News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

  • Thread starter Thread starter Oberst Villa
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Russian
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the U.S. response to the conflict between Georgia and Russia, with participants questioning whether the U.S. will mediate or support Georgia. There is a consensus that Georgia initiated the fighting by attacking separatist South Ossetia, complicating the situation as Russia intervened under the guise of protecting its citizens. Participants express frustration with the perceived inaction of NATO and Europe, suggesting they should take more responsibility in addressing the conflict. The debate also touches on the historical context of the region, including the implications of NATO expansion and the legacy of Soviet influence. Overall, the conversation reflects a complex interplay of geopolitical interests, national sovereignty, and the challenges of international intervention.
  • #101
meopemuk said:
...major questions are whether or not Georgian leadership committed a war crime by ordering to bomb a city and whether or not Russian army overreracted to the events. My answers are "yes" and "no".

But so far on the first issue, we have only seen footage of Russians and S. Ossettians claiming that the bombing was the initial strike.

On the second issue. I have seen reports that Russians were continuing to operate inside Georgia and strike at targets, even *after* the cease fire was signed.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #102
How it started - From the BBC
THURSDAY 7 AUGUST

Georgian forces and separatists in South Ossetia agree to observe a ceasefire and hold Russian-mediated talks to end their long-simmering conflict.

Hours later, Georgian forces launch a surprise attack, sending a large force against the breakaway province and reaching the capital Tskhinvali.

South Ossetian rebel leader Eduard Kokoity accuses Georgia of a "perfidious and base step".

The head of Georgian forces in South Ossetia says the operation is intended to "restore constitutional order" to the region, while the government says the troops are "neutralising separatist fighters attacking civilians".

Russia's special envoy in South Ossetia, Yury Popov, says Georgia's military operation shows that it cannot be trusted and he calls on Nato to reconsider plans to offer it membership.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7551576.stm
 
  • #103
seycyrus said:
Russia points at dead Russians and claims that cease fire was broken by Georgia.

The accusation that Georgia broke the cease fire came from the GERMAN deputy foreign minister, for all I know he is NOT a Russian. If you have other information, please contact the MAD (Militärischer Abschirmdienst, German Counterintelligence) as soon as possible:

http://www.mad.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/mad
 
  • #104
Oberst Villa said:
The accusation that Georgia broke the cease fire came from the GERMAN deputy foreign minister, for all I know he is NOT a Russian. If you have other information, please contact the MAD (Militärischer Abschirmdienst, German Counterintelligence) as soon as possible:
http://www.mad.bundeswehr.de/portal/a/mad

Why the inability to read the entirety of a post and consider the broad message?

Please note, that the specifics of the cease-fire violation were not given. I was giving a version of events that might have transpired. This was indicated by my phrase "Couldn't it have happened...?"

The technical violation might be viewed as being mediated by intent on the Georgian side

If you want to nitpick, I'll note that virtually all accounts indicate that sniper fire, mortar attacks, kidnappings etc. etc. have been ongoing from both sides for the past year, if not more. Certainly all of those constitute a violation of the cease fire.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #105
Gokul43201 said:
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.
South Ossetia claims between 1600 - 2000 civilians killed, Russia says it lost 74 troops killed whilst Georgia claims to have lost a total of 175 civilians and troops. Even allowing for S Ossetia exaggerating it's losses if these figures are even near correct Russia let Georgia off lightly.

In regard to those crying foul because Russia attacked outside the conflict zone; as I remember, NATO fairly hammered Belgrade, which was many miles outside the conflict zone, to persuade the Serbs to pull out of Kosovo so it is hypocritical to say the least to see those same countries condemn Russia for doing a lot less than they did themselves and with far less legal justification. And whereas Russia attacked only military targets NATO attacked soft targets such as TV studios and Serbian gov't administrative buildings, as I recall NATO even bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade

During a live interview an English reporter asked the Georgian president straight out if he had launched the attack on S Ossetia at the US's instigation. In reply he waffled on for 5 minutes without saying anything and then terminated the press conference.

Bush's supposed shock and horror at the breach of sovereign borders and the resulting collateral damage in Georgia is almost funny when one considers his illegal invasion of Iraq the enormous amount of structural collateral damage and the colossal loss of innocent lives the US inflicted on Iraq. Again not so long ago Bush was 110% behind Israel when it transgressed Lebanons borders killing over 1000 innocent Lebanese civilians as it destroyed infrastructure and bombed apartments in Beirut whilst poisoning the agricultural land and villages for years to come with cluster bombs. All that for far less justification then Russia's intervention.

Russia certainly doesn't need lessons in how to behave on the international stage from a psychopath like Bush or McCain for that matter with his highly paid Georgian lobbyist foreign affairs advisor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #106
seycyrus said:
This quote is a bit confusing as, and doesn't clarify (even if taken at face value) what occurred between Georgia and S. Ossetia.

Could it not have transpired thusly?

S. Ossettian rebels fire at georgians.

Georgians fire back, inadvertently killing some Russian peacekeepers.

Russia points at dead Russians and claims that cease fire was broken by Georgia.

The question is not who formally broke the cease fire. There was a sporadic fire from both sides of the border for weeks before the event. The real question is who shelled Tshinvali and caused thousands of civilian deaths (1500-2000 by different unverified accounts)? I doubt that small contingent of Russian peacekeepers in the area could do that, simply because they didn't have the heavy artillery required for that. Regular Russian troops arrived in the area after the city was destroyed.
 
  • #107
seycyrus said:
True, but I am asking a simple question about the "2000" deaths number that has been ntossed about. I have read reports that say the majority of those were caused by Russia, others say Georgia.
Please provide a link wherein it states Russia caused most of these deaths as even the most pro-Georgian reports I have seen have not made that claim.

Former Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze said Saakashvili ``was caught in his own trap'' in the conflict with Russia.

``When they ask why the Russians are destroying our strategic facilities, I ask why we shelled Tskhinvali and killed people there,'' Shevardnadze said in an interview. ``I don't want to criticize Saakashvili, but it's clear he wasn't ready and should have known that Russia has a lot of reason to defend the region, such as the presence of its citizens.''
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a7CjkzoE3sYA&refer=home
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #108
meopemuk said:
The question is not who formally broke the cease fire. There was a sporadic fire from both sides of the border for weeks before the event. The real question is who shelled Tshinvali and caused thousands of civilian deaths (1500-2000 by different unverified accounts)? I doubt that small contingent of Russian peacekeepers in the area could do that, simply because they didn't have the heavy artillery required for that. Regular Russian troops arrived in the area after the city was destroyed.
The question I'm most interested in is why on the night of Aug 7 following Georgia's attack when Russia asked for an emergency meeting of the UNSC to demand a ceasefire the US and Britain refused to back a resolution demanding one. It was only when Russia sent in it's tanks and it became obvious their dog had lost that suddenly the US and it's lapdog Britain with indecent haste reversed course and began demanding a ceasefire themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #109
seycyrus said:
The western media itself is NOT discussing how russia should be punished. Rather, they are covering certain political figures who are raising such issues. It would be much more suspicious if such stories were *not* covered.

I basically agree with that. However, I also think that the press could be less accomodating to the US administration and ask tougher questions rather than follow the common line: "Georgia is the victim. Russia must be punished." For example they could obtain tapes with refugee's interviews from Russian TV stations and show them on the air. From these interviews the viewers may learn a bit more about the real events than from Saakhashvili's press conferences.
 
  • #110
And meanwhile, Russian forces continue to move towards Tbilisi, violating their own cease-fire agreement. As reported on CNN,FOX,MSNBC.
 
  • #111
Art said:
Please provide a link wherein it states Russia caused most of these deaths as even the most pro-Georgian reports I have seen have not made that claim.

I'll get on it. Maybe I just read it in one of these forums, where it was stated that the infamous "western media" reported the toll, in a report showcasing Russia as the villain, without identifying the aggressor thus leading speculation in that direction.

Edit: Can't find anything to back up my claim. I retract it with apologies. Western media never tried to blame Russia for the large death toll.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #112
seycyrus said:
And meanwhile, Russian forces continue to move towards Tbilisi, violating their own cease-fire agreement. As reported on CNN,FOX,MSNBC.

Are you referring to this article?:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/13/georgia.russia.war/index.html

"Bush said he was told the Russian military had blocked Georgia's major east-west highway and had soldiers at the main port at Poti, and there were reports that some ships had been attacked.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that there were no Russian troops in Poti but that there were soldiers on the outskirts of Gori and Senaki, to the west, according to the Russian news agency Interfax. Senaki is south of another separatist province, Abkhazia.

"They are staying there to neutralize the large arsenal of weapons and other military hardware in the areas of Gori and Senaki. These arsenals remain unguarded. Apparently those who guarded them fled," Lavrov said.

He added that Russia's operations are "aimed at ensuring the peace-enforcement operation in respect to the Georgian side, which violates all of its obligations," and his office denied that Russia had violated the cease-fire."


I may add the following info (translation is mine) from

http://www.nr2.ru/incidents/191082.html

"Russia returns Gori to Georgia. Tbilisi. August 14 (New region, Olga Rad'ko). Russian troops will be removed from Gori on Thursday. The control of the city will be taken by Georgian police. This statement was made yesterday by the head of Georgian security council Alexander Lomaia. He said that Gori will be patrolled by Russian military at night from Wednesday to Thursday, however in the Morning of August 14 Georgian police is going to return to the city, AFP reports. According to "Interfax", the information about the exit from Gori was confirmed by the Russian side. The representative of the Russian Defence Ministry general-major Vjacheslav Borisov said that Russian troops moved from outskirts of Georgian Gori in the direction of Tchinvali. "Russian soldiers will stay in the Gori region for another two days in order to perform certain procedures to transfer the control to Georgian law-enforcement agencies, after that the troops will leave."

In the beginning of this week Gori inhabitans were forced to flee the city when the news came that Russian troops are moving in the direction of the city, reminds "lenta.ru". City administration and police officers were also rushly evacuated. Georgian side insisted that Russian armored vehicles entered the city. Russian military, in its turn, said that troops took their positions on the outskirts. Later RF Defence ministry reported that Russian soldiers are forced to support order in the city abandoned by its administration, including distribution of food to the remaining inhabitans."

I don't think Bush makes his misleading statements out of ignorance. Of course, he may not trust Russian websites. But he has spy satellites, AVAX airplanes, drones and what not. So, he should know the real situation better. The only explanation is that he tries to shield his buddy Misha from deserved prosecution.
 
Last edited:
  • #114
seycyrus said:
No, I am referring to the commentary and reports I am watching on TV right now.
I just heard on NBC a few minutes ago that while Rice and Bush have made this claim categorically, the Pentagon have said that they have no conclusive evidence of any further movement of Russian forces.
 
  • #115
Gokul43201 said:
I just heard on NBC a few minutes ago that while Rice and Bush have made this claim categorically, the Pentagon have said that they have no conclusive evidence of any further movement of Russian forces.

Let me back off for a second. I am not claiming Bush or Condi made any such statements. I am claiming the news correspondents, the people on Lou Dobbs for instance, are making the claims.
 
  • #116
seycyrus said:
No, I am referring to the commentary and reports I am watching on TV right now.

I stopped watching US TV after listening to the today's interview with distinguished former Secretaries of State M-me Albright and Mr. Eagleberger on NPR's "News hour", which is normally rather balanced. It is just full of twisted facts and propaganda. What a shame!

Who created all this hysteria? Bush advisers? Is it going to help McCain to be elected? I am not a fan of "conspiracy theories", but I can't help thinking about them.
 
  • #117
This might be of interest -

James Traub On The Russia-Georgia Conflict
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93561996
Fresh Air from WHYY, August 13, 2008 · Russia and Georgia have signed a cease-fire, but the conflict continues. Journalist James Traub discusses the latest developments.

Traub regularly contributes to The New York Times Magazine. On Sunday, the paper published his analysis of the conflict and its causes.

Taunting the Bear
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html
The hostilities between Russia and Georgia that erupted on Friday over the breakaway province of South Ossetia look, in retrospect, almost absurdly over-determined. For years, the Russians have claimed that Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, has been preparing to retake the disputed regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and have warned that they would use force to block such a bid. Mr. Saakashvili, for his part, describes today’s Russia as a belligerent power ruthlessly pressing at its borders, implacably hostile to democratic neighbors like Georgia and Ukraine. He has thrown in his lot with the West, and has campaigned ardently for membership in NATO. Vladimir V. Putin, Russia’s former president and current prime minister, has said Russia could never accept a NATO presence in the Caucasus.

The border between Georgia and Russia, in short, has been the driest of tinder; the only question was where the fire would start.

It’s scarcely clear yet how things will stand between the two when the smoke clears. But it’s safe to say that while Russia has a massive advantage in firepower, Georgia, an open, free-market, more-or-less-democratic nation that sees itself as a distant outpost of Europe, enjoys a decisive rhetorical and political edge. In recent conversations there, President Saakashvili compared Georgia to Czechoslovakia in 1938, trusting the West to save it from a ravenous neighbor. “If Georgia fails,” he said to me darkly two months ago, “it will send a message to everyone that this path doesn’t work.”

During a 10-day visit to Georgia in June, I heard the 1938 analogy again and again, as well as another to 1921, when Bolshevik troops crushed Georgia’s thrilling, and brief, first experiment with liberal rule.

. . . .
On the NPR program, Traub indicated that Saakashvili's decision to shell Tskhinvali was really stupid. That was an open invitation for the Russians to retaliate, which they did.

I beginning to wonder if 'ineptitude' is universal among politicians. It's just that some are more inept than others.
 
  • #118
meopemuk said:
I stopped watching US TV after listening to the today's interview with distinguished former Secretaries of State M-me Albright and Mr. Eagleberger on NPR's "News hour", which is normally rather balanced. It is just full of twisted facts and propaganda. What a shame!

Who created all this hysteria? Bush advisers? Is it going to help McCain to be elected? I am not a fan of "conspiracy theories", but I can't help thinking about them.

You are claiming that Bush or perhaps McCain is behind Albright's, Eagleberger's and NPRs reporting of the situation?

Perhaps the hysteria is being created by the tanks continuing to roll towards Tbilisi?
 
  • #119
seycyrus said:
You are claiming that Bush or perhaps McCain is behind Albright's, Eagleberger's and NPRs reporting of the situation?

Perhaps the hysteria is being created by the tanks continuing to roll towards Tbilisi?

Remember "weapons of mass destruction" hysteria before the Iraq invasion? Everybody sang to the same tune. Now they regret that. Maybe there was (and still is) some mass hypnosis installation near Washington DC?
 
  • #120
Why is it that Saakashvili actions are repeatedly described at stupid, ill-reasoned or unwise, rather than evil, horrible or despicable? He did raze a town and kill many hundreds of civilians, didn't he?
 
  • #121
seycyrus said:
You are claiming that Bush or perhaps McCain is behind Albright's, Eagleberger's and NPRs reporting of the situation?

Perhaps the hysteria is being created by the tanks continuing to roll towards Tbilisi?
Tbilisi is one hour's drive from Gori. I think if the Russians were heading for the capital they'd have got there by now even if they got out and pushed. A BBC reporter who is with the Russian force said they stopped 5 miles up the road from Gori where they are dismantling a Georgian military camp where Georgian forces had gathered for their attack on S Ossetia. Russian troops they interviewed said they have been told they will be spending the next two days demilitarising the area after which they will be going home.

If the Russians were to leave immediately it would lead to an instant renewal of hostilities between S Ossetian irregular forces who have ventured into Georgia proper and the Georgians so it is in everybody's interest that there is an orderly handover of control. After all no-one would like to see the scenes of looting and devastation that took place in Baghdad and Basra when the US and the UK failed to exercise control over areas it had occupied.

The BBC are also now showing footage of the devastation in S Ossetia and interviews with some of the survivors. It seems the media is beginning to fall out of step with the UK and US gov'ts.
 
  • #122
Gokul43201 said:
Why is it that Saakashvili actions are repeatedly described at stupid, ill-reasoned or unwise, rather than evil, horrible or despicable? He did raze a town and kill many hundreds of civilians, didn't he?
Another report I saw on TV had a reporter commenting in hushed tones on how 'the Russians are advancing inexorably despite the widespread condemnation of the international community'. Funny how the US advance in Iraq wasn't described in those terms despite it being true.

Saddam was strung up following a guilty verdict in a shi'ite court on a charge of killing a handful of shi'ite villagers whereas the Georgian president is being feted by Bush and Brown and touted as a hero for massacring civilians. Somehow I don't see Bush calling for him to be hunted down like a dog and handed over to the S Ossetian's for trial. It's a funny old world.

Personally I think Russian troops should be employed as peace keepers in all the world's hotspots. They have just given the UN a salutary lesson on how to react when peace keepers are attacked rather than the usual run for the hills ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #123
Astronuc said:
Taunting the Bear
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/weekinreview/10traub.html

Yes, very interesting historical observations and deep psychological analysis of Putin and Saakhashvili, and study of the geopolitical situation, all of which looks reasonable and even may be true. However, the author, like many others, misses the true point. It is not a crime to be in bad relations with your neighbor (Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, Kosovo,...) or with US or with EU. Such bad relationships between countries or regions or nations occur everywhere in the world, and people somehow adjust to live with them.

But it is a crime to shell a city and kill thousands of civilians. The author refers to this event by a brief euphemism "the lid blew in South Ossetia". That's why his article just muddies the waters and diverts our attention from real issues.
 
  • #124
Art said:
Tbilisi is one hour's drive from Gori. I think if the Russians were heading for the capital they'd have got there by now even if they got out and pushed.

The fact that they are heading towards the capital is certainly enough to raise an eyebrow or two of suspicion.

I certainly don't think the cease fire would allow for Russia to continue driving around the Georgia homeland.

Art said:
A BBC reporter who is with the Russian force said they stopped 5 miles up the road from Gori where they are dismantling a Georgian military camp where Georgian forces had gathered for their attack on S Ossetia. Russian troops they interviewed said they have been told they will be spending the next two days demilitarising the area after which they will be going home.

Again, I wonder if such "cleanup" activities were part of the cease fire. It would seem that Georgians do not think so.

Art said:
If the Russians were to leave immediately it would lead to an instant renewal of hostilities between S Ossetian irregular forces who have ventured into Georgia proper and the Georgians so it is in everybody's interest that there is an orderly handover of control.

That is certainly a fair amount of conjecture. A renewal of hostilities would be a violation of the cease fire. Who would do such a thing? Certainly nto the beatne Georgians, and certainly not the *innocent* S. Ossetians!

Art said:
After all no-one would like to see the scenes of looting and devastation that took place in Baghdad and Basra when the US and the UK failed to exercise control over areas it had occupied.

It's amazing how we can't go one step without bashing the US or Bush admin.

Art said:
The BBC are also now showing footage of the devastation in S Ossetia and interviews with some of the survivors. It seems the media is beginning to fall out of step with the UK and US gov'ts.

You need to update your webpages more often. BBC has had videos of S. Ossetia and those interviews for quite some time now. they also have videos talking about the breach of the cease fire.

Here we finally get to see some accounts from Georgian refugees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558813.stm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #125
Art said:
Another report I saw on TV had a reporter commenting in hushed tones on how 'the Russians are advancing inexorably despite the widespread condemnation of the international community'. Funny how the US advance in Iraq wasn't described in those terms despite it being true.

That commentary wouldn't have been correct at that time, because the international condemnation was not yet in effect. Here in this case, the international condemnation has been reported.

Art said:
Saddam was strung up following a guilty verdict in a shi'ite court on a charge of killing a handful of shi'ite villagers whereas the Georgian president is being feted by Bush and Brown and touted as a hero for massacring civilians.

It looks like you are minimizing the crimes of that pig-dog piece of slime formerly known as Sadaam Hussein.

I certainly don't see the Georgian president being touted as a hero, either.

Art said:
Personally I think Russian troops should be employed as peace keepers in all the world's hotspots.

Apparently they are too cowardly to deploy anywhere else, rather than S. Ossettia.

Art said:
They have just given the UN a salutary lesson on how to react when peace keepers are attacked rather than the usual run for the hills ;)

Yeah, that'll teach those capitalist pigs!

Unbreakable union of free republics,
Great Russia has joined forever!
...
 
  • #126
seycyrus said:
The fact that they are heading towards the capital is certainly enough to raise an eyebrow or two of suspicion.
Well as they are now parked you can lower your eyebrow.

seycyrus said:
I certainly don't think the cease fire would allow for Russia to continue driving around the Georgia homeland.Again, I wonder if such "cleanup" activities were part of the cease fire. It would seem that Georgians do not think so.
One of the nice things about winning a war is you get to make the rules.
seycyrus said:
That is certainly a fair amount of conjecture. A renewal of hostilities would be a violation of the cease fire. Who would do such a thing? Certainly nto the beatne Georgians, and certainly not the *innocent* S. Ossetians!
If the Russians weren't there to stop them I am sure the Georgians would be more than happy to go another round with the Ossetians and likewise the Ossetian irregulars with the Georgians. I don't think the Ossetians were actually parties to the ceasefire agreement and I do think the Georgian civilians need protection from revenge attacks by these irregulars.
seycyrus said:
It's amazing how we can't go one step without bashing the US or Bush admin.
Bashing?? I'm pointing out that recent experiences show exactly what happens in a power vacuum in a war zone and I personally would not like to see widespread destruction of Georgian homes and businesses. I suppose I could have cited the Moors invasion of Spain as an example to spare your sensibilities but I thought something more recent would serve the purpose better.
seycyrus said:
You need to update your webpages more often. BBC has had videos of S. Ossetia and those interviews for quite some time now.
No they have not. They only showed video of S Ossetia and the survivors when their own camera crew entered the area tonight.

seycyrus said:
Here we finally get to see some accounts from Georgian refugees.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558813.stm
I have every bit as much sympathy for Georgian civilians caught up in this nightmare as I do for the S Ossetians. It is the warmongering pieces of s%^& that get them into these hellish situations that I despise. Unfortunately it is all too rare for them to be held accountable for their evil stupidity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #127
seycyrus said:
That commentary wouldn't have been correct at that time, because the international condemnation was not yet in effect. Here in this case, the international condemnation has been reported.
Remember 'freedom fries'? :rolleyes:



seycyrus said:
It looks like you are minimizing the crimes of that pig-dog piece of slime formerly known as Sadaam Hussein.
Not at all, but that's all he was sentenced for. Personally I'd have loved to see him stand trial on other charges to see who his fellow conspirators were.

seycyrus said:
I certainly don't see the Georgian president being touted as a hero, either.
Bush certainly takes every opportunity to proclaim his support for him. He is even sending Condi over as a message of solidarity. As if Georgia didn't have enough problems already:biggrin:
 
  • #128
Last year I had plans to go stay in Tbilisi for some time... it's quite scary and shocking to hear this!

I heard Putin condemning Georgia for committing "genocide". Funny Putin should say that, considering the slaughter in Chechnya :smile:

It looks like you are minimizing the crimes of that pig-dog piece of slime formerly known as Sadaam Hussein.

Uh, which crimes? Care to explain?
 
  • #129
meopemuk said:
Yes, very interesting historical observations and deep psychological analysis of Putin and Saakhashvili, and study of the geopolitical situation, all of which looks reasonable and even may be true. However, the author, like many others, misses the true point. It is not a crime to be in bad relations with your neighbor (Russia, Georgia, Abkhazia, Kosovo,...) or with US or with EU. Such bad relationships between countries or regions or nations occur everywhere in the world, and people somehow adjust to live with them.

But it is a crime to shell a city and kill thousands of civilians. The author refers to this event by a brief euphemism "the lid blew in South Ossetia". That's why his article just muddies the waters and diverts our attention from real issues.
Yes, certainly shelling civilian areas is a crime. In an interview, Traub pointed out that the precipitating event was murky, i.e. it is not clear to those remote from the situation who fired the first shot last week.

As for the euphimism, the entire paragraph is:
The situation in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia took yet another turn down the spiral of confrontation in July, when mysterious acts of violence plagued both regions. There were bombings in Abkhazia. There were shootings in South Ossetia. Who was behind the string of attacks? Criminal gangs? Provocateurs? Georgian secret agents? No one knew, but that didn’t stop the accusations from flying. Abkhazia closed the cease-fire line, then cut all ties with Georgia. On July 8, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about to visit Georgia, Russia sent fighter jets over South Ossetia. Georgian Interior Ministry forces squared off against civilians in South Ossetia. The pot was boiling. And then, last week, the lid blew in South Ossetia, for reasons that remain unclear. Diplomats are now laboring mightily to prevent the war from spreading, though hostilities may serve too many different interests to be easily contained.
So were Abkhazian and Ossetia separatists/militia targeting Georgians in those regions? Did the Russians support such activity, which is essentially ethnic cleansing?
 
  • #130
In my opinion, you are not looking at the big picture. Something similar would have happened one way or the other. It is not who shot the first shot or who started this, it is something like a hidden war between Russia, EU & US. Russia just added a card that might be to its favor if it is played correctly. The US wants to debunk this card, it starts a media propaganda and tries different things to put this card down. For example, put political pressure on Russia, direct the UN to put more pressure on Russia, get someone like Sarkozy to put more pressure on Russia, support Georgian forces and supply them with weapons and so and so...I think the US might even call forces into Georgia.

This is the Russians not bending over to Americans (unlike some people) and Americans trying to neutralise the Russian danger by implementing its missile-defense programme.

*this is my personal opinion*
 
  • #131
Who is not looking at the big picture? What is the basis of such a comment?

Personally, I'm looking for an independent (non-biased) assessment, which is difficult given the interests involved.

Certainly, there is the US-Russian conflict of competing strategic interests (that is rather blatantly obvious). There is also the competition among Georgia, Abhkazia, and S. Ossetia. No innocent parties here. Shall we list all the greviances of all parties?

This is interesting - why does Russia need so much firepower (many times that of Georgia) for peace-keeping?
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/08/10/article-1043359-023C040E00000578-819_468x400.jpg


Meanwhile -

Leading article: A conflict that has cost Georgia's democracy dear
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-has-cost-georgias-democracy-dear-892815.html


The view from South Ossetia: Joy and thanks in the land that is now part of Russia
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-land-that-is-now-part-of-russia-892861.html


Ossetian militias 'looting Georgian villages' (and Georgian militias intimidating ethnic Ossetians)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...ilitias-looting-georgian-villages-893474.html
Human Rights Watch says it has witnessed South Ossetian fighters looting ethnic Georgians' houses and has recorded multiple accounts of Georgian militias intimidating ethnic Ossetians.

The report today by the respected international rights group is important independent confirmation of the claims by each side in the Russia-Georgia conflict. Both have accused the other of committing actions that could be counted as war crimes.

Kim Sengupta: First war, now anarchy as Russian militias run riot
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...rchy-as-russian-militias-run-riot-894525.html
The conflict in Georgia appeared to be evolving into a vicious new phase yesterday, with killings, burning and looting by irregular militias coming in behind Russian military columns thrusting from the breakaway province of South Ossetia deep into the country.

George Bush and the Georgian government accused Moscow of breaking the less than 24-hour-old ceasefire, as armed bands of Ossetians, Cossacks and Chechens raided villages around the strategic town of Gori which was taken over by Russian forces in the morning.

Bullet-riddled bodies were seen at three villages, Karaleti, Gavardzhavli and Variani, struck by the militias who appeared to be members of Caucasian groups fighting alongside South Ossetian separatists against Georgian government forces. There were also corpses at Dzardzanis and Kelktsuili. Some of the houses were ablaze and there was widespread evidence of looting.


The Georgian military attacked Tskhinvali and killed civilians, and Russians attacked Gori (and Poti?) and killed civilians.

Georgians attack Ossetians and Ossetians attacked Georgians.
 
  • #132
The big picture i am talking about is getting over the details of this war such as who fired the first shot. This would have happened one way or the other. Can't you see how Russia was so excited to deploy its troops in Georgia! Its like a card game where each player has some cards in his/her hands, Russia just made up another card that could be either in their favor or really go against them, it depends on how well they play the game and how stupid/smart those sitting on the table can be.
 
  • #133
I should clarify a previous statement - there are no innocents - except for the millions of unarmed civilians (men, women and children) who are just trying to live or in some cases survive under sometimes difficult conditions.

Who are the aggressors - perhaps the corrupt politicians (and their allies) who want power and control over the lives of other people, or the military/militias who support the political leaders, the people with weapons, the people who are all to willing to go to war?


If one looks back in antiquity, most of that area was part of the kingdom of Armenia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Armenian_Empire.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenia#Antiquity

Empires, nations, borders come and go.
 
  • #134
AhmedEzz said:
The big picture i am talking about is getting over the details of this war such as who fired the first shot. This would have happened one way or the other. Can't you see how Russia was so excited to deploy its troops in Georgia! Its like a card game where each player has some cards in his/her hands, Russia just made up another card that could be either in their favor or really go against them, it depends on how well they play the game and how stupid/smart those sitting on the table can be.
Sure - seems obvious to me. Russia didn't want to let go of the Soviet Union!

What will happen when the Abkhaz or Ossetians decide that they have had enough of Russia? Or how about the Ingush, Chechens, or those of Dagestan (Avars, Dargins and Lezgins) if they decide they want autonomy from Russia. Will Russia claim territorial integrity and attack civilians the way Georgia behaved toward Abkhazia and Ossetia?

Why doesn't Russia behave to Georgia the way the US behaved to Cuba? Russia certainly put a trade embargo on Georgia and cut off energy supplies.

I've been watching the big picture for 40 years or so.
 
  • #135
Well said my friend, the only true losers are the people. Look how many children lost their parents or how many fathers lost their children, look how many people lost their arms,legs or even worse...Presidents and so called leadrs will wake up next morning and still have their lives but those whose lives are changed are the people.
 
  • #136
Astronuc said:
As for the euphimism, the entire paragraph is:

"The situation in both Abkhazia and South Ossetia took yet another turn down the spiral of confrontation in July, when mysterious acts of violence plagued both regions. There were bombings in Abkhazia. There were shootings in South Ossetia. Who was behind the string of attacks? Criminal gangs? Provocateurs? Georgian secret agents? No one knew, but that didn’t stop the accusations from flying. Abkhazia closed the cease-fire line, then cut all ties with Georgia. On July 8, with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice about to visit Georgia, Russia sent fighter jets over South Ossetia. Georgian Interior Ministry forces squared off against civilians in South Ossetia. The pot was boiling. And then, last week, the lid blew in South Ossetia, for reasons that remain unclear. Diplomats are now laboring mightily to prevent the war from spreading, though hostilities may serve too many different interests to be easily contained."

So were Abkhazian and Ossetia separatists/militia targeting Georgians in those regions? Did the Russians support such activity, which is essentially ethnic cleansing?

Hi Astronuc,

yes, James Traub's article is factually true, but his priorities seem to be screwed.
It is true that a low-level conflict was brewing in the region for 15 years. Both sides occasionally shot each other. This is actually the reason why peacekeeping forces were stationed in South Ossetia. By the way, this force consisted of three parts: Ossetians, Georgians and Russians. They were in the region on the basis of internationally recognized accord between the three parties. This was an unfortunate (but tolerable) state of affairs that can be found in many other hot spots of the world.

However all this changed when Georgian regular military force entered the area on August 8, killed Russian peacekeepers, shelled Tshinvali, killed thousands of civilians, and created the refugee crisis. There can be no equation sign between low-level skirmishes on both sides and the wholesale massacre of civilians. It is amazing how some Western leaders and media fail to see the difference. It is amazing how they are shy to mention the real event that started all this, and focus only on the Russian military response.

How would you feel if US international policy of the last 7 years was discussed without mentioning the events of 9/11?

Eugene.
 
  • #137
Astronuc said:
What will happen when the Abkhaz or Ossetians decide that they have had enough of Russia? Or how about the Ingush, Chechens, or those of Dagestan (Avars, Dargins and Lezgins) if they decide they want autonomy from Russia. Will Russia claim territorial integrity and attack civilians the way Georgia behaved toward Abkhazia and Ossetia?

Almost certainly yes. They've already done so in Chechnya, for example. Russia's geostrategical position is backed by nothing besides naked force, and has been for centuries. The only interesting question is how the EU will deal with the fact that history is still raging on its borders.
 
  • #138
Art said:
Personally I think Russian troops should be employed as peace keepers in all the world's hotspots.

Interesting idea. Let's see if they have some free time for that after Georgia, Crimea, and Lithuania.
 
  • #139
meopemuk said:
yes, James Traub's article is factually true, but his priorities seem to be screwed.

It is true that a low-level conflict was brewing in the region for 15 years. Both sides occasionally shot each other. This is actually the reason why peacekeeping forces were stationed in South Ossetia. By the way, this force consisted of three parts: Ossetians, Georgians and Russians. They were in the region on the basis of internationally recognized accord between the three parties. This was an unfortunate (but tolerable) state of affairs that can be found in many other hot spots of the world.

However all this changed when Georgian regular military force entered the area on August 8, killed Russian peacekeepers, shelled Tshinvali, killed thousands of civilians, and created the refugee crisis. There can be no equation sign between low-level skirmishes on both sides and the wholesale massacre of civilians. It is amazing how some Western leaders and media fail to see the difference. It is amazing how they are shy to mention the real event that started all this, and focus only on the Russian military response.

How would you feel if US international policy of the last 7 years was discussed without mentioning the events of 9/11?
The matter between Russian and Georgia and Russia and those small geopolitical units in the Caucuses have been simmering for a long time. No state, or rather, no politician likes to give up territory.

Traub's article, while leaving out the background and some key details, is pretty good for the US.

I always have to go to sources outside the US for my news. And preferably I'd go myself, but no one wants to pay me to be a witness.

I think US foreign policy has been rather poor - for the last 232 years - but then it's much along the lines of the European and Asian Imperial/colonial powers.
 
  • #140
Vanadium 50 said:
Interesting idea. Let's see if they have some free time for that after Georgia, Crimea, and Lithuania.
Afghanistan . . . . Oh wait - they were for a time.
 
  • #141
Astronuc said:
I think US foreign policy has been rather poor - for the last 232 years - but then it's much along the lines of the European and Asian Imperial/colonial powers.

US foreign policy wasn't all that bad under Franklin D. Roosevelt. If he would have messed it up, Europe (including Russia) might be living under the swastika now.
 
  • #142
Astronuc said:
Traub's article, while leaving out the background and some key details, is pretty good for the US.


That's right: "some key detail". Thousand of people here, thousand of people there... who counts them? Anyway, the value of people's life in some remote obscure region is much less than of those occupying a skyscraper in New York. For some powers it is OK to occupy and devastate entire countries. For others it is not OK to defend its own citizens. Pretty good for the US.
 
  • #143
The conflict between Russia and Georgia might have consequences for the Iran policy of the US:


The effect will be felt beyond the Caucasus. Noting that the US wants Russia to support sanctions against Iran and to not sell weapons – "particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system" – an analysis from Stratfor, an intelligence analysis firm, said Wednesday that the Russians "have backed the Americans into a corner."
"Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue," notes Stratfor. The US must either "reorient" away from the Mideast to the Caucasus, or "seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran."

(underlined by me, not in original text)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0815/p10s01-wome.html


If you assume that this is true, which of the options do you think the US will take ? Reorient from Mideast to Caucasus or limit its response against Russia ?
 
  • #144
meopemuk said:
This is actually the reason why peacekeeping forces were stationed in South Ossetia. By the way, this force consisted of three parts: Ossetians, Georgians and Russians.

The idea of having the parties to the conflict, and only those parties, serve as peacekeepers seems poorly-conceived to me. The whole idea of a peacekeeping force is that it is a neutral third party with no incentive to use its position to deepen the conflict. Granted, it's often difficult to get all the parties to a conflict to agree upon and accept such a third-party, but it seems like an abuse of the term 'peacekeepers' to use it in this situation. When it's the actual parties to the conflict, the 'peacekeeping mission' is nothing more than a temporary cease-fire, and a pretense for mobilizing troops and resources in the disputed area.
 
  • #145
Western "independent" media looks laughable. Saakhashvili's paranoidal statements are reported immediately without verification, and Russian officials are quoted out of context. They (the media) try to avoid the central issue of who destroyed Tshinvali by all possible means: "cannot be independently verified", "Georgians were provoked", "result of heavy fighting", etc. It is good that some Western reporters now reached the conflict zone on the South Ossetian side and started to send more or less objective information, including interviews with local residents, who know better than anybody else who is to blame. The West is going to be embarrassed very soon to learn that they gave unconditional support to a war criminal.
 
Last edited:
  • #146
quadraphonics said:
The idea of having the parties to the conflict, and only those parties, serve as peacekeepers seems poorly-conceived to me. The whole idea of a peacekeeping force is that it is a neutral third party with no incentive to use its position to deepen the conflict. Granted, it's often difficult to get all the parties to a conflict to agree upon and accept such a third-party, but it seems like an abuse of the term 'peacekeepers' to use it in this situation. When it's the actual parties to the conflict, the 'peacekeeping mission' is nothing more than a temporary cease-fire, and a pretense for mobilizing troops and resources in the disputed area.

Yes, I agree, this was not an ideal solution. Apparently, there was no 4th party willing to send their peacekeepers to the area and acceptable to all sides of the conflict. So, the sides made the arrangement among themselves. Note that this arrangement (good or bad) managed to keep relative peace and quiet in the area for 15 years.
 
  • #147
Oberst Villa said:
US foreign policy wasn't all that bad under Franklin D. Roosevelt. If he would have messed it up, Europe (including Russia) might be living under the swastika now.
You should brush up on WW11 history. Russia defeated Germany in the defining battles of Stalingrad which started the reversal in Germany's fortunes and then Kiev which signalled the beginning of the end for Hitler without anybody's help. All the major battles were fought in the East with the Western front being a far lessor battle ground in terms of men and materials. Plus America went to war with Germany because Germany declared war on America two weeks after Pearl Harbour which didn't exactly leave the US a choice. Having said that and not to take away from America's role it is very likely that all of Europe would have ended up under Stalinist Russia were it not for the US forces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #148
Art said:
You should brush up on WW11 history.

Holy crap! You mean to tell me I slept through NINE world wars??
 
  • #149
WarPhalange said:
Holy crap! You mean to tell me I slept through NINE world wars??

:smile::smile::smile:

Stercus accidit atqui nihil est. In vita priore ego imperator romanus fui.

Scio cur summae inter se dissentiant! Numeris Romanis utor!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #150
A more balanced analysis from the BBC
Russians losing propaganda war

By Paul Reynolds
World affairs correspondent, BBC News

The Bush administration appears to be trying to turn a failed military operation by Georgia into a successful diplomatic operation against Russia.

It is doing so by presenting the Russian actions as aggression and playing down the Georgian attack into South Ossetia on 7 August, which triggered the Russian operation.

Yet the evidence from South Ossetia about that attack indicates that it was extensive and damaging.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562611.stm
 

Similar threads

News Retaliation against ethnic Georgians
Replies
7
Views
2K
News Interview: U.S., Russia still face mutual destruction threat
Replies
14
Views
3K
A Loophole-free test of local realism via Hardy's violation
Replies
37
Views
6K
News Is Washington's Strategy in Ukraine a Prelude to a New Cold War?
Replies
7
Views
3K
I Drag Coefficient of a 'flexible' object (e.g. a piece of paper)
Replies
4
Views
2K
Mars Mission - an act of Lunacy or Science?
Replies
13
Views
3K
News The Neocons' Next War: Is This the Beginning of the Next Conflict?
Replies
2
Views
2K
News Middle School Anti-Bullying Lesson Includes Lesbian Role Play
Replies
29
Views
6K
What is the Direction of A X B Using the Right Hand Rule?
Replies
3
Views
2K
News What Are the Strategic Goals and Tactics in the Gaza War?
2
Replies
79
Views
12K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top