News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[Oberst Villa]

Though I am an ethnic Russian I didn't live in Russia proper. I have a number of relatives there, though our contacts are sporadic and I didn't have a chance to ask them about latest events. I had some exchanges with immigrants from former USSR living and working around me.

I think it should be clear to anyone that Saakashvili (unless he is a complete madman) could not perform this stunt all by himself. He should have known better what the reaction of Russia would be. He was warned by Russians many times not to do exactly what he did.

My personal opinion is that he was encouraged by the US. The aggressive American PR campaign in support of Saakashvili seems to confirm that. Perhaps Bush became bored with Iraq and Afghanistan which seem to go nowhere and decided to start a new game in his quest for domination? Perhaps he has a big geopolitical plan of dividing the world into opposing camps (Europe and America on one side, Russia and China on the other) in preparation for the Armageddon? I have no idea.

Or perhaps things are not so apocaliptic and Saakashvili "simply" decided to retake South Ossetia by force. He could have succeeded if Russians hesitated to respond for a couple more days.




"Argumenti i Fakti" was extremely popular during "perestroika". I think they even got to the Guinness Book of Records as a periodical with the highest circulation in the world.

I am not a political junkie, and I didn't pay much attention to the current Russian press before this event, which made me furious. You can try www.yandex.ru[/url] for compilation of articles from different sources (including US and Georgian). A good source of video footage and commentaries in English is [PLAIN]www.russiatoday.com . I have 6 Russian TV channels at home from DirecTV, but I pay smthng like $60/month for that. Some would say that Russian media is not credible, because it is state-controlled. But I can say with some authority that most Russians agree with what they see on TV during last 11 days. What is that? The media accurately reflects people's opinion? Or the population is brainwashed by the media? I would vote for the former.

For a strong anti-Kremlin and pro-Western stance you can try Garry Kasparov's www.theotherrussia.org in English.

Thanks a lot for the links, meopemuk. I think that irrespective of the question how credible Russian media are, the way that they make the Russian public perceive reality will be a very decisive factor for the Russian - US/European relations during the next weeks. I just hope they will not deteriorate any further, but I'm not optimistic at the moment.

 

[meopemuk]

Well, why don't you take a look at the Los Angeles Times website:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-fg-breakaway18-2008aug18,0,5306223.story

Or the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/world/eu...south_ossetians_direct_bitterness_at_georgia/

Or the Kansas City Star:

http://www.kansascity.com/451/story/753677.html

Or ABC News:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/17/2337791.htm

Or the International Herlad Tribune:

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/08/16/europe/EU-Georgia-Forced-Laborers.php

Or the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/18/world/europe/18tblisi.html

If you want to ignore Western media, that's your prerogative, but don't try to twist your own ignorance of its contents into an argument that it should be ignored.

Thanks for the links. After these accounts (which definitely cover just a small portion of the whole picture) are you going to blame Russia for starting the conflict? Should the president sending "Grad" rockets and tanks against (what he claims to be) his own people be considered a "beacon of democracy" or a "mass murderer"?

 

[Gokul43201]

meopemuk,

I don't know if you read those articles. Most of them say that Russian claims of around 2000 deaths in Tskhinvali seem to be highly exaggerated (some speculate the exaggeration was intended to spur the S. Ossetians towards taking revenge). HRW also says that 2000 deaths is unlikely - and it's not in their interests to underestimate loss of life (on any side of the conflict).

 

[meopemuk]

meopemuk,

I don't know if you read those articles. Most of them say that Russian claims of around 2000 deaths in Tskhinvali seem to be highly exaggerated (some speculate the exaggeration was intended to spur the S. Ossetians towards taking revenge). HRW also says that 2000 deaths is unlikely - and it's not in their interests to underestimate loss of life (on any side of the conflict).

I don't think that a few journalists and observers can perform a full body count over vast territory of South Ossetia. HRW is careful to report only things they saw by their own eyes. I think that there will be official figures supported by documents and witnesses soon.

The doubts about the number of casualties mainly come from the testimony of a doctor in the Tshinvali hospital who had only 40 recorded deaths in her log. However, keep in mind that there are also credible accounts about residents trapped in their basements for three or four days. They couldn't dare to go outside even to get fresh water at the risk of being shot. So delivering death bodies to the hospital for proper registration was, understandably, not their first priority. (On www.russiatoday.com[/URL] there was an interview with a mother who spent 3 days with the body of her killed son in the basement. Can you imagine that?) And after several days passed in the summer heat, bringing the corpses to the hospital didn't make much sense either. So, they were mostly buried in backyards.

Let us however assume (just for the purposes of discussion) that the number of civilian deaths is measured in dozens rather than in hundreds. Does it make Saakashvili actions more acceptable? Does it mean that Russians should have sitten on their hands waiting for the body count to exceed some magic threshold? What is this threshold?

If I remember correctly, 2006 Israel-Lebanon war started from killing 3 Israeli soldiers and abducting 2 (note, they were soldiers not civilians). This was followed by a full-scale Israeli invasion, bombardment of infrastructure, and (estimated) 1000 civilian deaths. Israel is still a darling of US administration as it always was.

There are also suggestions that Russia could have solved the crisis by peaceful means. What? Convene an international conference? It is immoral (and probably illegal) to waste
even a minute of time when people are dying and crying for help.

 

[meopemuk]

There is interview with another doctor of the same Tshinvali hospital, who says that 2000 is a credible estimate of casualties.

http://www.kp.ru/daily/24147/364201/

 

[sketchtrack]

I don't think that a few journalists and observers can perform a full body count over vast territory of South Ossetia. HRW is careful to report only things they saw by their own eyes. I think that there will be official figures supported by documents and witnesses soon.

The doubts about the number of casualties mainly come from the testimony of a doctor in the Tshinvali hospital who had only 40 recorded deaths in her log. However, keep in mind that there are also credible accounts about residents trapped in their basements for three or four days. They couldn't dare to go outside even to get fresh water at the risk of being shot. So delivering death bodies to the hospital for proper registration was, understandably, not their first priority. (On www.russiatoday.com[/URL] there was an interview with a mother who spent 3 days with the body of her killed son in the basement. Can you imagine that?) And after several days passed in the summer heat, bringing the corpses to the hospital didn't make much sense either. So, they were mostly buried in backyards.

Let us however assume (just for the purposes of discussion) that the number of civilian deaths is measured in dozens rather than in hundreds. Does it make Saakashvili actions more acceptable? Does it mean that Russians should have sitten on their hands waiting for the body count to exceed some magic threshold? What is this threshold?

If I remember correctly, 2006 Israel-Lebanon war started from killing 3 Israeli soldiers and abducting 2 (note, they were soldiers not civilians). This was followed by a full-scale Israeli invasion, bombardment of infrastructure, and (estimated) 1000 civilian deaths. Israel is still a darling of US administration as it always was.

There are also suggestions that Russia could have solved the crisis by peaceful means. What? Convene an international conference? It is immoral (and probably illegal) to waste
even a minute of time when people are dying and crying for help.[/QUOTE]

I agree about the hypocrisy. Israel's attack on Lebanon was very disturbing.

 

[Art]

Georgia is not Yugoslavia. Even according to the most biased accounts, Georgian actions did not come close to the organized genocide that was underway in the former Yugoslavia.

Yet again you are wrong NATO bombing began Mar 24th 1999 at which time HRW reports

By March 1999, the combination of fighting and the targeting of civilians had left an estimated 1,500-2,000 civilians and combatants dead

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/kosovo/undword-03.htm

A near identical figure to the number reportedly killed in S Ossetia before Russia intervened. So it seems 1500 - 2000 deaths of non-NATO member nationals is enough to justify a massive bombing campaign by NATO against Serbia's military and it's civilian infrastructure including TV studios but is not enough to justify a military intervention by Russia against purely military targets to protect it's own citizens?

It is also worth noting that because NATO wouldn't commit ground forces because of the risk of NATO casualties most of the atrocities that took place in Kosovo happened in the few months AFTER NATO started it's bombing campaign whereas the Russians by sending in ground troops immediately and accepting the risk to their troops lives stopped the killings within days.

So please stop inventing 'facts' to support your weak arguments.

 

[Art]

The US may be in the low-end of western countries on that scale, but it is still in the range for western countries. I'm proud of the progress the former soviet republics have made and their recent conversion is part of the reason they are so close to the top. I hope they keep their idealism towards democracy a long time before socialism starts creeping back in.

Before you worry too much about how others are doing and will do in the future the phrase 'physician heal thyself' springs to mind.

The most recent RWB report shows America slipping to 48th spot at home and 111th in it's territories. At this rate you'll need someone to invade you to 'free' you soon from your oppressive government.

Seriously though this trend towards the curtailment of press freedom is something Americans should be very concerned about.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

 

[quadraphonics]

Thanks for the links. After these accounts (which definitely cover just a small portion of the whole picture) are you going to blame Russia for starting the conflict?

The question of "who started it" is not particularly interesting. My parents weren't interested in whether me or my brother started a given fight back when I was 5 years old, and not much has changed since. Point is that Russia has long been in a strong position with respect to the South Ossetia issue, and could have taken any number of steps over the years to lessen tensions and make a peaceful outcome more likely. But they didn't. Instead they've consistently sought to increase the tension and pressure on Georgia, with the predictable result of violent conflict (which they just happened to be in a position to rush into and exploit). So spare me the crocodile tears.

Should the president sending "Grad" rockets and tanks against (what he claims to be) his own people be considered a "beacon of democracy" or a "mass murderer"?

It's possible that he's neither of those things, or even that he's both of those things at the same time (and many other things). I'm not interested in these reductive, propagandistic labels: they're a means to avoid thinking, not a thoughtful answer. You forget to mention that "his own people" were themselves shooting at and shelling other of "his own people," for example.

 

[quadraphonics]

There are also suggestions that Russia could have solved the crisis by peaceful means. What? Convene an international conference? It is immoral (and probably illegal) to waste
even a minute of time when people are dying and crying for help.

This comment is obviously directed at me, and I've explained to you twice now that the chances for peaceful resolution came *before* the situation erupted into violent conflict. Russia is very much the author of the situation (would South Ossetians have been making maximalist demands and attacking Georgians if they didn't have an ironclad guarantee of direct military support from Moscow?). Russia could have used its clout to get them to moderate their position, keep the peace, maintain autonomy, and so make space for peaceful solutions. But they made a conscious decision not to do so, and instead encouraged the most radical elements in South Ossetia, while inserting their own troops into the area. Clearly they thought it was in their interest to do so, and were not at all surprised when the result was violent conflict: they had an invasion force already massed on the border, and a propaganda campaign all set to whip up the Russian people into a nationalistic frenzy. That you expect people to buy into your cheap moral outrage is ridiculous.

 

[quadraphonics]

I thought you weren't talking to me, Art?

A near identical figure to the number reportedly killed in S Ossetia before Russia intervened.

Reported by Russia, that is.

So it seems 1500 - 2000 deaths of non-NATO member nationals is enough to justify a massive bombing campaign by NATO against Serbia's military and it's civilian infrastructure including TV studios but is not enough to justify a military intervention by Russia against purely military targets to protect it's own citizens?

The numbers game is a distraction. Even if we accept the Russian claims, the similarity of the numbers alone do make the situations equivalent. Also, there's a word for extending citizenship to people inside a bordering state, particularly when they coincide with a violent secession movement that you are serving as a "peacekeeper" for, and your consitution obligates you to militarily defend your citizens anywhere in the world. That word is "provokation." Most states in the world would consider the granting of such citizenships an overt act of war.

And then, of course, there's the orgy of ethnic cleansing committed by South Ossetians against Georgians under the Russian aegis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/europe/20refugee.html?hp

So, so much for "stopping the killing."

 

[mheslep]

Some parts of the Western press are freer than others.

Ireland for example is ranked no. 1 in Reporters Without Borders annual report whereas the US domestic press only makes no. 22 a long way behind former communist countries such as Latvia and Estonia whilst US press freedom in Iraq is ranked at 108th. Not the sort of positions the self appointed leader of the free world should ...

pay any attention to as the RWB list is garbage

 

[meopemuk]

The question of "who started it" is not particularly interesting. My parents weren't interested in whether me or my brother started a given fight back when I was 5 years old, and not much has changed since. Point is that Russia has long been in a strong position with respect to the South Ossetia issue, and could have taken any number of steps over the years to lessen tensions and make a peaceful outcome more likely. But they didn't. Instead they've consistently sought to increase the tension and pressure on Georgia, with the predictable result of violent conflict (which they just happened to be in a position to rush into and exploit). So spare me the crocodile tears.

I am also not interested how exactly that started. Georgia claims some "provocations". There were clashes between both sides all the time. However, it should be obvious to anyone
that when Georgian regular army equipped with tanks and rockets entered the city and started to shell civilians and caused hundreds of deaths, the conflict became escalated to the completely unacceptable level. Something must have been done to restore some semblance of peace there. That's exactly what Russian army did. I think that both Ossetians and Georgians should be thankful to Russian troops for stopping the hostilities and not allowing the killings to continue for many years (like, for example in former Yugoslavia). Can you imagine what kind of mayhem would be unleashed if Russians didn't interfere?

Regarding peace negotiations before August 8th, they indeed took place for many years between Russia, Georgia, and South Ossetia. I haven't been at the negotiating table, and I can't tell what were the positions and tactics of the parties. But even if we agree with your point that Russia was bullying Georgia, I don't see how that justifies Georgian attack on civilians.

 

[meopemuk]

And then, of course, there's the orgy of ethnic cleansing committed by South Ossetians against Georgians under the Russian aegis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/europe/20refugee.html?hp

So, so much for "stopping the killing."

This is exactly why the presence of Russian army is so important at this moment. Once the spiral of ethnic violence and revenge killings between two peoples started it is very difficult to stop it. Saakashvili should thank God that he is dealing with Russian peacekeepers rather than with NATO "peacekeepers" who (as Art correctly pointed out) are brave enough to bomb civilian targets from the air, but don't want to commit ground troops, which is the only sure way to stop violence. If Russians didn't interfere, Saakashvili would have had a real disaster around South Ossetia and Abkhazia. He just doesn't realize how lucky he is.

 

[seycyrus]

Enough.

Enough of the propaganda.

Enough of the dismissal of every single news item that is critical of Russian's action as being merely "western media" bias.

Enough of the ridiculous assertion that the russian controlled media is an unbiased source.

Perhaps the russians aren't aware, but back in the pre-internet days, such silliness was put forth by the Soviet Union, and it made the Sovier Union the laughing stock of the free world.

Welcome back to the clown house, Russia. Your old suit still fits.

I suggest that those who are open minded enough to consider the notion (just for a moment!) that Russia might share some of the blame for the devolpment of this conflict read through the "meetings conducted" section of the UN security council.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2008.htm

Go ahead and read through the statements of BOTH sides. You'll see the tongue-in-cheek (*wink wink*) declaration of the "peacekeeping forces" by the Russian, as well as the gradual increas (planned) in tension.

Now that neutral reporters are finally getting unrestricted access, Russia is "readjusting" it's casualty figures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm

 

[Art]

Reported by Russia, that is.

No, wrong again. Reported by the S Ossetians first.

The numbers game is a distraction.

I see you are reversing yourself now that I've shown your attempt to play the numbers game with this comment was nonsense.

Georgia is not Yugoslavia. Even according to the most biased accounts, Georgian actions did not come close to the organized genocide that was underway in the former Yugoslavia.

So if you are no longer offering the numbers as an excuse for NATOs actions what new excuse would you like to proffer??

Apart from your say-so that is.

Even if we accept the Russian claims, the similarity of the numbers alone do make the situations equivalent.

Also, there's a word for extending citizenship to people inside a bordering state, particularly when they coincide with a violent secession movement that you are serving as a "peacekeeper" for, and your consitution obligates you to militarily defend your citizens anywhere in the world. That word is "provokation." Most states in the world would consider the granting of such citizenships an overt act of war.

So just to understand you correctly, you are saying Ireland is practically at war with Britain then? Wow That will probably come as a quite a surprise to those of us living in the British Isles.

You do of course know any citizen of Northern Ireland (a part of Great Britain in case you didn't know) is entitled to have a Republic of Ireland passport don't you??

I assume even you will accept the doctrine of precedent is an important cornerstone of international affairs and so I suggest you research the precedent set by the US invasion of Grenada (which ended with the execution of the Grenadian PM btw). The excuse America used was their need to protect American students working at a hospital in Grenada who were incidentally not being subject to grad rocket fire at the time or any other hostile action unlike the Russians in S Ossetia.

And then, of course, there's the orgy of ethnic cleansing committed by South Ossetians against Georgians under the Russian aegis:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/world/europe/20refugee.html?hp

So, so much for "stopping the killing."

It is bad that Georgians were driven out by vengeful S Ossetians though thankfully based on the link you supplied not many were killed in fact your link states it was nothing on the scale of what happened in Kosovo after NATO attacked which emphasises my previous point about the importance of sending in ground troops.

IMO it is incumbent on the Russian forces to protect them and with the war over that is what they claim to be doing which is further backed up by anecdotal evidence contained in your link. If they don't protect the ethnic Georgians I'm sure it will be reported and they will be rightly condemned for it.

 

[Art]

pay any attention to as the RWB list is garbage

Hmm so you simply dismiss this impartial internationally renowned group as irrelevant as it doesn't happen to tie in with your world view. I guess there's no answer to that! I can see you are not one to let inconvenient facts stand in the way of a cherished theory

 

[Art]

Enough.

I suggest that those who are open minded enough to consider the notion (just for a moment!) that Russia might share some of the blame for the devolpment of this conflict read through the "meetings conducted" section of the UN security council.

http://www.un.org/Depts/dhl/resguide/scact2008.htm

Go ahead and read through the statements of BOTH sides. You'll see the tongue-in-cheek (*wink wink*) declaration of the "peacekeeping forces" by the Russian, as well as the gradual increas (planned) in tension.

Am I missing something here The only non-closed meeting for which a communique was issued prior to the attack on S Ossetia was from the meeting held on Apr 15th which focused on Abkhazia and which stessed the important role the CIS peacekeepers were playing and congratulated both the Georgian and Abkhaz sides for the lowering of tension in the area.

Stressing the importance of close and effective cooperation between UNOMIG
and the CIS peacekeeping force as they currently play an important stabilizing role
in the conflict zone, and recalling that a lasting and comprehensive settlement of the
conflict will require appropriate security guarantees,

Welcomes the recent improvements in the overall security situation; calls
on both sides to consolidate and broaden those improvements; underlines the need
for a period of sustained stability along the ceasefire line and in the Kodori valley;
and stresses the necessity to keep under close observation the situation in the Upper
Kodori valley which has to be in line with the Moscow agreement on ceasefire and
separation of forces of 14 May 1994;

Now that neutral reporters are finally getting unrestricted access, Russia is "readjusting" it's casualty figures.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7572635.stm

Can you explain the correlation you are making between neutral reporters and casualty figures?

You did read this bit? Right?

The prosecutors reported finding many hastily dug graves in gardens - and said it would not be clear how many more dead were buried there until thousands of refugees return home.

The death toll from the war and its aftermath has yet to be independently determined.

I get the impression you think the reporters turned up on bulldozers to uncover bodies buried in the rubble carrying spades to dig up the dead

 

[sketchtrack]

Maybe we should imagine the outcome if Russia had not invaded Georgia.

I have a few questions. How long was it before America was aware of the attack on Georgia, and what was their position? What would the U.S. had done? Were they planning on letting the Georgians continue? If so, and the Russians had not invaded, then they would have been successful, but would that have been acceptable?

 

[baywax]

Let's let the Russians have their day as the police in the area.

Sure they have interests in the area but, they may also have served a good purpose in quelling a skirmish between two small countries.

Russia is alone in this sort of action. They don't have NATO to get permission from. So, without the consensus of many nations they look like bad guys when they make a move to stop a major disruption.

When the US bombs the crap out of Kosovo or Bosnia... and Canada goes in with "peacekeepers".. killing the uneducated and emotionally unstable "rebels" they look ok because they had the righteous ''go ahead" of NATO to do so. Russia has no one to say..."go for it Russia.." But they had the guts to do so anyway.

Did I spit on ya?

 

[meopemuk]

Maybe we should imagine the outcome if Russia had not invaded Georgia.

I have a few questions. How long was it before America was aware of the attack on Georgia, and what was their position? What would the U.S. had done? Were they planning on letting the Georgians continue? If so, and the Russians had not invaded, then they would have been successful, but would that have been acceptable?

Judging by recent statements of Bush and Rice, they had no problem with Georgian invasion in South Ossetia, bombing Tshinvali, etc. They hardly mention that at all. So, it seems to me they wouldn't blink if the number of casualties were 10 times higher. Everything is permitted if you are a friend of Uncle Sam, but don't you dare disobey!

 

[mheslep]

Hmm so you simply dismiss this impartial internationally renowned group as irrelevant ...

impartial and renowned according to who? Why don't you just skip the bother and quote from abducted-by-alien groups?

 

[meopemuk]

Maybe we should imagine the outcome if Russia had not invaded Georgia.

Then we would have (at least) three ethnic groups (Georgians, Ossetians and Abkhazians) down at each others throat. This could end in two ways: 1) one of the group disappears or gets pushed away from its territory (most likely Ossetians, because they have less people); 2) Russia intervenes anyway.

 

[Gokul43201]

Before you worry too much about how others are doing and will do in the future the phrase 'physician heal thyself' springs to mind.

The most recent RWB report shows America slipping to 48th spot at home and 111th in it's territories. At this rate you'll need someone to invade you to 'free' you soon from your oppressive government.

Seriously though this trend towards the curtailment of press freedom is something Americans should be very concerned about.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=24025

The US didn't slip to 48th spot, according to your link. But in any case, this isn't about whether we should trust the US media more than say the Norwegians'. This is about how much we should believe the reports in the Russian media, compared to that reported by "western media", particularly when the two sources produce vastly differing pictures.

For instance: How did the S. Ossetians arrive at their estimate of 1600 deaths?

Here's an article in Russia Today:

War killed 1,492 Ossetians - local officials

Officials in South Ossetia have given a figure for the number of people killed during Georgia's failed military offensive to win control of the region. Authorities in the capital Tskhinvali say 1,492 Ossetians lost their lives in the conflict.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29271

The headline and the subtitle clearly spell out the alleged number of deaths, but nowhere in the article does it say how exactly those numbers were arrived at. All it does is point at unnamed "local officials" and "authorities".

Is there another source that does a better job?

 

[meopemuk]

For instance: How did the S. Ossetians arrive at their estimate of 1600 deaths?

The latest info from the Russian (not South Ossetian) team of prosecutors who are currently collecting the evidence in the region is that they have a documented list of names of 133 killed civilians. 64 Russian servicemen were also killed. The identity of unspecified number of bodies was not established yet. Some more bodies are expected to be found under the rubbles, and there is a large number of graves made in backyards and gardens. They say that they cannot open these graves without presence of people who made them. Most of these people left Tshinvali during the fighting. So it would take a while before the final count is known.

http://beta.tvc.ru/showNews.aspx?top=5&id=bd3ab380-229b-405c-8ac3-efc8e324ff23

 

[Gokul43201]

The latest info from the Russian (not South Ossetian) team of prosecutors who are currently collecting the evidence in the region is that they have a documented list of names of 133 killed civilians. 64 Russian servicemen were also killed. The identity of unspecified number of bodies was not established yet. Some more bodies are expected to be found under the rubbles, and there is a large number of graves made in backyards and gardens. They say that they cannot open these graves without presence of people who made them. Most of these people left Tshinvali during the fighting. So it would take a while before the final count is known.

So, how then, are Tskhinvali officials able to conclude that there have been 1492 deaths?

 

[Art]

impartial and renowned according to who? Why don't you just skip the bother and quote from abducted-by-alien groups?

n 2005, Reporters Without Borders was awarded the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought and is funded partly from the European and American gov't though most of it's funds it raises itself through sale of photo albums. It has also been granted consultant status by the UN. It's a little harsh to liken the European parliament, the US gov't and the UN to alien abductors don't you think?

Gokul here is the index for the USA for the past few years. nb higher is worse

2002 - 4.75
2003 - 6.00
2004 - 4.00
2005 - 9.50
2006 - 13.00
2007 - 14.50

As you can see the trend is worrisome.

 

[seycyrus]

Can you explain the correlation you are making between neutral reporters and casualty figures?

Certainly. I claim that neither the Russian, S. Ossettian, or Georgian accounts can be classified as "neutral".

Since outside parties have begin looking into the 2,000 number, a bit of reconstuction has occurred.

You did read this bit? Right? I get the impression you think the reporters turned up on bulldozers to uncover bodies buried in the rubble carrying spades to dig up the dead

No, I think the reporters showed up with cameras and an ability to count.

I want to see how this 2000 figure was arrived at. Especially since the Russians are now saying 133.

Was it the old, "where I see one dead body, 20 must be hiding!" ?

 

[seycyrus]

...backyards and gardens. They say that they cannot open these graves without presence of people who made them. Most of these people left Tshinvali during the fighting. So it would take a while before the final count is known.

Watcha talking 'bout Willis?

This is not the first occurence of civilian casualties in a regional conflict!

In other conflicts, they do a pretty good back of the envelope calculation. None of this "multiply by 20" garbaje! (For you non-spanish speakers, that's spanish for garbage)

 

[seycyrus]

Am I missing something here

First off, I did not restrict my analysis to those meetings that resulted in a communique.

Secondly, it is apparent that my statement implies a sequence of events that I did not mean to construe. I made one point, and then made another. They were not meant to be taken chronologically. My apologies.

I also did not mean to imply that there was a direct tit-for-tat conversation between the Russian and Georgian representatives at the meeting. Those meetings do not work that way, rather they are a sequence of statements from various countrie's representatives.

Certainly, upon reading the minutes from the 8-11th one can see the declaration of the nature of the forces and the leaders of the forces assembled in S. Ossettia. one can also see the Russian use of the phrase "peacekeepers'.

The buildup of tensions can be construed from the other countries statements made about the nature and summary of the conflict.

 

[meopemuk]

I want to see how this 2000 figure was arrived at. Especially since the Russians are now saying 133.

I first heard the number 2000 in one of the first reports about the conflict. This number was quoted by Russian Ambassador in Tbilisi. At that time Georgian troops were still in Tshinvali, and any reliable count of casualties was impossible, in my understanding. After that, some other numbers were reported: 1600, 1500, 1492, but none of them had any documental backing. The best we can say at the moment is that "several hundreds of civilians" were killed.

 

[sketchtrack]

It may be poor timing and that is why we see such sparse coverage of the conflict in U.S. media. For example, say that the "liberal" media covers it and sides with Russia. The Right wing media will just accuse them of siding with communism and of being traitors. If the right wing sides covers it and sides with Russia, it will make the Republicans look bad because they are the current administration who Russia is blaming for the conflict. I'm sure CNN would cover it if there wasn't an election to lose, and so would fox. Best thing to do is mostly ignore that game. The fact is though that Russian media seams to want to use it's state controlled media to exaggerate to make the U.S. and Georgia look as worse as possible. If you notice, American media will be careful not to lie, but they may leave certain things out. Yet in some instances it seams Russian media is just flat out lying.

 

[meopemuk]

Yet in some instances it seams Russian media is just flat out lying.

Care to give an example?

 

[quadraphonics]

I first heard the number 2000 in one of the first reports about the conflict. This number was quoted by Russian Ambassador in Tbilisi. At that time Georgian troops were still in Tshinvali, and any reliable count of casualties was impossible, in my understanding.

Which is to say that the 2000 number was at best a guess, and at worst at blatant fabrication. Shall we reiterate that Russian and South Ossetian officials both had strong incentives to exaggerate the body count?

The best we can say at the moment is that "several hundreds of civilians" were killed.

No, the best we can say at the moment is "we still don't have a very good idea, but appears that the Georgian attack and Ossetian/Russian counterattack each took comparable tolls on civilian life."

 

[meopemuk]

Which is to say that the 2000 number was at best a guess, and at worst at blatant fabrication. Shall we reiterate that Russian and South Ossetian officials both had strong incentives to exaggerate the body count?

Most people understand that exact body count cannot be available during the conflict and even for some time after the conflict ended. I remember some outrageous claims of casualties after the 9/11 attack. It took a while before the numbers settled down.

No, the best we can say at the moment is "we still don't have a very good idea, but appears that the Georgian attack and Ossetian/Russian counterattack each took comparable tolls on civilian life."

However, in my view it (even if it's true) doesn't mean that both sides bear equal responsibility for the conflict. My personal opinion is that there is no justification for attacking a city with regular army and deadly modern weaponry. This kind of behavior must be stopped immediately and punished. Once the genie of war is let out of his bottle, it is very difficult to put him back. Atrocities occur on both sides and civilian population suffers the most. Look at any military conflict in history and you'll see my point. This is why it is so important to keep the bottle tightly closed. That's what Saakashvili failed to do, and that's why he is the guilty party here.

 

[quadraphonics]

Most people understand that exact body count cannot be available during the conflict and even for some time after the conflict ended.

And yet, this forum and others have been filled with people screaming "2000 dead!" in righteous indignation, and accusing anyone who questions these figures as an evil Western propagandist out to destroy Russia. You may recall that America didn't invade anyone on the presumption of a maximal body count after the attacks on NY and Washington. Instead, they went to the UN, sought a peaceful solution with the Taliban, and only then, a month after the fact, with the facts known to everyone and diplomatic channels exhausted, was an actual military response undertaken.

My personal opinion is that there is no justification for attacking a city with regular army and deadly modern weaponry. This kind of behavior must be stopped immediately and punished.

By... attacking a city with regular army and deadly modern weaponry? I thought there was "no justification" for that? And, anyway, it's not as if Russians have any authority to criticize anyone for sending regular armies against cities. It was done, openly and unapologetically, throughout the Soviet period, and then again by the Russian Federation in Chechnya, and now again in Georgia.

That's what Saakashvili failed to do, and that's why he is the guilty party here.

Right, Russia's actions and policies towards Georgia over the past decade had nothing to do with it. It's all just a choice that one man made in a vacuum. Also, it's preposterous to assume that there is only one guilty party. Perhaps this mistaken premise is the reason you misunderstand me so often: when I dispute your claim that Russia (and Ossetia) is innocent in this war, I'm not implying that Georgia must then by innocent. Both polities are ruthlessly pursuing what they perceive to be their interests, without any hesitation to use brutal means against anyone that stands in their way. The United States and NATO also bear some responsibility, although much less than any of the belligerent parties.

But the fact remains that Russia is much more powerful than either Georgia or South Ossetia, and so bears much more responsibility for the political environment of the Caucusus region. Had Russia decided, say, 10 years ago that Ossetians weren't worth spoiling relations with Georgia over, and instead sought constructive engagement and a downgrading of Ossetian issues, it's likely that none of this would have come to pass. But instead Russia decided to flex its muscles in the Caucusus, inflame the Ossetian and Abkazh independence movements, and intimidate Georgia (pushing it into the arms of NATO). Russia has the power to unilaterally set the terms of its relationship with Georgia, but the reverse is not true. Sure, it would be great if Georgia hadn't stormed into South Ossetia at the time, and in the manner, that they did, but the underlying political pressures and provokations that led to that action would have produced a similar result sooner or later anyway. Russia is too smart by half not to have known this, and so it follows that a military confrontation with Georgia was exactly what Russia was seeking. Which is why they already had troops massed on the border, a propaganda campaign ready to go, and so on. This stuff is a standard Russian ploy for dealing with smaller neighbors/provinces (again, see Chechnya/Dagestan).

 

[Art]

Watcha talking 'bout Willis?

This is not the first occurence of civilian casualties in a regional conflict!

In other conflicts, they do a pretty good back of the envelope calculation. None of this "multiply by 20" garbaje! (For you non-spanish speakers, that's spanish for garbage)

Immediately after the 9/11 attacks reporters spoke of deaths in the 10s of thousands. Several days after the 9/11 attacks New York City authorities put the death toll at 6,700. TWO YEARS later they were still revising the numbers to arrive at the eventual death toll of 2,752.

The initial estimated death toll following hurricane Catriona was 10,000. It was 6 months before an accurate tally was arrived at of 1,300 and even then the figure was only an estimate as several hundred missing were still unaccounted for.

If it is that hard to compile accurate records in American cities during peacetime with the resources of the US federal gov't to draw upon then imagine how much more difficult it is to obtain accurate records for a backward country in a ravaged war zone amongst a displaced population subjected to shell and rocket fire a close hit from which doesn't leave a lot left to count.

Your contention that S Ossetia and Russia must be deliberately exaggerating the numbers can only mean you also believe that the US authorities deliberately inflated their initial estimates in these two disasters or given your faith in the powers of western journalists to compile numbers instantaneously perhaps they should have had CNN or the BBC perform the body count for them.

 

[Art]

And yet, this forum and others have been filled with people screaming "2000 dead!" in righteous indignation, and accusing anyone who questions these figures as an evil Western propagandist out to destroy Russia. You may recall that America didn't invade anyone on the presumption of a maximal body count after the attacks on NY and Washington. Instead, they went to the UN, sought a peaceful solution with the Taliban, and only then, a month after the fact, with the facts known to everyone and diplomatic channels exhausted, was an actual military response undertaken.

So it is a numbers game?? You flip flop so fast on this it's hard to keep up

Now to take your analogy further and to relate it closer to the events in S Ossetia, if after the first wave of planes had struck NYC and a second wave was on it's way would you have advocated that the US should petition the UN before intercepting the second wave or would you have expected them to act immediately to prevent any more innocent lives being lost??

The Russians however despite the continuing Georgian aggession rather than respond militarily immediately showed great restraint by first going to the UNSC seeking a resolution calling for an immediate cease fire and a return to the status quo ante which unfortunately the US and the UK saw fit to block leaving Russia with no other viable option other than to respond with force.

btw reportedly the US and the UK gave their reason for refusing to sanction Russia's request for a resolution as being because it included words saying force should not be used to settle the conflict which makes their subsequent bleating about Russia's use of force ludicrously ridiculous.

 

[meopemuk]

You may recall that America didn't invade anyone on the presumption of a maximal body count after the attacks on NY and Washington. Instead, they went to the UN, sought a peaceful solution with the Taliban, and only then, a month after the fact, with the facts known to everyone and diplomatic channels exhausted, was an actual military response undertaken.

Yes, this is true. But it is also true that nobody was killed in America on September 12, 13, 14,... So, there was no rush to take immediate military action. Do you see the difference with the situation in Tshinvali?

Right, Russia's actions and policies towards Georgia over the past decade had nothing to do with it. It's all just a choice that one man made in a vacuum. Also, it's preposterous to assume that there is only one guilty party. Perhaps this mistaken premise is the reason you misunderstand me so often: when I dispute your claim that Russia (and Ossetia) is innocent in this war, I'm not implying that Georgia must then by innocent. Both polities are ruthlessly pursuing what they perceive to be their interests, without any hesitation to use brutal means against anyone that stands in their way. The United States and NATO also bear some responsibility, although much less than any of the belligerent parties.

Welcome to the real world! That's what all countries do all the time: forming alliances, bullying their neighbors, imposing sanctions,... This is called "world politics". More powerful countries have more leverage, smaller countries suffer the most. I think that USA is a world champion in promoting its interests at the expense of others. Russia is not far behind. This is "business as usual". However, once in a while somebody crosses the line. And I think it was Georgia who crossed the line this time.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yes, this is true. But it is also true that nobody was killed in America on September 12, 13, 14,... So, there was no rush to take immediate military action. Do you see the difference with the situation in Tshinvali?

There was very much a rush to take immediate action. We know now that there was no "second wave" of attacks on its way, but the assumption at the time was that there was.

Welcome to the real world! That's what all countries do all the time: forming alliances, bullying their neighbors, imposing sanctions,... This is called "world politics". More powerful countries have more leverage, smaller countries suffer the most. I think that USA is a world champion in promoting its interests at the expense of others. Russia is not far behind. This is "business as usual". However, once in a while somebody crosses the line. And I think it was Georgia who crossed the line this time.

And the fact that Russia pushed them into crossing said line doesn't enter your moral calculus at all? The result is "trick the other guy into shooting first, and then you can do whatever you want and claim to be moral." Which, of course, is exactly the game being played here.

 

[meopemuk]

And the fact that Russia pushed them into crossing said line doesn't enter your moral calculus at all? The result is "trick the other guy into shooting first, and then you can do whatever you want and claim to be moral." Which, of course, is exactly the game being played here.

I think criminal codes in all countries make a clear distinction between provoking/instigating murder and the act of murder itself. The respective punishments are usually quite different.

 

[meopemuk]

And, anyway, it's not as if Russians have any authority to criticize anyone for sending regular armies against cities. It was done, openly and unapologetically, throughout the Soviet period, and then again by the Russian Federation in Chechnya, and now again in Georgia.

I am not going to defend Russians on each and every occasion. In the 20th century they performed more than their "allowed" share of crimes and atrocities, especially against their own people. But the recent war with Georgia is a different matter. I think that in this case Russia tried to behave as a responsible member of the world community, only to be unfairly cursed from all sides.

By the way, South Ossetians are not angels either. After the first war with Georgia in 1992-1993 the region was devastated and there were no jobs at all. The main occupation was producing and smuggling counterfeit alcohol and hard liquor to Russia. I remember a wave of deadly vodka poisonings in Russia in mid 1990's. So, hard measures against smugglers were taken by Russian border guards.

In more recent events, I read an interview (in a Russian newspaper, by the way) with one of the leaders of S. Ossetian militia, in which he calmly tells about how they torched Georgian villages near Tshinvali. He told: "we don't want Georgians to come back".

As Don Rumsfeld famously said: "war is messy", and you don't want to be anywhere near it when it is unleashed. When somebody (usually a well-groomed man in a comfortable palace) decides to start a "noble" shooting war on some phony pretext (be it assassination of a prince, or "international solidarity", or "weapons of mass destruction", or Russian bullying), they make me mad. They don't understand (or don't care) what they are playing with.

 

[WmLambert]

Now that a few days have gone by, and several different posters have provided links, we may begin to summarize what we know and what has been conjectured.

• We know Russia did pre-position elite troops that had to have been moved clandestinely over several weeks to the South Ossetian border.
• We know Russia may have tested a Cyber attack against Georgia at about the same time they began to pre-position troops.
• We know a minority of South Ossetians are separatists, backed by Russian "peacekeepers." They were given papers identifying them as Russian citizens (even though they lived in the disputed South Ossetian province of Georgia) - but these people did not allow the separatists to enter Russia.
• Reports came from Georgia that Georgian citizens in South Ossetia were being terrorized by the Separatists.
• Georgia sent its own peacekeeping force to protect its citiizens from the other "peacekeepers."
• The disputed areas were emptied of most occupants, and both sides attacked each other.
• The Russians attacked through the tunnel, under the mountains, bringing in a comparatively huge military contingent, citing genocide by the Georgian military - coordinated by a Cyber attack launched from 1,000 separate locations in Russia, that mirrored the techniques tested earlier.
• Besides the elimination of internet observers from reporting first-hand, Russia forbade international journalists from reporting.
• Reasons cited by Russia for the actions have been genocide by Georgia.
• Reasons cited by Georgia for the actions have been Russia-backed atrocities.
• Reasons cited by the international press have been Georgia's desire to maintain sovereign integrity - and the Russian desire to force the Caspian Sea oil pipeline to be routed through Russia.

The political agenda aside, facts need to be verified.

 

[mheslep]

n 2005, Reporters Without Borders was awarded the European Parliament's Sakharov Prize for freedom of thought and is funded partly from the European and American gov't though most of it's funds it raises itself through sale of photo albums. It has also been granted consultant status by the UN. It's a little harsh to liken the European parliament, the US gov't and the UN to alien abductors don't you think?...

Not at all. I find it humorous that EU gave an award and monies to the RSF that purports to evaluate EU press freedom, and then the RSF loads up the top of its list with EU countries. That US 'funding' AFAICT was indirect through the NED and minuscule. Anyway that's all beside the point. Any organization that places Germany/Austria where one can be found guilty of "http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2000/12/40669" , above the United States in press freedom has badly stumbled. The US first amendment, declaring at day one that 'congress shall make no law', made press freedom more fundamental in the US as nowhere else. RSF would do far better to limit itself to publicizing shortcomings, which the US surely has, and as other NGOs have long done. That is do journalism, rather than blathering on with some broadly flawed ranking system which must inevitably descend into a biased popularity contest.

 

[meopemuk]

Hi WmLambert,

I suspect that most of your "facts" are not accurate.

[*]We know Russia did pre-position elite troops that had to have been moved clandestinely over several weeks to the South Ossetian border.

I am not sure where you get this information. As far as I know, first regular Russian troops arrived in Tshinvali 12 hours after the initial attack by Georgian army. Russia has a major military base in Vladikavkaz (North Ossetia, Russia), which is about 100 km to the North from Tshinvali. So, there was enough time to respond even without "clandestine" accumulation of troops.

[*]We know Russia may have tested a Cyber attack against Georgia at about the same time they began to pre-position troops.

Where did you get this info?

[*]We know a minority of South Ossetians are separatists, backed by Russian "peacekeepers." They were given papers identifying them as Russian citizens (even though they lived in the disputed South Ossetian province of Georgia) - but these people did not allow the separatists to enter Russia.

I think that a *majority* of South Ossetians were *separatists*. In recent years, they hold a referendum about separating from Georgia twice, and both times the majority was for independence. There were also small anclaves of ethnic Georgians in S. Ossetia, who apparently were against the independence. But after recent events most of them found refuge in Georgia proper.

Please don't write "peacekeepers" in quotation marks. Before the events of August 8th, there were Ossetian, Russian, and Georgian peacekeepers (500 soldiers from each side) stationed in the region according to an internationally recognized accord between three parties. They really managed to "keep peace" for 15 years.

Yes, Russia gave passports to most residents of S. Ossetia. Long ago Russia (which legally inherited all rights and debts of the USSR) declared the policy under which each citizen of the former USSR can get Russian passport if he/she wishes so. I guess that Georgia also offered its citizenship to South Ossetians, but most of them didn't want to have any dealings with Georgia after 1992 bloody war. There were a few other reasons why they preferred to get Russian passports:

1. they could get work in Russia. (There are not many jobs in S. Ossetia. So, quite a few people go to Russia to work and return home only on weekends.)
2. With passport they could travel around the world.
3. Senior citizens could get Russian state pension.

So, it was more a matter of survival rather than political statement. With Russian passport they could also permanently move to Russia, but not many people chose to do so, because they were attached to their land.

[*]Reports came from Georgia that Georgian citizens in South Ossetia were being terrorized by the Separatists.

There were tensions and clashes between Georgians and South Ossetians during all these 15 years. I am not sure which side was terrorized the most. This was exactly the reason why the presence of peacekeepers was so important.

[*]Georgia sent its own peacekeeping force to protect its citizens from the other "peacekeepers."

As I said, Georgian peacekeepers were permanently stationed in the area side-by-side with Ossetian and Russian peacekeepers. I heard reports that when Georgian regular army attacked Tshinvali, Georgian "peacekeepers" (now, I think, quotes are appropriate) turned their weapons against Russian peacekeepers and killed 15 of them. This was a cowardly act of betrayal.

[*]The disputed areas were emptied of most occupants, and both sides attacked each other.

In the night of August 8th, regular Georgian troops (which is a much larger force than peacekeepers, who were armed only with light weapons) attacked residential quarters in Tshinvali with heavy artillery, airplanes, tanks, etc. The area was not "emptied" of occupants. Civilians tried to hide from shells in basements. Many of them died. In the first 12 hours, the fighting was between invading Georgian army and South Ossetian militia, which basically protected their homes and families.

[*]The Russians attacked through the tunnel, under the mountains, bringing in a comparatively huge military contingent, citing genocide by the Georgian military - coordinated by a Cyber attack launched from 1,000 separate locations in Russia, that mirrored the techniques tested earlier.

Yes, Russians came in with an overwhelming military force in order to stop hostilities and save human lives. That's what peacekeepers are supposed to do. It is more likely that the Cyber attack was done by juvenile hackers, rather than by military establishment.

[*]Besides the elimination of internet observers from reporting first-hand, Russia forbade international journalists from reporting.

You can understand why Russians limited the access of journalists to the area after watching this video about misfortunes of a Turkish group

http://ru.youtube.com/watch?v=eC0imTWPGzA

The claim is that Ossetian separatists did the shooting.

[*]Reasons cited by Russia for the actions have been genocide by Georgia.

That's right. Personally, I think that "genocide" is too strong a word, but "war crimes" describes Georgian actions more accurately.

[*]Reasons cited by Georgia for the actions have been Russia-backed atrocities.

Georgians said that they are "restoring the constitutional order". Reintegrating South Ossetia and Abhazia into Georgia (by force or otherwise) was Saakashvili's election pledge from the beginning.

[*]Reasons cited by the international press have been Georgia's desire to maintain sovereign integrity - and the Russian desire to force the Caspian Sea oil pipeline to be routed through Russia.

Whatever Georgian desires were, now they can forget about S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. They can get back these pieces of land only after eliminating everyone who lives there. In my opinion, all this talk about pipelines is nonsense. Russia already has a pipeline, which goes from Azerbaijan to the port of Novorossijsk.

 

[Pyrrhus]

It happened another Kosovo...

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has declared that Russia will recognise the independence of Georgia’s breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He made the announcement in Sochi following a unanimous vote for the republics’ independence by both houses of the Russian Parliament in Moscow on Monday.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29492"

 

[seycyrus]

Most people understand that exact body count cannot be available during the conflict and even for some time after the conflict ended. I remember some outrageous claims of casualties after the 9/11 attack. It took a while before the numbers settled down.

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, Or for that matter, even questioned some of the numbers or other "facts" put out by the russian controlled media, being labelled as "western media propaganda".



Ridiculous

 

[seycyrus]

... opinion, all this talk about pipelines is nonsense. Russia already has a pipeline, which goes from Azerbaijan to the port of Novorossijsk.

You cannot see how controlling *all* of the pipelines might provide some sort of economic leverage?

 

[Borek]

In my opinion, all this talk about pipelines is nonsense. Russia already has a pipeline, which goes from Azerbaijan to the port of Novorossijsk.

Teoretician, it is not about having a pipe - it is about not allowing anybody else to have one.

 

[seycyrus]

... It is more likely that the Cyber attack was done by juvenile hackers, rather than by military establishment.

More likely? How did you determine that?

The coincidence of timing is certainly enough to raise the possibility that it was part of a well timed attack by the Russian government.

To simply dismiss it as, "a bunch of kids", is a bit premature.