pentagon to support all aspects of the Georgian ministry of defence.


A senior western diplomat said: "One of the goals is to make the army units capable of seizing and defending a given objective. The consultants will work with US defence liaisons in the US Tbilisi embassy and the European command in Stuttgart." He said the programme could continue for much longer than three years.


About 60 US military trainers arrived in Georgia in the summer of 2002 to help the dilapidated military deal with the perceived threat of terrorists linked to al-Qaida hiding in the Pankisi gorge, on the border with Russian Chechnya.

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=11213

And it is all being done by private companies, probably Cheney's choice on this.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/jan/06/georgia.nickpatonwalsh

The price of crude is allready going up.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=az6JIuhga_a8&refer=canada

 

[Jordan Joab]

Speculation:

WWI and WWII started out of a small regional event/conflict. WWIII just a few months away?

 

[jostpuur]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/11/us.georgia/index.html

Bush also warned Russia against trying to depose Georgia's government, saying evidence suggests Russia may be preparing to do so.

At the United Nations in New York on Monday, Russia refused to sign off on a resolution calling for a cease-fire with Georgia despite mounting pressure from world powers.

The U.S. is trying to transport 2,000 Georgian troops serving in Iraq back home to fend off Russian advances, but beyond that "there are no discussions about the U.S. getting involved militarily,"

It looks like Russia will be taking control of the entire country now, despite what the west is crying. I don't believe WIII is coming, assuming Russia wins and ends the war quickly. If the battle starts continuing too long, I suppose anything can happen then.

 

[Pyrrhus]

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

You know that's exactly what i thought when i first read about this war. Anyway, later as I was looking reading the countries reactions I wasn't surprised when I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_South_Ossetia_War" .

 

[jostpuur]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm Russia 'ends Georgia operation'

Now it appears that the Russia is not heading towards the capital anymore.

 

[AhmedEzz]

I think Russia is showing the US that it will no longer tolerate its policies. US has been supplying Georgians with weapons , tanks, etc... Russia doesn't want a puppet government controlled by the US near its borders. I believe this is a way of saying "We are serious about this and you must change your policies.".

This might also be linked with the US plans to protect itself from Russian missiles. If the US went forward with this, Russia will lose power balance to US and I don't think that is a good thing.

I think that the US is simply after taking every power in the world down but then it IS "THE" superpower and it is the wealthiest nation in the world, what else do they want? This remains mystery to me.



*These are all personal opinions*

 

[Briant232]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxSvsa7I9fg&feature=related

Brings to mind that saying, "You can run, but you'll only die tired." Add to that, "You can run, but your panicked flight (to nowhere really) will be on display on youtube for years to come."

He is a puppet, which is why he had US and Israeli trainer's to prepare his military to attack South Ossetia. I guess they didn't teach his troops what to do in case of a real opponent...that's always the tricky part...when they shoot back.

Hopefully the Georgian people throw this guy under the bus.

 

[Oberst Villa]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555858.stm Russia 'ends Georgia operation'

Now it appears that the Russia is not heading towards the capital anymore.

So the bloodshed is over ! Thanks for this wonderful news, jostpuur.

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[AhmedEzz]

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

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

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

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

 

[Art]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[grant9076]

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

Any other obvious things that you would like to add?

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

Who would be doing the cutting?

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

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

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

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

 

[jostpuur]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You actually did not try to justify this opinion.

 

[meopemuk]

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

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

...five days later...

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

... few months later...

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

You actually did not try to justify this opinion.

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

Thank you.

 

[jostpuur]

... few months later...

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

 

[jostpuur]

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

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

 

[meopemuk]

I agree that it was a tragic miscalculation.

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

 

[seycyrus]

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

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

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

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

 

[AhmedEzz]

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

 

[Gokul43201]

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

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

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

 

[Gokul43201]

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

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

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

 

[meopemuk]

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

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

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

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