News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[Evo]

What a nice way of saying "Thank You !"

Seriously, you might even be right here, I don't know. But IF it is really true that Georgia started all this by killing Russian peacekeepers and citizens, then Russia HAD to react by military means (but perhaps they would have stayed out of Georgia proper ?). OK, in all probability no thermonuclear exchange would have resulted, but even the thought of a "low level" shooting war between Russia and NATO is very frightening !

I have French nationality, BTW.

Condoleeza Rice said that very shortly the facts about what happened will be divulged. It will be interesting to see.

 

[baywax]

The truth of the matter is that Georgian army, police, and all authorities ran from Gori and Senaki leaving behing huge amount of ready-to-use military equipment, ammunition, etc. It would be insane to leave this area without any kind of supervision. Can you imagine if some angry person (and now there are many angry people in the area, both Georgians and Ossetians) decided to take a ride around the neighborhood in one of those tanks? I heard that Russians are exploding ammunition dumps in the area.

Another problem is that many Ossetian militiamen entered Georgia proper behind Russian army. They are not well educated on the rules of engagement and hardly obey anyone's orders. I don't think they deserve a lot of blame, because they simply took weapons to defend their families and homes. There are reports of looting. There could be some revenge killings as well. I also heard a report that Russian military commanders shot dead two looters. Nobody wants the Ossetia-Georgia border to become a site of mayhem, like in Bagdad after US invasion.

Just be patient. When the dust settles, Russians will transfer the control over to Georgian authorities. This would take a couple of days, I think. You'll continue hearing about "ceasefire violations" from the US media during this time. But it is better not to pay attention.

Excellent commentary. Thank you!

 

[TVP45]

I probably would have chosen different words, but I see his point. None of those was serious enough that there was a risk of a lare war between nuclear superpowers.

The first Gulf War was probably the largest conflict since Vietnam in terms of the number of troops employed, but it was also relatively easy and manageable. One caveat, though: the Iraqi firing of Scuds at Israel was a somewhat serious situation because if Israel had responded, there was a possibility of the entire region erupting in conflict.

Those humanitarian conflicts are not serious in terms of their difficulty in dealing with them. We simply choose not to. I remember reading an analysis that the Rwanda conflict could have been stopped with a disturbingly small force. They are also not mostly not international crises.

Georgia is a US ally who is trying to get into NATO. If we're serious about our commitment to them, we should be sending troops there to fight the Russians. But we're not. Why?

In the simplest case, Russ, we don't have any more troops. I suppose we could scrape up several thousand in a pinch but that would assure our being defeated in detail.

At the end of the day, our only serious military option is a full-scale pre-emptive nuclear strike.

Where the heck is Barbara Tuchman now that we need her?

 

[meopemuk]

Just your interest, this was recently printed in Pravda:

Just wanted to mention that "Pravda" is a newspaper of Russian Communist Party, which is in opposition to the government. Although this commentary generally reflects the feelings of many Russians, the choice of words is often over-the-top. You won't find this kind of inflammatory rhetorics in most Russian publications.

If I may summarize the sentiment of the majority: they grief the loss of life of thousands innocent people (civilians and peacekeepers), they are proud of Russian Army who did a good job of restoring peace, and they are genuinely surprisied to hear harsh criticism in their address from Western politicians and media.

 

[Evo]

Hi William our rules do not allow unsubstantiated posts or opinion stated as fact.

Please post links to accredited news sources to back this up.

Just start a new post with the information needed to validate and I will put your post back up with the links. Thanks

 

[WmLambert]

The instigation is contested. The Georgians did attack, but there are reports from South Ossetia that they did so to protect Georgians being brutalized by Peacekeepers. The set-up by the Russians make it unlikely that Georgia did anything but a knee-jerk reaction to events already underway. Time will tell.

 

[Evo]

Just wanted to mention that "Pravda" is a newspaper of Russian Communist Party, which is in opposition to the government. Although this commentary generally reflects the feelings of many Russians, the choice of words is often over-the-top. You won't find this kind of inflammatory rhetorics in most Russian publications.

If I may summarize the sentiment of the majority: they grief the loss of life of thousands innocent people (civilians and peacekeepers), they are proud of Russian Army who did a good job of restoring peace, and they are genuinely surprisied to hear harsh criticism in their address from Western politicians and media.

Thanks Meopunk.

Also Pravda is not allowed as a source on this forum.

 

[Gokul43201]

Just wanted to mention that "Pravda" is a newspaper of Russian Communist Party, which is in opposition to the government. Although this commentary generally reflects the feelings of many Russians, the choice of words is often over-the-top. You won't find this kind of inflammatory rhetorics in most Russian publications.

Pravda falls squarely under the category of what, in the west, is called a tabloid. That makes it not a reliable source.

Also, much of this discussion seems to accept the good vs. bad dichotomy, and seeks to establish which labels to attach to which country. Why?

 

[wildman]

Thanks Meopunk.

Also Pravda is not allowed as a source on this forum.

Why not? Pravda is short on facts, but it does show the emotions in Russia.

 

[Gokul43201]

Why not? Pravda is short on facts, but it does show the emotions in Russia.

Being short on facts is unacceptable.

The present day style of Pravda is an insult to the original paper, founded almost exactly a century ago, by Trotsky.

 

[WmLambert]

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4429

Russian Elite troops

Ukraine's distancing from Russia

Russia targeting Caspian Sea pipeline - yet elite troops missing targets

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080810/ap_on_re_eu/ukraine_russia_georgia

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218104259162&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1358

Georgia falls victim to pipeline politics

Premeditated Cyber attack on Georgia

For all that US commentators and diplomats are still chattering about Russia's "response" to Georgia's actions, the Kremlin spent months planning and preparing this operation. Any soldier above the grade of private can tell you that there's absolutely no way Moscow could've launched this huge ground, air and sea offensive in an instantaneous "response" to alleged Georgian actions.

The rapid availability and deployment of these two invasion forces by Russia makes it clear that the Russian government had planned, deployed and staged these operations well in advance, raising the natural question regarding whether Russia instigated the attacks/shelling of Georgian villages and positions by South Ossetian forces to provoke the response by Georgia, which Russian then used as a pretext for an already planned invasion.

http://www.wjactv.com/news/17165173/detail.html

Time will tell.

 

[meopemuk]

blah-blah-blah...
Time will tell.

This is what I would call "propaganda". Only one side of the story is presented and the level of noise is so high that any logic and reason is drowned in it. Why is it that your links do not mention the views of South Ossetians, who know better than anybody else what happened in the night of August 8th in Tshinvali and who is to blame?

Why don't you try www.russiatoday.com?[/URL] This is not as powerful propaganda machine as CNN and FOX, but you can see some interesting and authentic stuff there.

Saakhashvili and Rice may talk about the "territorial integrity" of Georgia as much as they want, but I don't think there is a single person in South Ossetia and Abkhazia who would agree to live under Georgian rule after what happened on August 8th.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . , but I don't think there is a single person in South Ossetia and Abkhazia who would agree to live under Georgian rule after what happened on August 8th.

But the Georgians living in the areas of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia do apparently prefer to live as part of Georgia. Apparently over the last decade or so, there has been a concerted effort by Abkhazian and Ossetian separatists (with tacit support from Russia) to attack and drive out ethnic Georgians, i.e. ethnic cleansing. If Abkhazians and Ossetians want to be part of Russia, why not just simply immigrate to Russia?

Nations/governments do consider territorial integrity important. Russia considers it's territory borders to be important, and will fight separatist movements - e.g. Chechnya.

 

[seycyrus]

This is what I would call "propaganda". Only one side of the story is presented and the level of noise is so high that any logic and reason is drowned in it. Why is it that your links do not mention the views of South Ossetians, who know better than anybody else what happened in the night of August 8th in Tshinvali and who is to blame?

You GOTTA be kidding me. Not only do you want his links to support his position, but you want them to support *yours* as well. Ridiculous!

Most of the facts that have been presented on this thread are derived from sources that are non-neutral.

 

[baywax]

I don't quite get the "ethnic" tag. Are Americans "ethnic" Americans?

 

[meopemuk]

But the Georgians living in the areas of Abkhazia and S. Ossetia do apparently prefer to live as part of Georgia. Apparently over the last decade or so, there has been a concerted effort by Abkhazian and Ossetian separatists (with tacit support from Russia) to attack and drive out ethnic Georgians, i.e. ethnic cleansing.

As far as I know Georgians did the same, i.e., expelled Ossetians and Abkhazians from the territory of Georgia proper.

If Abkhazians and Ossetians want to be part of Russia, why not just simply immigrate to Russia?

Are you serious? These people lived on their land for centuries. Are they supposed to drop everything and move to a refugee camp now in order to satisfy some abstract Washington's definition of "territorial integrity"?

Nations/governments do consider territorial integrity important. Russia considers it's territory borders to be important, and will fight separatist movements - e.g. Chechnya.

There are also others who do not consider territorial integrity that important. Remember Kosovo? Russia stood alone against the West and against the independence of Kosovo.

Until August 8th Russia officially supported the territorial integrity of Georgia and signed UN Security Council resolutions, which established that. Until August 8th there was a (slim) chance of peaceful re-incorporation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia. After August 8th this chance disappeared. This is just a reality. Nothing personal. I think there is a higher chance than California will re-integrate with Mexico that South Ossetia going back to Georgia.

 

[Astronuc]

I don't quite get the "ethnic" tag. Are Americans "ethnic" Americans?

America is a relatively young nation, as opposed to Georgia, which has a history going back more than 2 millenia. The Abkhazians and Ossetians do not see themselves as Georgian, and they represent different ethnic background.

In the Caucuses, there have been different groups move through the area, Scythians, Sarmatians (Persian/Iranian), Turkic groups (like the Avars), Huns, Armenians, Romans and Greeks. All controlled that region (or parts) at some point, and various different ethnic groups settled within particular areas.


There are ethnic (or racial) groups in the US, but so far none has decided to breakaway. Some people do identify their heritage, e.g. Mexican-American, African-American, . . . .

In NY, there is occasional conflict between local Indian tribes and the state government over matters like taxation and sovereignty.

 

[baywax]

Canada sent troops and tanks into Quebec (one of the Canadian provinces) when they were threatening to separate. They were pulling terrorist tactics like kidnapping and killing officials. The then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau was quite decisive about stopping any ideas of Quebec sovereignty as quickly as possible. And, of course, the idea is still pretty strong today and Trudeau has passed. At the moment we have a patzy for a Prime Minister.

 

[Astronuc]

As far as I know Georgians did the same, i.e., expelled Ossetians and Abkhazians from the territory of Georgia proper.

I'm sure that has happened - but when, and recently? Then how to resolve that. All sides have done their share of ethnic cleansing.

Are you serious? These people lived on their land for centuries. Are they supposed to drop everything and move to a refugee camp now in order to satisfy some abstract Washington's definition of "territorial integrity"?

Yes, I am serious. What about the ethnic Georgians who live in Abkhazia and Ossetia, who have done so for centuries, and who want to remain as Georgia citizens in Georgia? During the Soviet era, Georgia was pretty much are recognized Republic. (unfortunately Wikipedia is the only source available quickly - not that I necessarily trust it)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Republic_of_Georgia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DRGMap.png

There are also others who do not consider territorial integrity that important. Remember Kosovo? Russia stood alone against the West and against the independence of Kosovo.

AFAIK, the Kosovars voted democratically to become independent. When the Serbia military attack the Kosovars, Serbia forfeited any claim to Kosovo.

Until August 8th Russia officially supported the territorial integrity of Georgia and signed UN Security Council resolutions, which established that. Until August 8th there was a (slim) chance of peaceful re-incorporation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia into Georgia. After August 8th this chance disappeared. This is just a reality. Nothing personal. I think there is a higher chance that California will re-integrate with Mexico that South Ossetia going back to Georgia.

Well, apparently there are some Mexican-Americans who feel that parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California should return to Mexico. I recently came across an article that indicated that European-Americans will become a minority by ~2040, and Hispanics will be the majority. So perhaps it's a matter of time.

 

[meopemuk]

I don't quite get the "ethnic" tag. Are Americans "ethnic" Americans?

Those parts of the world are quite different from the US, where immigrants are quickly assimilated and families often lose their native language in the 2nd or 3rd generation.

When people say they are Georgians or Russians they usually mean their ethnicity (primarily, their mother's tongue) rather than their passports. I've been in Georgia twice (and once in Abkhazia) in 1980's. This is a colorful place. I was in a mountain village occupied by ethnic Greeks who spoke Greek language and probably lived there since "Illiada" times. There were Georgian, Ossetian, and Azerbaijani villages nearby. Different ethnic groups lived side-by side for centuries, mostly peacefully. It is sad to see how this delicate fabric of relationships gets torn apart now.

 

[meopemuk]

AFAIK, the Kosovars voted democratically to become independent. When the Serbia military attack the Kosovars, Serbia forfeited any claim to Kosovo.

AFAIK, the South Ossetians voted democratically (twice) to become independent. When the Georgian military attack the South Ossetians, Georgia forfeited any claim to South Ossetia.

 

[quadraphonics]

Well, apparently there are some Mexican-Americans who feel that parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California should return to Mexico.

From what I understand, that sentiment only enjoys non-trivial support amongst actual Mexicans, not Mexican-Americans.

 

[baywax]

Those parts of the world are quite different from the US, where immigrants are quickly assimilated and families often lose their native language in the 2nd or 3rd generation.

When people say they are Georgians or Russians they usually mean their ethnicity (primarily, their mother's tongue) rather than their passports. I've been in Georgia twice (and once in Abkhazia) in 1980's. This is a colorful place. I was in a mountain village occupied by ethnic Greeks who spoke Greek language and probably lived there since "Illiada" times. There were Georgian, Ossetian, and Azerbaijani villages nearby. Different ethnic groups lived side-by side for centuries, mostly peacefully. It is sad to see how this delicate fabric of relationships gets torn apart now.

This is very interesting. Imagine the direct link to ancient times through the language and oral traditions of these Greek "ethnics" in Abkhazia.

So I guess the Quebecker are ethnic French because they've hung on to a form of french as their language. Something like the Acadians in Louisiana.


Please preserve the relationships between cultures and please preserve the cultures. Its not difficult... just leave them alone.

Oil (cash/power/etc) is not a good reason to kill all of these people... the oil will soon be gone and the people will become the best resource for new ideas and innovations in energy use and sourcing, if they survive the tug'o'war between the greedy national "leaders".

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Well, apparently there are some Mexican-Americans who feel that parts of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California should return to Mexico. I recently came across an article that indicated that European-Americans will become a minority by ~2040, and Hispanics will be the majority. So perhaps it's a matter of time.

Yikes. Perhaps you are referring to this story:
http://http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afLRFXgzpFoY&refer=home"
They estimate that in 2042, non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority. However, Hispanics will not thereby become the majority. The estimate is 30%. As for European-Americans, I don't know how to separate Hispanic-Americans from European-Americans if it can be done at all since Spain is in Europe. Finally, I don't think there are that many Hispanic-Americans who want to give any of the aforementioned inches of land to Mexico.

 

[meopemuk]

Washington's talk about "disproportionate response" is simply ridiculous.

Let's see. About 3000 civilians were killed in the attack of 9/11. This was used as a justification to occupy 2 (two) sovereign countries by US military. About 1500 civilians were killed in the Georgian attack on Tshinvali (a conservative estimate). A simple calculation according to the law of proportionality should tell us that Russia now has a permission to occupy 1 (one) sovereign country of her choosing. How do you like that?

Or perhaps the math law of proportion is now different on different sides of the Atlantic (or Pacific) Ocean?

 

[quadraphonics]

About 1500 civilians were killed in the Georgian attack on Tshinvali (a conservative estimate).

Conservative according to who? The Russians have thrown around a lot of big numbers about the numbers killed by Georgians, but they've also sealed off the area and prevented anyone from finding out what happened. The only independent counts available put the civilian death toll in the Georgian assault in the dozens, not thousands. Maybe a lot more people died, or maybe they didn't; nobody has any way of knowing for sure at this point, and there is every reason to doubt the Russian numbers.

A simple calculation according to the law of proportionality should tell us that Russia now has a permission to occupy 1 (one) sovereign country of her choosing.

You misunderstand the concept of proportional response. The response is supposed to be such that the costs of the action are in proportion to the goals of the action. Previous casualty counts only enter into it in providing evidence that the goals in question are truly required. Preventing mass-casualty attacks on the United States (the stated reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq) is proportional to quite a large cost. Preventing Georgia from establishing a monopoly on force inside its internationally-recognized borders, on the other hand, doesn't justify much of anything. Of course, the actual Russian goals were much larger, and include altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia, but that is not a legitimate reason for invading Georgia.

Apart from that, Russia does not have standing to respond to deaths of Georgian citizens in the same way that the United States has standing to respond to the killings of American citizens. To the extent that Russian citizens died in the attacks, it was because Russia has pursued a deliberate policy of granting Russian citizenship to people in Georgia in order to create a pretext for military intervention, and to provoke Georgia into a shooting war.

 

[ray b]

Yikes. Perhaps you are referring to this story:
http://http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=afLRFXgzpFoY&refer=home"
They estimate that in 2042, non-Hispanic whites will no longer be the majority. However, Hispanics will not thereby become the majority. The estimate is 30%. As for European-Americans, I don't know how to separate Hispanic-Americans from European-Americans if it can be done at all since Spain is in Europe. Finally, I don't think there are that many Hispanic-Americans who want to give any of the aforementioned inches of land to Mexico.

many Hispanic people who are in America are of mix race in fact few are pure European-Americans as Spain sent few females to the new world esp early to the islands and central America
most central american Hispanic's have indian blood
some island Hispanic's have more black blood as the indians died off early and were replaced by blacks
not to say that there are no pure European-Americans from Spain just far fewer then english
speaking people who are more likely to be a far higher % European-Americans
also as the European-Americans from Spain are more likely to be "upper class" or "RICHER"
they are far less inclined to move to the USA
except for the cubans and others who have moved for political reasons

 

[meopemuk]

Conservative according to who? The Russians have thrown around a lot of big numbers about the numbers killed by Georgians, but they've also sealed off the area and prevented anyone from finding out what happened. The only independent counts available put the civilian death toll in the Georgian assault in the dozens, not thousands. Maybe a lot more people died, or maybe they didn't; nobody has any way of knowing for sure at this point, and there is every reason to doubt the Russian numbers.

Poor Ossetians were misfortunate to be killed in the middle of the night rather than in broad daylight in front of video cameras. The latest body count in South Ossetia (according to Ossetian sources, I admit) is 2100. Looking at the pictures of destruction in Tshinvali (readily available on the Internet) it is difficult to believe that only "dozens" were killed there. Moreover, there are numerous eyewitness accounts. I don't think that Russians hide these testimonies from Western media. I rather think that CNN (whose credibility is now badly damaged in my eyes) doesn't want to hear them. Perhaps they think that these were paid KGB agents instructed to tell lies?

You misunderstand the concept of proportional response. The response is supposed to be such that the costs of the action are in proportion to the goals of the action. Previous casualty counts only enter into it in providing evidence that the goals in question are truly required. Preventing mass-casualty attacks on the United States (the stated reason for invading Afghanistan and Iraq) is proportional to quite a large cost. Preventing Georgia from establishing a monopoly on force inside its internationally-recognized borders, on the other hand, doesn't justify much of anything. Of course, the actual Russian goals were much larger, and include altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia, but that is not a legitimate reason for invading Georgia.

What makes you think that the goal of US was "preventing mass-casualty attacks" and the goal of Russia was "altering the security structure of Europe and western Asia"? Why not the other way around?

Apart from that, Russia does not have standing to respond to deaths of Georgian citizens in the same way that the United States has standing to respond to the killings of American citizens. To the extent that Russian citizens died in the attacks, it was because Russia has pursued a deliberate policy of granting Russian citizenship to people in Georgia in order to create a pretext for military intervention, and to provoke Georgia into a shooting war.

Does it mean that the value of person's life depends on the color of the passport that he or she holds?

 

[baywax]

many Hispanic people who are in America are of mix race in fact few are pure European-Americans as Spain sent few females to the new world esp early to the islands and central America
most central american Hispanic's have indian blood
some island Hispanic's have more black blood as the indians died off early and were replaced by blacks
not to say that there are no pure European-Americans from Spain just far fewer then english
speaking people who are more likely to be a far higher % European-Americans
also as the European-Americans from Spain are more likely to be "upper class" or "RICHER"
they are far less inclined to move to the USA
except for the cubans and others who have moved for political reasons

If America ever has a chance of attaining its dream, the majority of the population will be of a golden skin colour as a result of the "melting pot" theory.

This idea was touched on in H.G. Wells' "Men Like Gods" from the thirties. Its a good read about a tour bus in england that slips through a worm-hole and winds up in a Utopian society of... "golden skinned people".

 

[ray b]

should everyone who wants to be independent from whoever be allowed to set up they own country?

the USA didNOT allow the south to do so in our civil war
but the USA has been on both sides of this question recently
supporting independence in the Balkan's and the break up of the USSR
not supporting the Kurds , Baesk ,Tamli ,chesnic or many other peoples

I think people should be free, and tooo often power politic's gets in the way