News Georgian - South Ossetian - Russian Conflict

[quadraphonics]

Only recently Russia had asked Georgia to sign a non-aggression treaty committing all sides not to resort to force to resolve the issue.

No president of any country in the world would even consider signing a non-aggression treaty with a country that was stationing its troops on his soil. This is the equivalent of signing your country away. To claim that this represents a good-faith attempt by Russia to find a peaceful solution is absurd:

"Peacefully hand your country over to us!"
"No way."
"Well, we *tried* peaceful means..."

Yes Russia had troops ready to intervene if Georgia were mad enough to attack South Ossetia because they suspected Georgia couldn't be trusted and would have hoped a show of force would act as a deterrent. Unfortunately for Georgia their president, who btw still refuses to answer reporters who ask if his attack on S Ossetia was at America's instigation, thought Russia was bluffing.

It's amazing how you know what all these people were thinking, and what motivated them. Too bad they don't call anyone else to share their most secret thoughts.

Even after the Georgian onslaught started Russia tried to solve the situation diplomatically through the UNSC where a resolution they proposed calling on Georgia to ceasefire and withdraw to pre-conflict borders was blocked by the US and it's puppet state Britain (shades of Israel/Lebanon) which adds fuel to the suspicion that America was an instigator of the invasion and wanted to allow time for it's completion.

A silly supposition considering how badly Georgian forces were being trampled by the Russian onslaught. And speaking of the UNSC, where were Russia's efforts to build a truly legitimate, legal framework for resolving the crisis via the UN over the past 10 years? Oh, yeah, they didn't seem interested in that... but I guess denying them a fig-leaf of UNSC sponsorship for their invasion of Georgia somehow counts as war-mongering.

It really takes a huge leap of imagination to see Georgia as the victims of this situation.

Then it's fortunate for me that I don't. The victims here are the civilians caught in the crossfire. What's really staggering is that so many people are determined to see *Russia* as the victim.

they didn't bomb TV broadcasters in the capital (as NATO did in Belgrade) and they didn't hit government administrative buildings in Tibilisi either (as NATO did in Belgrade).

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.

And they certainly didn''t reduce the country to rubble as America did in Iraq. According to Georgian figures they also killed a magnitude fewer civilians than NATO did in Serbia and a minuscule percentage of the civilians Americans killed in Iraq.

And these comparisons are relevant how...?

Russia is now ringed by US military bases in what was it's former territory. One can only imagine America's reaction if Russia were to establish missile bases in Mexico, Canada and Cuba but I suspect it would not be one of apathetic indifference.

Funny, I didn't know that Mexico, Canada and Cuba were America's "former territory," although I like how you lend legitimacy to their brutal occupation of various countries by consigning them to the status of "Russia's territory." It just so happens that pretty much all of those countries weren't so hot on belonging to Russia, which is a big part of what pulled NATO so far east so quickly, and why Georgia bristles even today. Also, Russia *IS* trying to put bases in Cuba right now.

Your contention that the west has learned from it's previous mistakes and inhumane behaviour and is now a paragon of virtue with no imperial ambitions is naive to the point of incredulity

Who said anything about "paragon of virtue" or "no imperial ambitions?" I just pointed out that slavery and Nazism were defeated and repudiated in a way that authoritarianism and imperialism in Russia were not. If you can't respond to that without putting words in my mouth, don't respond at all. Could it be that America's faults, whatever they may be, are not actually the most relevant factor when it comes to Russians and Georgians shooting each other?

 

[meopemuk]

Can you imagine how Americans would feel if after 9/11/01 leaders of Western countries were lining up in the queue to the Osama bin Laden's cave offering him and his organization membership in NATO, and America was threatened by various sanctions, because it allegedly "provoked" the attack by its Mid-Eastern policies?

Make substitutions:
Americans -> Russians
Osama bin Laden -> Saakashvili
Middle East -> Caucasus
9/11/01 -> 8/08/08

and you'll understand what is the mood in Russia right now. I don't think that the word "betrayal" comes even close.

 

[Art]

A silly supposition considering how badly Georgian forces were being trampled by the Russian onslaught. And speaking of the UNSC, where were Russia's efforts to build a truly legitimate, legal framework for resolving the crisis via the UN over the past 10 years? Oh, yeah, they didn't seem interested in that... but I guess denying them a fig-leaf of UNSC sponsorship for their invasion of Georgia somehow counts as war-mongering.

Okay, this single paragraph epitomises and exposes your total ignorance of the situation re Georgia in the past two weeks and the past 10 years. Perhaps you should read up on it first and then maybe we could have a discussion based on reality as I am not wasting any more time rebutting your fantasies.

 

[Oberst Villa]

Can you imagine how Americans would feel if after 9/11/01 leaders of Western countries were lining up in the queue to the Osama bin Laden's cave offering him and his organization membership in NATO, and America was threatened by various sanctions, because it allegedly "provoked" the attack by its Mid-Eastern policies?

Make substitutions:
Americans -> Russians
Osama bin Laden -> Saakashvili
Middle East -> Caucasus
9/11/01 -> 8/08/08

and you'll understand what is the mood in Russia right now. I don't think that the word "betrayal" comes even close.

Are you connected with people living in Russia ? If so, do people there think the US was involved in the Georgian decision to attack ? Or do they think it was a lone decision by the Georgian gouvernment ? (I assume most Russians do believe in the version that it was an unprovoked surprise attack by Georgia).

A little off-topic: Could you recommend one or two Russian news sources that more or less represent Russian "public opinion" ? Every now and then I have a look at "Argumenti i Fakti" (trying to learn Russian, but without much success) - is it popular in Russia ?

 

[meopemuk]

Are you connected with people living in Russia ? If so, do people there think the US was involved in the Georgian decision to attack ? Or do they think it was a lone decision by the Georgian gouvernment ? (I assume most Russians do believe in the version that it was an unprovoked surprise attack by Georgia).

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.

A little off-topic: Could you recommend one or two Russian news sources that more or less represent Russian "public opinion" ? Every now and then I have a look at "Argumenti i Fakti" (trying to learn Russian, but without much success) - is it popular in Russia ?

"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.

 

[russ_watters]

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 be proud of and indicative that Americans should be suspicious of what they see and hear in their media.

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715

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.

The point is that Russia, on the other hand, is near the bottom of the entire scale. Staggeringly low for a country that supposedly has freedom of the press. Their press shouldn't even be consulted, much less trusted as a source of news.

 

[meopemuk]

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.

The point is that Russia, on the other hand, is near the bottom of the entire scale. Staggeringly low for a country that supposedly has freedom of the press. Their press shouldn't even be consulted, much less trusted as a source of news.

Interesting, why your independent and trusted media sources do not attempt to go to Tshinvali and see for themselves what is the situation on the other side (I am currently browsing CNN and BBC websites and see that all their operations are inside Georgia proper)? If (as you perhaps may claim) Russian authorities do not let them in, why don't they cry outloud and demand the entry? This makes me to suspect that Western media just doesn't want to see the scenes of devastation in Tshinvali and doesn't want to talk to the residents of the city. This doesn't fit into their convenient black-and-white picture.

 

[quadraphonics]

Interesting, why your independent and trusted media sources do not attempt to go to Tshinvali and see for themselves what is the situation on the other side (I am currently browsing CNN and BBC websites and see that all their operations are inside Georgia proper)?

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.

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

I think it's important to recall that war is a fundamentally political act, and so its goals and success or failure must be judged in political, and not solely military, terms. While it is possible that Saakashvili thought he really stood a good chance of retaking South Ossetia by force, it's unlikely that such a simple, risky move was the primary object of the war. Whenever a small state sandwiched between superpowers acts, it acts as much to affect the disposition of the surrounding powers as to win the actual battles in question (which are necessarily very limited in scope).

That said, I think that an important part of the backdrop here is NATO's rejection of Georgian membership (under European objections) at the recent NATO summit. This presumably left Saakashvili with the impression that the EU was lukewarm about eastward expansion of NATO, and without much sense of urgency or unity on the question of the security disposition of Georgia (and Ukraine). If so, a confrontation with Russia, which was bound to make Russia look bad in Europe, is just the thing. If he can grab South Ossetia and hang onto it, so much the better, but he must have calculated that his alliance with the US, and support from NATO, would allow him to at least preserve his polity and some semblence of the status-quo-ante. He'd have been crazy to expect a direct American intervention against Russia, and the surprised response from the US seems to be pretty strong evidence that America did not anticipate this move.

So, judged on those terms, it seems that Georgia has actually won this war: it lit a fire under Europe's *** on the question of his country's security disposition, with NATO now aligned in Georgia's favor, and other Eastern European states scrambling to strengthen their defenses over Russian objections (see Poland). Meanwhile, Russia's stock market took a massive hit, is suffering isolation from various prestigious international organizations, and is widely perceived as an aggressive, violent power. Expect Europe to intensify efforts to lessen dependence on Russian energy, and become more supportive militarily of the Baltic and other Eastern European states. Meanwhile, gas prices have leveled off, and American troops are expected to begin leaving Iraq within the next year, which will put that much more pressure on Russia. Sure, Georgia lost the battle for South Ossetia, but so what? They didn't control South Ossetia prior to the war, and it's not like everyone didn't already know that the Russians could easily crush them if they so chose. In the end, this looks like a win for Georgia and a loss for Russia.

 

[Gokul43201]

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2008/08/13/russia19620.htm

 

[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?