News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[Art]

Yes, but people who voiced opinions against the outrageous claims were not labelled as being part of some conspiracy machine.

From the very beginning of this incident, we have seen every source that laid even the barest of blame at Russia being labelled as "western media propaganda".

Ridiculous

How very Orwellian See post #300 for an example of an unfounded conspiracy theory.

 

[seycyrus]

How very Orwellian See post #300 for an example of an unfounded conspiracy theory.

The label "western media bias" was thrown around with alarming alacrity.

To attribute a cyber attack on the scale that was being discussed, apparently timed as it was, to a prank is ridiculous.

Without evidence, that is.

 

[WmLambert]

The Russian media cannot control all independent thought.

Andrey Illarionov (radio station "Echo of Moscow", which still has some courage to air independent voices) was a former economic adviser to Putin, the President of Russian Federation. http://www.echo.msk.ru/programs/personalno/534948-echo/ This says Russia started it.

On searching his name, this came up. This is from Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

BTW... There were deaths following on the heels of the attack on the World Trade Center. Please recall the hysteria following the anthrax letters being sent to members of Congress, and killing people who merely handled the letters. The little red laser dot of fear was playing over all the collective chests of American citizenry ever since. It was only a few weeks ago that we may have received as still unproved closure on the anthrax letters.

Also, BTW... The military pre-positioning of elite troops from the Moscow area was no fiction. The top-level troops are far and few between in Russia, and even these elite troops performed poorly. Getting them pre-staged was a big deal, and NOT just reaction to events in South Ossetia.

It is now said that the U.S. is bringing weapons into Georgia to counter the Russian bear. If so, Putin and Medveded must think twice about the military catastrophe they face when their inferior military conscripts face modern weapons, and motivated defensive troops. The way into South Ossetia is the easily blocked Roki tunnel. Any troops this side of the mountains are cut off from supply-lines - and Russia's air capabilities have shown themselves incapable to fly over the mountains without being shot down. A few thousand-dollar shooulder fired ground to air missiles negate the entire Russian air force.

Also recall, that prior to the Russian attack, Georgia was undergoing very successful economic growth and becoming a viable state on the international scene. A CATO forum on the success of Georgia presented this data:

Following the Rose Revolution of 2003, the former Soviet Republic of Georgia began far-reaching reforms in governance and economic policy that are turning the country into a post-socialist success story. Georgia now ranks 44th out of 141 countries on the Economic Freedom of the World index, is cited by the World Bank as one of the world's leading reformers, and is sustaining economic growth of more than 9 percent per year.

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=4646

 

[mheslep]

...It is now said that the U.S. is bringing weapons into Georgia to counter the Russian bear. ...

WHERE is it now said?

 

[meopemuk]

To attribute a cyber attack on the scale that was being discussed, apparently timed as it was, to a prank is ridiculous.

By the way, the Internet domain .ru (Russia) is presently blocked completely inside Georgia. All Russian television channels are blocked as well. I can't say anything with certainty about the Russian "cyber attack", but these are definite examples of government suppressing the free speech.

 

[WmLambert]

Just heard it on TV as I was typing. It was either CNN or Fox.

 

[mheslep]

Just heard it on TV as I was typing. It was either CNN or Fox.

I believe you misheard.

 

[meopemuk]

It is now said that the U.S. is bringing weapons into Georgia to counter the Russian bear.

"Angering Russia, the U.S. sent the missile destroyer USS McFaul to the southern Georgian port of Batumi, well away from the conflict zone, to deliver 34 tons of humanitarian aid on Sunday. The McFaul left Batumi on Tuesday but would remain in the Black Sea area, said Commander Scott Miller, a spokesman for the U.S. Navy's 6th Fleet in Naples, Italy. The U.S. Coast Guard cutter Dallas, meanwhile, was headed for Georgia with a shipment of aid. It may try to enter Poti."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_russia_georgia

 

[WmLambert]

Yes, it was Fox (In between the Democrat Convention coverage.) The statement was put out as a news statement with the caveat that there is no official confirmation, yet.

 

[mheslep]

Who did Fox cite as a source? Russia?

Nothing shows up on a foxnews search for US Georgia arms, nor anything on the web at large outside of 'russiatoday.com' or the like.

I assert the claim that the US is shipping arms to Georgia has no credibility.

 

[baywax]

Who did Fox cite as a source? Russia?

Nothing shows up on a foxnews search for US Georgia arms, nor anything on the web at large outside of 'russiatoday.com' or the like.

I assert the claim that the US is shipping arms to Georgia has no credibility.

They might want to ship some legs too, after all the bombing etc...

 

[quadraphonics]

By the way, the Internet domain .ru (Russia) is presently blocked completely inside Georgia. All Russian television channels are blocked as well. I can't say anything with certainty about the Russian "cyber attack", but these are definite examples of government suppressing the free speech.

FYI, suppressing the speech of your enemies during a war is not the sort of suppression that gets Westerners worked up. The whole freedom of speech thing is more about allowing one's own citizens to freely speak their mind about the conduct of their own government.

 

[WmLambert]

Fox did report as posted.

...Also Tuesday, Medvedev accused the U.S. of shipping arms to Georgia under the guise of humanitarian aid, a charge the White House denied.

 

[mheslep]

Fox did report as posted.

Now we have the source - The Russians say the US is currently shipping arms to Georgia. Needn't have gone to Fox for that. Here's some more of what the Russians say:
Medvedev blames U.S. for world financial crisis
http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28742
Two-headed ‘baby monster’ born in U.S.
http://www.russiatoday.com/world_update/news/22878
Assassination of A. Litvinenko via Polonium:
Litvinenko
Britons trumped up phoney investigation
http://www.russiatoday.com/litvinenko/news/16314

 

[sketchtrack]

I like the russian articles, they say Russia has nothing to gain through conflict, but they don't give any reasons why. Then at the end they say South Ossetia and Abkahazias will move further and faster from Georgia because of the conflict. Id doesn't really make sense. Isn't that what Russia wants, and through conflict that is what they get. Isn't that kind of hypocritical.

 

[sketchtrack]

I came across this article

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

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

 

[quadraphonics]

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

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

 

[meopemuk]

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

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

 

[WarPhalange]

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

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

Kosovo?

 

[Pyrrhus]

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

 

[sketchtrack]

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

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

 

[meopemuk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Vanadium 50]

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

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

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

 

[WarPhalange]

I came across this article

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

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

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

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

 

[baywax]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[meopemuk]

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

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

 

[baywax]

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

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

 

[meopemuk]

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

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

I got my info from this site:

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

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

 

[quadraphonics]

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

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

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

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

 

[Pyrrhus]

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

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